America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by rfenst. 42 replies replies.
Brett Kavanaugh’s Eviction Lesson
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
His attempt at political accommodation invited the latest Biden abuse.

WSJ Editorial Board

Key to the fiasco is a 5-4 Supreme Court order at the end of June. A lower court had ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s nationwide eviction moratorium—then in effect without congressional authorization—was unlawful, but granted a stay pending appeal. Five High Court Justices agreed the CDC action wasn’t legally justified, but one of the five—Justice Brett Kavanaugh —offered a political olive branch.

Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” but he noted the agency “plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks.” Therefore, he voted to leave the stay in place until the end of July, when the moratorium expired.
He invited Congress to extend the moratorium through legislation if it wished. Congress failed.

Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh hoped his June concession on the law would improve governance. He wrote that “those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.” But that’s not the judiciary’s job. It’s the responsibility of the executive branch and state governments.

The Biden Administration responded to Justice Kavanaugh’s concession first by blaming him for saying the ban is illegal and then reinstating it anyway. So much for returning the favor. Meanwhile, Congress and state legislatures continue to evade political responsibility for their decisions on rental policy.

As the Justices navigate a polarized political climate, one temptation is to avoid direct confrontations with the elected branches. But polarization is increasing the willingness of political officials of both parties to exceed the limits of their power. The Justices can’t let legal caution become a license to lawlessness.

I thought he was supposed to be a "textualist"?
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
I thought he was a rapist?
BuckyB93 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
The category is Therapists, not The Rapists

https://youtu.be/hElOag-1a0k
MACS Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
HockeyDad wrote:
I thought he was a rapist?


Yeah, uh... that was then... and the broad we tapped to discredit him was a Frankin' retard... so... um.. yeah.

Brett's cool.
Stogie1020 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,320
Sounds like MACS partied with Brett back in high school. I heard it was pretty wild.
MACS Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
Stogie1020 wrote:
Sounds like MACS partied with Brett back in high school. I heard it was pretty wild.


MACS was a poor kid. Brett had some serious white privilege. So, um... nah. We never hung out.
RayR Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Yep, you can't trust the Supreme Court to protect and defend the Constitution. One way or another they'll many times just rubber stamp the crimes of the other branches.
Illegal means illegal all the time, not well...it's illegal but we'll let them get away with it for a little while and see if they can finagle a way to turn it into legal.
MACS Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
Careful. It's unpopular to believe our system is badly broken.
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
MACS wrote:
Careful. It's unpopular to believe our system is badly broken.


Oh ya I forgot, that butthurts some of them.
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Unfortunately, the only proposition that that case stands for is that the court wasn't virtually certain which side would win at a full hearing ahead of time so it held off making a decision until after the full hearing. S.O.P. Blame it all on Kavanaugh playing games.
MACS Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
rfenst wrote:
Unfortunately, the only proposition that that case stands for is that the court wasn't virtually certain which side would win at a full hearing ahead of time so it held off making a decision until after the full hearing. S.O.P. Blame it all on Kavanaugh playing games.


Lawyer speak. Hence BULL****.

Tell the masses what that Bullsheit really means, Robert. Spell it out, in PLAIN ENGLISH please. I'm asking you.
RayR Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Agreed, enough of all that lawyer weasel talk.
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
MACS wrote:
Lawyer speak. Hence BULL****.

Tell the masses what that Bullsheit really means, Robert. Spell it out, in PLAIN ENGLISH please. I'm asking you.

1. A lower court ruled that the CDC eviction ban was illegal because congress didn't authorize it.
2. The Supreme Court said it was illegal too for the same reason by a vote of 5-4, which included Kavanaugh.
3. But, Kavanaugh then also said that even though it's illegal, let's give people a few extra weeks for congress to authorize the next CDC ban on evictions.

As a strict textualist, he should not have opined on anything other than the illegality. He certainly should not have expressed any opinion regarding the end-result of the process, no matter what the consequences. In other words, he should have just "let the chips fall where they may," instead of "bending" the law to come to a conclusion contrary to the simple 5-4 ruling on an uncomplicated/straight forward matter.
RayR Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Why didn't you say that in the first place instead of all that weasel talk? Geesh!

The CDC eviction ban was illegal because congress didn't authorize it the robed lawyers said?
Where in the U.S.Constitution is there an enumerated power stated that gives Congress the authority to infringe on private property rights?
JadeRose Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
MACS wrote:
MACS was a poor kid. Brett had some serious white privilege. So, um... nah. We never hung out.




Peasant


wheel,,,
DrafterX Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,547
It's somewhere towards the back.. Mellow
tonygraz Online
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,243
I found it was advisable to hang around with the more privileged kids. Chances of arrest were less than chances of covering things up.
rfenst Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 20A169
_________________
ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[June 29, 2021]
The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF
JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and
JUSTICE BARRETT would grant the application.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
I agree with the District Court and the applicants that
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded
its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide
eviction moratorium. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014). Because the CDC plans to
end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and
because those few weeks will allow for additional and more
orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated
rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order. See
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in
chambers) (stay depends in part on balance of equities);
Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1976)
(Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In my view, clear and specific
congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be
necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July
31.
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
DrafterX wrote:
It's somewhere towards the back.. Mellow

you're the bestest!
RayR Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
rfenst wrote:
Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 20A169
_________________
ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL. v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[June 29, 2021]
The application to vacate stay presented to THE CHIEF
JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and
JUSTICE BARRETT would grant the application.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
I agree with the District Court and the applicants that
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded
its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide
eviction moratorium. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324 (2014). Because the CDC plans to
end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and
because those few weeks will allow for additional and more
orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated
rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application to vacate the District Court’s stay of its order. See
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in
chambers) (stay depends in part on balance of equities);
Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1976)
(Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In my view, clear and specific
congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be
necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July
31.


More lawyer weasel talk! Obviously the SCOTUS isn't guided by the originalist interpretation of the Constitution or they never read it.
zitotczito Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
It is situations like this that make me wonder why the Vile Democrats work so hard to stop a GOP President's selection of a SCJ. They get on the court, get infected by the Democrat cancer and they turn into a Democrat. The Democrat SC justices are already infected with the cancer and can never be saved.
RayR Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Yup. scratch your typical appointment of a "conservative" justice that the vile Marxist Democrats whine about and you'll find a judge with concealed big government impulses. So why do they protest so much? Just to put on a clown show I think. 🤡
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Your boy picked him...
Don't worry. He just tripped over his shoe laces, but is already back on board.
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
such whining!
RayR Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
rfenst wrote:
Your boy picked him...
Don't worry. He just tripped over his shoe laces, but is already back on board.


Who are you talking too Robert?
Abrignac Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
Robert could one make an effective argument that the eviction moratorium is an unlawful government taking of property?
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Abrignac wrote:
Robert could one make an effective argument that the eviction moratorium is an unlawful government taking of property?

Yes. And the proper amount of damages would be the lost rent.
frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
rfenst wrote:
Yes. And the proper amount of damages would be the lost rent.

I guess payments to the landlords by the states with the billions they received are held up at least partly because no path of such payments (states to landlords) had existed before this.

So I'm wondering, Robert. Would a tenant have any legal grounds to claim the rent money is temporarily in limbo but will eventually be released making it an eviction without unpaid rent?
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
frankj1 wrote:
I guess payments to the landlords by the states with the billions they received are held up at least partly because no path of such payments (states to landlords) had existed before this.

So I'm wondering, Robert. Would a tenant have any legal grounds to claim the rent money is temporarily in limbo but will eventually be released making it an eviction without unpaid rent?

No, unless their is a state or federal law allowing that.

But, where would that tenants have to go to with their **** rent payment history? And, what kind of payment history could alternative tenants with the same type of bad rent paying history be counted on.

It is probably better for some landlords to keep the people in the residence so as to get the financial aid that is being held up too long for them because it is the tenant who has to make the claim, IIRC
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
rfenst wrote:
No, unless their is a state or federal law allowing that.

But, where would that tenants have to go to with their **** rent payment history? And, what kind of payment history could alternative tenants with the same type of bad rent paying history be counted on.

It is probably better for some landlords to keep the people in the residence so as to get the financial aid that is being held up too long for them because it is the tenant who has to make the claim, IIRC

does that mean if a landlord evicts a tenant the landlord would not get the rent past due?
rfenst Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
frankj1 wrote:
does that mean if a landlord evicts a tenant the landlord would not get the rent past due?

IDK, but will read up om it and give you a better response. But, remember one thing. Residential tenants cannot be evicted as of now.

Addendum:

1) It varies state by state whether the eviction law suit may be filed and then put on hold.

"WHAT IF MY LANDLORD IGNORES THE DECLARATION AND MOVES FORWARD WITH EVICTION?
While your landlord may be able to file an eviction lawsuit under the CDC’s moratorium, many such cases
are improper under state law and should be dismissed. Even if allowed, a landlord cannot remove you
from the property before July 1, 2021. As a tenant, you retain all existing rights and protections against
eviction under applicable state law. NLIHC and NHLP recommend you call your local legal aid office, tenant
association, or local bar association for assistance.

2) Landlords in violation of the moratorium may be subject to a fine of up to $100,000, one year in jail, or
both; the fine increases to $250,000 if the violation results in the death of a tenant. Organizations found
to be in violation of the moratorium may be subject to a fine of up to $200,000 per violation, or up to
$500,000 per violation if the violation results in a death."
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/National-Eviction-Moratorium_FAQ-for-Renters.pdf

That is to say: The moratorium also spelled out criminal penalties for landlords who defy it: up to $100,000 in fines or a one-year jail sentence, and up to $250,000 in fines if the tenant dies of the virus because they were evicted. Corporate landlords could see harsher consequences.Orlando Sentinel.

(Hope this answers your question.)
BuckyB93 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
I don't know details or how it works here in MA but as I understand it (very limited understanding since it's not an issue for me), you had to notify the landlord and submit some paperwork proving a hardship or something or other in order to be covered on the no eviction thing.

In order to actually evict, the landlord needs to get an official eviction thingy from the housing court (or whatever it's called). The tenant would be given a copy of the court's finding and, I guess, a chance to appeal. Once it's all set in stone then it's the Sheriff department's job to enforce eviction by showing up at your house/apartment saying you have two hours (or whatever) to pack up you $hit and get out.

I think the landlord can still take you to small claims court in attempts to recover any back rent. Again, it's another court battle bull$hit.

I would never want to be a landlord. I thought about buying rental properties a while back and looked into it briefly. Yeah, no... not for me... not here in MA. Way to much of a headache.
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
Stogie1020 wrote:
Sounds like MACS partied with Brett back in high school. I heard it was pretty wild.


Kavanaugh: I like beer, OK? I like beer, what do you like...

MACS: I really like beer...
rfenst Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
frankj1 wrote:
Does that mean if a landlord evicts a tenant the landlord would not get the rent past due?



Here is a better answer...

NYT
Many landlords say they have no wish to keep renting to tenants who have repeatedly shown them that they cannot pay. That sentiment has sometimes been a barrier in administering pandemic rental aid. Program rules often require landlords who accept rent aid, even in partial sums, to forgo evictions for a set period. Many property owners don’t want to keep tenants with a history of not paying.
Stogie1020 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,320
delta1 wrote:
Kavanaugh: I like beer, OK? I like beer, what do you like...

MACS: I really like beer...

I made an assumption based on that same thought process...
Abrignac Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
frankj1 wrote:
I guess payments to the landlords by the states with the billions they received are held up at least partly because no path of such payments (states to landlords) had existed before this.

So I'm wondering, Robert. Would a tenant have any legal grounds to claim the rent money is temporarily in limbo but will eventually be released making it an eviction without unpaid rent?



In other words, the administration failed to adequately prepare for the collateral damage caused by the moratorium. No surprise. That's business as usual. The administrative branch historically has never considered such.
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
In other words, the administration failed to adequately prepare for the collateral damage caused by the moratorium. No surprise. That's business as usual. The administrative branch historically has never considered such.

I think that's a bit too partisan, Anth...though not fringy crazy.
Thanks again for that.

There has simply never been a route created for this relief money by states before now. To dump a ton of cash on each state with the intention of the states then properly distributing that money quickly to the hurting landlords specifically for redeeming deserving tenants is unrealistic.

In a year plus of "unprecedented", this is a big one. Every business, and every government department have been turned upside down. I would never expect smooth and fluid performance on stuff like this. I know that even in the smoothest of times they're gonna fark up!

Robert's post about landlords made me realize I never thought about tenants who had been chronic payment problems prior to the wave created by the tentacles of the pandemic...job loss, day care loss, etc.

How can we expect anyone to rapidly sort through all the claims and decide which landlords and which tenants deserve help?
Abrignac Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
frankj1 wrote:
I think that's a bit too partisan, Anth...though not fringy crazy.
Thanks again for that.

There has simply never been a route created for this relief money by states before now. To dump a ton of cash on each state with the intention of the states then properly distributing that money quickly to the hurting landlords specifically for redeeming deserving tenants is unrealistic.

In a year plus of "unprecedented", this is a big one. Every business, and every government department have been turned upside down. I would never expect smooth and fluid performance on stuff like this. I know that even in the smoothest of times they're gonna fark up!

Robert's post about landlords made me realize I never thought about tenants who had been chronic payment problems prior to the wave created by the tentacles of the pandemic...job loss, day care loss, etc.

How can we expect anyone to rapidly sort through all the claims and decide which landlords and which tenants deserve help?


All great points Frank. But, it seems like nothing was really attempted either. Also, those funds should have gone to the landlords, not the tenants.
frankj1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
All great points Frank. But, it seems like nothing was really attempted either. Also, those funds should have gone to the landlords, not the tenants.

I might be wrong but I think it is designated to go to landlords and simply hasn't moved to them...?

I'd agree that landlords should be allowed to evict chronic non-payers from before covid, but do Americans agree that many tenants were good prior to this insanity and should somehow be allowed to stay knowing the rent will eventually get to the landlord? I mean, the states have the cash now, have had it for a few months!
rfenst Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
frankj1 wrote:
How can we expect anyone to rapidly sort through all the claims and decide which landlords and which tenants deserve help?

There are nationally known lawyers/accountants/adjusters and the like who specialize in disbursing class action funds to many, many claimants. They consider and devise criteria, payout formulas and determine exactly what evidence is supplied, all with court approval. Sometimes it can take a full year to get things up and running after the lump sum of money is accessible to them so they can do their jobs. I think the disbursal problems are all on the states...
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
rfenst wrote:
There are nationally known lawyers/accountants/adjusters and the like who specialize in disbursing class action funds to many, many claimants. They consider and devise criteria, payout formulas and determine exactly what evidence is supplied, all with court approval. Sometimes it can take a full year to get things up and running after the lump sum of money is accessible to them so they can do their jobs. I think the disbursal problems are all on the states...

totally agree
rfenst Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
rfenst wrote:
There are nationally known lawyers/accountants/adjusters and the like who specialize in disbursing class action funds to many, many claimants. They consider and devise criteria, payout formulas and determine exactly what evidence is supplied, all with court approval. Sometimes it can take a full year to get things up and running after the lump sum of money is accessible to them so they can do their jobs. I think the disbursal problems are all on the states...

This is the guy I was thinking of when I made the above post.

After 9/11, Kenneth Feinberg was asked to do the unthinkable: Assign a value to each life lost that day

WAPO

Twenty years ago, on the morning of Sept. 11, Washington was iattorney Kenneth Feinberg n Philadelphia teaching a law school class on mediating class-action lawsuits.

Feinberg, an old-school D.C. insider who was previously chief of staff for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), was one of the country’s foremost experts on such matters, having settled massive cases involving the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and asbestos poisoning that sickened thousands.

After class wrapped up, Feinberg saw students huddled around a TV in a hallway. He wandered over. A plane had flown into the World Trade Center. An accident, Feinberg thought. Minutes later, the second plane hit the towers. Then another slammed into the Pentagon.

So many lives lost, so many changed forever — including Feinberg’s.

In the shadow of the towers: Five lives and a world transformed

Two months after the terrorist attacks, Feinberg was handed an unthinkable task by Congress: assigning dollar values to the 3,000 lives lost that day, as well as the thousands injured. As special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Feinberg presided over an unprecedented, unlimited budget to repay families what could never be repaid.

There was no syllabus on how to do that.

“What’s a fair amount for a body?” said Feinberg, now 75, during an interview at his law practice in the Willard Office Building, just down the street from the White House. “It’s not justice. It’s not fairness. It can’t be fairness. It’s mercy.”


The nearly three years Feinberg and his office administrator Camille Biros spent distributing more than $7 billion to 5,562 people is depicted in “Worth,” a new Netflix film premiering Friday. With backing from former President Barack Obama’s production company, the movie stars Michael Keaton as Feinberg, Amy Ryan as Biros and Stanley Tucci as Charles Wolf, a New York man whose wife was killed in the attacks and who later protested Feinberg’s oversight.

The movie, Feinberg said, is a fairly accurate representation of what happened, including his own evolution from a by-the-books attorney to “a rabbi and a priest and a nun,” as he put it.


“There’s a certain dramatic license that they play in the film,” said Feinberg, a father of three adult children who lives in Bethesda with his wife, Diane. “But I must say that the emotion was overwhelming.”

Feinberg asked for it.

Born in a working-class town south of Boston, Feinberg attended the University of Massachusetts, where he fell in love with two things — American history and theater. He played the Duke of Venice in “Othello,” among other roles.

He even toyed with a career in acting, but his dad, a tire store owner, talked him out of it.

“Ken, most actors end up waiting tables in New York City and starving,” Feinberg recalled his father saying in his autobiography. “Why not take your acting talents to law school? You can play Hamlet in front of juries."

After law school at New York University, Feinberg became a law clerk and then a federal prosecutor in Manhattan. In 1975, he landed a job as counsel to Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee, where he helped craft the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Feinberg later rose to become Kennedy’s chief of staff.

In 1983, his career turned away from politics. A federal judge in New York asked him to mediate a lawsuit filed by Vietnam veterans against the chemical industry over Agent Orange, a “tactical herbicide” used by the U.S. military during the war that left thousands of service members sick.

Feinberg had no training in mediation, but he did have a booming Boston voice and a natural ability to lean in very close to people and help them narrow their differences enough so that both sides thought they were agreeing to something that resembled something like fairness.

More cases followed: breast implants, heart valves, asbestos.

But nothing would prepare him for the aftermath of Sept 11.

After reading about the plan to appoint a special master in the newspaper, Feinberg thought he’d be perfect for the job — one that he would do pro bono. He called an old friend, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), to express his interest. That led to two interviews with Attorney General John Ashcroft during which they discussed the parameters of the job, which essentially allowed the administrator wide discretion over who got what from a bottomless bag of funds.

Feinberg got the job.

He and Biros came up with a formula for compensation based on current and future income with the goal of making sure that 85 percent of the funds weren’t paid to the highest income-earners, including wealthy financial executives at brokerage firms, including Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost more than 650 workers at the World Trade Center.

Few people were happy with Feinberg. He had tense encounters with victims’ families at town hall meetings. Many harangued him not just for his formula but also the coldness with which he explained it. Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, was killed in the towers, organized critics of Feinberg and set up a website called fixthefund.org.

On the site, in his “statement of purpose,” Wolf wrote:

Ken Feinberg is everything the Founding Fathers of this country were striving to avoid when they wrote the Constitution. With a sparsely written law, Feinberg was forced to write most of the details himself in the form of regulations. Then, he has to implement what he just wrote, pointing back to those same regulations as unbendable rules. Finally, he is the final adjudicator as the law prohibits judicial review by the courts. Feinberg has the power of King George III; he is lawmaker, administrator, judge and jury.

“Nobody really felt like he was listening to us,” Wolf said in an interview.

And sign-ups were lagging — a problem because the fund was inspired by a desire to get victims to accept the payments and waive the right to sue the airlines, sparing the airline industry from collapsing under thousands of lawsuits.

But Feinberg and Biros plodded on, meeting individually with families to hear their stories — hundreds of meetings, day after day. The families of busboys. The families of bond traders. The stories were harrowing: a firefighter killed by a flying body, a man burned on 85 percent of his body after being trapped in an elevator.

The burned man showed up to Feinberg’s office with a team of doctors.

“Singed, no eye brows, no hair at all,” Feinberg remembered. “Artificial skin.”

“It was horrible,” Biros said.

There was nothing requiring him to come in for the meeting.

“But he wanted to be heard,” Biros said. “He wanted people to know what happened to him.”

Michael Keaton as Kenneth Feinberg and Stanley Tucci as Charles Wolf in a scene from "Worth." (Monika Lek/Netflix)
As the process wore on, Wolf noticed a change in Feinberg.

“It was like God came down and talked to Ken,” Wolf said.

There was more empathy from Feinberg, Wolf said, more willingness to adjust awards beyond what the formula called for.

The process wrecked Feinberg, Biros and the firm’s lawyers.

“You cry in private, never professionally in front of the families,” Feinberg said. “And then you’re up all night. What do we do with this one? What about this? What about them? And it’s just debilitating.”

Even after finishing the disbursements for the 9/11 attacks, Feinberg and Biros were not finished.

Feinberg’s firm became the go-to law firm to administer compensatory funds following other tragedies. The mass shootings at Virginia Tech University, Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and the movie theater in Aurora, Colo. The 2010 BP oil spill. Victims of clergy sexual abuse.

Feinberg no longer seeks these tragedies; they find him.

“If it’s on the front page,” Feinberg said, “we just know we’re going to get that call.”
Users browsing this topic
Guest