"Blood Money" vs. 9/11 Truth

Brian F. Sullivan, FAA Spec Agent (Ret)

When the Victims' Compensation Fund was established, participants had to agree not to sue the airlines or their security surrogates. 95 families refused the offer of public money and chose to pursue legal redress for wrongful death and/or personal injury.

Throughout the legal process, in which 90 of the suits settled, the plaintiffs' lawyers insisted that their clients were seeking a fair and open trial and a better understanding of the security breakdowns that allowed the 9/11 tragedy to occur.

Unfortunately, each settlement came with a confidentiality agreement which, in effect, amounted to a gag order preventing the plaintiffs from revealing what had been uncovered in discovery.

After four Pentagon ground cases were settled last Fall, the 9/11 families were criticized for their "silent" settlements and questions were raised as to whether the plaintiffs motives were more about "blood money" than 9/11 truth.

Shortly thereafter, there were a number of media reports in which Donald Migliori, who represents the remaining Motley Rice plaintiffs, spoke about their motion to establish a public archive for information gathered over the past seven years of litigation. The archive was to be made available to the general public who simply might want to know what happened, so they could decide for themselves how 19 of 19 hijackers got through four of four security checkpoints at three of the busiest airports in the country.

Migliori is reported to have said that an open 911 public archive must be part of the final verdict and that Motley Rice would not stop litigating until the information they uncovered was released to the public, insisting that his clients were only after the truth.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed an Amicus brief in support of Motley Rice's efforts in December '07. Motley Rice withdrew its motion relative to creating a public archive in March '08, with the understanding that, if negotiations with the aviation defendants failed to achieve a successful outcome by 1 July '08, they could refile their motion at that time.

Now, there are only five wrongful death cases unresolved and, while I understand that Motley Rice continues negotiations with the airlines, I am unaware of any agreement which has been made relative to establishing a public archive. Neither, to my knowledge, has the motion been refiled.

So, here we are, seven years after the 9/11 attacks, and there has yet to be a single fair and open trial for the victims' of 9/11. Confidentiality agreements have ruled the day, while transparency and the public's right to know have been deep sixed.

And, where has the honorable Judge Hellerstein fallen out in all this? One simply has to recall his callous assessment that "money is the universal lubricant" and his constant pressure on opposing attorneys to settle.

He's stated that the plaintiffs have a right to a trial and that it is his duty to provide them with that opportunity, but his actions speak louder than his words. So do the numbers. 90 of 90 cases settled with confidentiality agreements, with five to go.

So, what is the real story here? Should the American public see this as acceptible that the 9/11 victims mass tort litigation may be closed without a single case going to trial? Will Motley Rice be successful in its negotiations with the airlines relative to creating a public archive and, if not, will they refile their motion? Or will all the cases be settled with confidentiality agreements which will preclude public access to what has been uncovered in discovery?

Although I'm happy to see the 9/11 victims' families receive appropriate settlements, I'm saddened to see so many opportunities for a fair and open trial fall by the wayside. I'm also saddened to see confidentiality agreements erode the opportunity to create a 9/11 public archive for all Americans.