Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Department of Justice Emails Description An account of the resource The Department of Justice received more than 11,000 e-mails in response to the agency's public solicitation for comments upon its plans to distribute the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 established by Congress to benefit the victims of September 11 and their families. These e-mails have been organized here by date. September 11 Email September 11 Email: Body The basic content, as unstructured text; sometimes containing a signature block at the end. January 15, 2002 Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esp., Special Master and Kenneth L. Zwick, Director Office Management Programs, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Main Building, Room 3140 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: September 11th Victims' Compensation Fund Program Dear Mssrs. Feinberg and Zwick: I am the brother of &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp . My brother, &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp worked at &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp on the &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp floor of &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp World Trade Center and perished in the attack. I have the following comments and questions which seek to clarify the benefits and problems with the fund program, particularly for those in the same situation as my brother, &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp . Some of these comments were also presented orally to Mr. Feinberg at the meeting arranged with the &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp survivors. 1. My first series of questions deal with barring further suits for those who apply for the fund. (1) Does the act bar suits against the Al-Queda Organization and Taliban Government as potential defendants who were active aggressors in this connection with this attack and who may have funds frozen by the U.S. Government? The act and regulations should clarify this point. (2) It appears that the constitutional ground upon which the Federal Government can bar the victims' families from asserting State Law claims of negligence and breach of contract after they have accrued, in other words, ex post facto, is tenuous at best. The constitutional basis to do so should be clarified. (3) I note that the regulations state that there can be "no further review or appeal" from the Special Master's determination. See CFR, Sec. 104.33(g). This means that if one submits the Track A written documentation or attends a Track B hearing, once a determination is received, there is no further avenue of appeal for the claimant. In return for this, the claimant is waiving any right to sue in a court of law, with a jury of their peers and the right to appeal. It is unfair to prevent some sort of avenue of appeal for claimants. Essentially, this lead to the result that, once a claimant has gone down that road, they are stuck with whatever they get. You should ameliorate this apparent unfairness. 2. The next series of questions deal with use of and possible variation from the Presumed Economic and Non-Economic Loss Tables. (1) If an applicant selects "Track B" in which a hearing is held, that the applicant can submit supplemental information prior to the hearing after receiving a Notice of Eligibility. It appears that the regulations allow this. The regulations should provide guidance on what kinds of supplemental information can be given prior to the hearing. (2) The regulations refer to submission of proof of "extraordinary individual circumstances" but does not define that term. The regulations should give guidance on this. (3) There is language in the commentary which states, in words of substance, that the wealthiest or highest paid may not necessarily receive the highest awards because "multi-million dollar awards out of the public coffers are not necessary to provide them with a strong economic foundation from which to rebuild their lives." However, consider the following scenario. Many of those who died were not the wealthiest , but were professionals who demonstrated substantial future earnings potential. I would consider my brother in this category. His earnings were in the six figures and were increasing exponentially each year. He was also receiving recognition in the financial press and slowly becoming a recognized analyst in his area. Without necessarily analyzing his particular situation, but using him as an example because many, many people who worked at the World Trade Center and the financial firms located there were in similar situation--young, up-and-coming high earners, who were clearly in the situation where they would only be earning more in future years--doesn't this present a situation which must be taken into account in the analysis of future earnings. In furtherance of this, I note that under the Presumed Economic Loss Table, his widow would be entitled to approximately $1.6 million. However, a wage earner in his situation could earn $1.6 million in a relatively short period of time, e.g., 3-5 years. Given the circumstance, wouldn't that present "extraordinary or unusual individual circumstances"? That is, the demonstration of substantial potential for future earnings while currently earning a solid six-figure income. This is an important question because there are so many people in similar circumstances. (4) What is the process, if any, for evaluation of intellectual property which the deceased may have owned, but been unable to capitalize on because of their premature death? For example, trademarks owned by an individual under which an individual was going to establishing a business? I hope that you have found these questions useful in defining what your role will be. Your analysis and answers to these very important questions will affect the future lives of the individuals involved, for many years to come. I look forward to the pleasure of a reply. Very truly yours Individual Comment Chestnut Ridge, NY September 11 Email: Date The local time and date when the message was written. 2002-01-15 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource dojN002442.xml 911DA Item Elements describing a September 11 Digital Archive item. Status The process status of this item. approved Consent Whether September 11 Digital Archive has permission to possess this item. full Posting Whether the contributor gave permission to post this item. yes Copyright Whether the contributor holds copyright to this item. yes Source The source of this item. born-digital Media Type The media type of this item. email Created by Author Whether the author created this item. yes Described by Author Whether the description of this item was submitted by the author. no Date Entered The date this item was entered into the archive. 2002-01-15