Monday, September 17, 2007

Silverstein in Mukasey's court

FindArticles > Real Estate Weekly > March 31, 2004 >

Silverstein has day in court as insurance battle continues
Peter Moore

Giving brief answers in a low, gravelly voice, developer, Larry Silverstein, was off the witness stand and out of the courtroom within a half-hour last Tuesday.

It was an anti-climactic way to highlight a trial, but based on an angry judge's restrictions, the best his legal team could muster.

Silverstein has narrowly escaped a civil contempt charge earlier when Judge Michael Mukasey, who is presiding over his battle with several insurers in Manhattan's U.S. District Court, ruled he had violated an order not to discuss the case publicly, but said a contempt finding could prejudice the jury. The developer held a news conference March 15 in front of the site for 7 World Trade Center, where he criticized insurers for blocking his efforts to collect double payments of $7 billion for the 9/11 terrorist disaster, which Silverstein claims was two separate attacks.

The 13 insurers--Swiss Re being the largest policy manager at 22 percent--claim they only have to pay $3.5 billion.

A controlling issue is whether a Wilprop form, which defines a terrorist attack as one occurrence, or a form issued by Travelers, which leaves the definition open-ended, was in effect at the time of the attacks.

At his news conference, Silverstein had remarked that the insurance companies were "trying to save money.

"Instead of getting insurance, we got ourselves a massive amount of litigation," he added. His remarks were printed in Newsday.

Mukasey banned Silverstein from the courtroom following the publication of his comments. The developer claimed that he had thought the judge's gag order on case participants had been lifted but, according to the judge, later made contradictory statements indicating he had known the gag order was still in effect.

Mukasey called Silverstein's explanation "not credible." Because of the controversy, Mukasey had requested a detailed script of the questions and answers of Silverstein's testimony prior to the developer taking the stand last Tuesday and had severely limited the scope of the questioning.

Silverstein acknowledged on the stand that he had little prior first-hand knowledge of the insurance coverage on the World Trade Center, prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and had left the wording of the policies to staff.

Because of the urgency to close the transaction, Silverstein had ordered his staff to secure insurance, regardless of costs.

"The Port (Authority) gave us a time schedule, pursuant to which they were seeking to close the transaction," Silverstein said in testimony, adding that those involved wanted to close in July 2001 to "avoid the August doldrums."

His risk manager, Robert Strachan, "had to do whatever he had to do to accelerate it," Silverstein added. His orders to Strachan were, "Get it done."

COPYRIGHT 2004 Hagedorn Publication
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Speaking of buffoons . . .

This guy makes Geraldo sound like Albert Einstein:

"Suck on this," he says. Let's see him on patrol in Iraq.

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Geraldo gets an earful of "9/11 was an inside job!"

Geraldo says "Oh, get a life," and calls them "a group of misfits" and "anrachists" and "one of the least attractive groups of protesters I've ever seen."

He looked and sounded nervous. He should be. He works for a corporate war criminal.

It's interesting how trivial and inane he sounds with passionate citizens protesting a serious subject in the background.

Wearechange kicks ass.

This one is even worse. He calls them "communists" and says he bets "all these demonstrators are into bathroom gay sex."

What a buffoon.

"9/11 Still Killing" Photo Essay

The heroism of these people, and the tragedy they are suffering, has nothing to do with how those buildings ended up in their lungs. The people who made it happen and profited from it are the same kind of people as those that sent these men and women in without protection and are letting them suffer and die without adequate compensation for their families. This is not to say that money can replace their loss, but they deserve a lot, and it should come from the assets of those who hurt them.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

An ensign who knows law and morality better than his commanders

[Update: some skepticsm about this diary's authenticity:

Still, I'd like to think this ensign exists and said what he said.
There are other sources saying an attack on Iran is in the works.]

"We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"

"That’s what’s missing. A real sense of purpose. What’s missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It’s like we aren’t allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat. It’s almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the policy work."

Is the U.S. government about to attack Iran? This would be a crime against peace, the highest crime under international law.

"Doubtless what appeals to men of good will and common sense as the crime which comprehends all lesser crimes, is the crime of making unjustifiable war. War necessarily is a calculated series of killings, of destructions of property, of oppressions. Such acts unquestionably would be criminal except that International Law throws a mantle of protection around acts which otherwise would be crimes, when committed in pursuit of legitimate warfare. In this they are distinguished from the same acts in the pursuit of piracy or brigandage which have been considered punishable wherever and by whomever the guilty are caught." Justice Jackson

Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

"...You don't introduce new products in August"

"war with Iran, Updated with Comment from Dr. Rubin"

"Mystery trader bets market will crash by a third"
But see:

Seems like a good time to repost this:

"Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Senate of false-flag terror"

Unfortunately, it's the Christianist-dominated Air Force, where the ensign's question might not be viewed as rationally, that will probably start the war.

This includes a quote from debate at the Air Force Academy where Mikey Weinstein said:

What you do when you have a 3 star general that’s ordering his staff to put together a Powerpoint presentation showing the direct parallel between the Book Of Revelation and all of our movements in the AOR ? ( for you civilians - area of responsibility, Iraq and Afghanistan )

What do you do when have a four star general who favors the distribution of a pamphlet in his commander’s bulding, his palace, advertising in all faiths and why "Jesus vs. Mohammed, An Examination of The Life of Both Prophets and Why Jesus is Superior To All" ?

Why was the most popular joke here at the Air Force Academy in 2004 "Why do Jews make the best magicians ?" Anyone know ? Show of hands ? We make the best magicians, apparently because we have the magical ability to walk into a red brick building and come out the smokestacks in a puff of smoke.

This article claims a large-scale attack is coming:

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

More from Barnett Rubin of NYU here, stating that the Bush regime is
planning to attack Iran, and plans a propaganda campaign beginning after
Labor Day:

This may be a threat to get Iran to back down, but if they don't? Does "credibilty" then require the U.S. thuggerment to go through with it?

No Debat, it is not legitimate. It is criminal.