W000778
November 23, 2001
Dear Mr. Zwick:
My name is   . I am 34 years old, have four children, ages 9, 6, and 2 year
old twins, and I am a widow. My husband,   , who was 38 years old
was senselessly killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th. He worked for  
on the 104th floor. I never spoke to him that morning, we were still trying to
get into the routine of the new school year and had no time to call Dad to say good
morning. We would just tell him all about our day when he came home. Unfortunately,
he never came home, and I had to try to compose myself and tell my children what had
happened that day. We still had lots of hope, and said lots of prayers that Daddy was just
hurt and coming home to us. As the days past, our hope was fading. On September 13th,
my son   turned 9. He had us cancel his birthday party, all he wanted was his
Daddy back, no presents or party. By the next day, I had to tell my children that their
Daddy was not coming home ever again. That their Dad is an angel in heaven and will
watch over them every day. This is not how my children want a Dad. This is not how I
want a husband.
On Sunday, September 9th (which happens to be my birthday) we spent the day as a
family at Liberty State Park watching boat races. My husband stood at the edge of the
water, proud as can be, showing my boys "the big building that Daddy works in" "way up
at the tippy top!". I had never been to Liberty State Park before that day. Now I have
been there several times to try to get information and funding to try to keep a roof over
my children's heads. When all I want to do is cry and mourn the loss of the love of my
life, my best friend, I cannot do that because I have to fight for every penny coming to me
so my children can try to carry on as thier father had intended. Their lives are shattered
and broken enough without having to worry about finances.
Please accept the comments and opinions of the attached letter as that of my own.
Thanks you for this opportunity to share my story with you and to comment on the
September 11th Victims Compensation Fund.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Basking Ridge, NJ
Mr. Kenneth Zwick
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Zwick:
My name is
My husband
He was 38 years of age.
Children:
  - age9
  - age6
  - age2
  - age2
Comments:
Please remember all the victims families, all the fatherless
children, as you make a ruling on guidelines for the
Victims Compensation Fund. Haven't we all suffered
enough?
Please accept the comments and opinions of the attached letter as that of my own. Thank you for
this
opportunity to comment on the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
Signed:
November 20, 2001
Mr. Kenneth Zwick
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Zwick:
Five thousand people were murdered on September 11, 2001. They left that morning to work at
the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and were at their desks by 8:30 A.M. Some said "I
love you" as they left, some said "see you later", and some said "don't forget to put air in your
tires." None came home that night. None will come home anymore for the rest of forever.
In response to the Justice Department's request for public comment on the "September 11 Victim
Compensation Fund" established by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act,
we respectfully submit the following. However, before we begin our substantive comments,
please allow us to make you aware of one fact. Be very clear in knowing that there is nothing you
could possibly do on this earth that could compensate us for the loss of loved ones. You could
offer us one billion dollars each, lump sum, and we would trade it along with all our worldly
possessions to have them back, to have them home. The Victim Compensation Fund is purported
to be an attempt to "make whole" the families of the victims lost in the attacks. Unless you have
supreme power which will result in the return of our loved ones, "making whole" is impossible.
Alternatively, we are hoping this legislation results in a fund which truly is an incentive for
families not to pursue litigation. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment.
RIGHT TO A HEARING
The legislation as written does not make clear whether or not we will have right to be heard
before a hearing officer or Special Master. Only we can present the specifics of our personal
situation and loss and therefore rightfully deserve the opportunity to do so. This would include
the right to be represented by counsel, to present evidence, to offer personal and expert
testimony, and to present our expectations of relief. This would require each case to be heard and
considered individually. While this may be time consuming, it is the only way to insure that each
family suffering this loss is fairly represented and thus fairly compensated.
ECONOMIC LOSSES
We strongly oppose any cap to the amount recoverable through the Fund for economic losses
suffered as a result of the death of our loved ones. Husbands and fathers worked long hours,
sacrificing the precious time they had left with their families and children, to earn the salaries and
bonuses accrued every year.
This income is forever gone; to reduce it in any manner is contrary to the statutory attempts to
"make whole" the family suffering as a result of this disaster.
The computation of the amount of lost wages should be similar to that used in personal injury
actions.
Retirement age should be set at 68 and the decedent's age subtracted from there. Gross income
should be averaged over the past three years. The resulting income and years to retirement should
be multiplied together for a starting point for computation. Factors such as inflation, wage
increases, merit advancements and any other benefits that would have earned had the victim's
lived should be considered and added to the base amount.
NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES
We, again, strongly oppose any cap to the amount recoverable through the fund for
non-economic losses suffered as a result of the most public, painful and horrific deaths of our
loved ones. Each case must be evaluated individually and must take into account specifics such
as the number of the decedent's children and their age, the severity of the pain and suffering of
both the victim and his family members, and the severity of the loss and pain to be suffered as a
result of reliving this tragedy as a moment in history for the rest of our lives, for the rest of their
children's lives.
It is worthwhile to note that families with substantial pensions, with a lost spouse nearing
retirement age, or with income received as a result of the death of the victim would be unable to
benefit from this Fund unless the recovery under this section is substantial. There would be no
incentive to pursue a claim offset to pecuniary loss or minimal benefit. Litigation in this instance
would be obviously pursued.
COLLATERAL INCOME
We strongly oppose and are greatly disturbed by the clause in the statute which requires any
distribution under the fund to be offset by "the amount of collateral source compensation the
claimant has received or is entitled to receive . . . [including] life insurance, pension funds, death
benefit programs . . . " Since this is a governmentally sponsored fund, we find it understandable
and acceptable to reduce the amount recovered under such by the monies received through other
government programs. However, reducing the amount distributed by proceeds of life insurance
policies personally purchased by the decedents is unreasonable and contrary to public policy. It
establishes a system of disparate treatment among the victims in that it penalizes some for
investments made through personal purchases, while excusing others. For example, victims who
increased their families' assets through personal purchases of stock or related
investments to a level where life insurance was not necessary, would be able to collect from the
fund as written with minimal offset. However, those who planned to increase family assets
through life insurance would have the same distribution substantially reduced by the amount of
the life insurance proceeds. If an individual purchased a rare painting for his estate planning, sold
after his demise at a substantial financial gain for his heirs, his families' distribution under the
fund would not be reduced. Yet distribution to the family who purchased life insurance instead, if
regulated as planned, would be offset by the proceeds. It is quite simply an unequal and unfair
provision.
The government may not investigate and penalize against the personal purchases of individuals.
We do enjoy the right of the protection of liberty in this country, we have the right to earn a
living and spend our after tax dollars as we see fit. Supplemental life insurance, obtained with
personal funds, must not be included in the provisions which regulate distribution reductions
under the Fund. If revising the language of the statute is not an option of this Committee at this
juncture, or not an option until properly challenged, we submit that reduction of the distribution
under the Fund by a percent of the proceeds of employer sponsored or funded life insurance
would be an acceptable compromise.
COLLATERAL INCOME/IRA'S; CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Pension funds, IRAs and 401K plans are essentially savings accounts of another name funded
with the personally earned money of the decedent. The choice of one's particular occupation or
allocation of his income gave rise to the monies available at retirement or death in these
accounts. Again the issue of disparate treatment arises. Individuals who saved in a standard bank
sponsored savings account suffer no reduction from distribution under the Fund. Individuals who
allocated their savings of personally earned income to retirement accounts suffer reduction of the
total amount in savings to that which would be distributed under the Fund. In deference to the
governmental involvement in IRA's et al., money owed due to preferential tax treatment of
savings in retirement accounts could be reduced from Fund allocations, but principal determined
to be from personal savings must not.
In the end, we lost our loved ones because they worked in a national landmark. The terrorists
chose these buildings, the World Trade Centers, because they symbolized the American
economy, the freedom of capitalism. It was an act of war on America and the American people
recognized this. As a result, in an effort to support our country and to unite with those of us who
suffered the greatest loss in this tragedy, the American people donated hard earned money to ease
the burden of those of us left to suffer this loss for a lifetime. Donations were generously given as
a form of healing for both donor and receiver. It is reprehensible that the very charities trusted
with the responsibility to honor the wishes of the American people see fit to withhold the
donations for personal objectives, yet to have the government attempt to belittle the gesture of its
own people even further is as horrific as the tragedy itself. The money donated is toted as "a gift
from the American people." Since when does our government have the right to investigate
our personal gifts and require the recipients to "pay them back"? Charitable donations must not
be considered a source of collateral income to reduce the amounts distributable under the Fund.
That is not in the spirit of which the donations were given. Restitution of the amounts by a
reduction in Fund allocation would serve only to financially benefit the government. If that is
what the people of this country had intended, they would have sent their checks to the
government first hand.
RIGHT TO APPEAL
One of the liberties we enjoy in America is the right to an appeal. In cases heard before a judge in
trial and in most heard before a hearing officer in an administrative agency, respondents enjoy the
right to appeal the decision. Plaintiffs would have the right to appeal a decision on varying levels
if litigation were pursued in response to the events of September 11. Denying one the right to
appeal the decision of the Special Master is not an incentive to consider merits of the Victim's
Compensation Fund. And it is contrary as well to the standard practices of adjudication of this
country.
Finally, we would respectfully request that payment under the fund be paid in one lump sum and
as directed by the claimants. For example, sums paid to a victim's minor children should be
permitted to be made in trust with vesting as determined by the minor child's guardian.
CONCLUSION
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on regulations which will bear great effect on
our lives and the lives of the children of the victims. We have suffered the greatest of losses
because we live in America and because our loved ones worked in the symbol of American
capitalism. We are changed forever; we bear the burden of other's hatred of our country's ideals
more than anyone at this moment in time. Think of the children as you write and finalize the
regulations associated with the Victim's Compensation Fund. Think of the children, not partisan
loyalties. Think of the children, because if you do not now, you will have lost the opportunity to
support your fallen families forever.
Sincerely yours,
September 11 Victim's Families