Page 1 of 2 (Go to Page 2)
[This page is under construction. Here we will marshal the arguments that we have made throughout the Pals of Pete Blog and provide links to the evidence that backs them up. It will take some time to finish this page, so, from time to time, take a look to see how it develops.]
A SUMMARY OF THE DEFENSE OF CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO
Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me:
they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
They compassed me about also with words of hatred;
and fought against me without cause.
THE FDNY POLICY OF NOT USING THE TEN HOUSE TO INSPECT 130 LIBERTY STREET WAS IN PLACE FOR 17 MONTHS BEFORE THE AUGUST 18, 2007 FIRE AND, SINCE THE AUGUST 18, 2007 FIRE, HAS CONTINUED IN PLACE . THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE. IT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO ARRIVED AT THE TEN HOUSE AND CONTINUES AFTER CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO HAS LEFT THE TEN HOUSE. HENCE, HOW CAN CAPTAIN BOSCO BE BLAMED FOR THE POLICY THAT BOTH PRE-DATES AND POST-DATES HIS TOUR OF DUTY AT THE TEN HOUSE? CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO IS AN INNOCENT MAN CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ESTABLISHED POLICY. FDNY's Ten House did not inspect 130 Liberty Street for 17 months before August 18, 2007. Since August 18, 2007 - with the exception of one problematic attempt (click here) - FDNY's Ten House has not inspected 130 Liberty Street. If the failure of the Ten House to inspect 130 Liberty Street was "wrongdoing", Scoppetta and his henchmen would have made sure that "the wrongdoing" ended when they were allegedly first alerted to it. This, however, is not the case. In fact, it is Scoppetta and his henchmen themselves who have not allowed the Ten House into 130 Liberty Street to inspect! Even though the Ten House is still not inspecting 130 Liberty Street, Scoppetta and his henchmen have "sidelined" no officer since the sidelining of Bosco, McDonald and Fuerch. They can't! They would have to sideline themselves. They are failing to do the very same thing that they have accused Bosco, McDonald and Fuerch of failing to do: having the Ten House inspect 130 Liberty Street! Then why is the FDNY supposedly blameworthy? There are some - and we disagree with them - that say - despite considerable evidence to the contrary - that FDNY ought to have inspected 130 Liberty Street. Given that we now know that it has not been the Ten House's job to inspect 130 Liberty Street for 17 months before the August 18, 2007 fire up until the present, the issue becomes whose job was it in FDNY to inspect. Yet, that is not even the real issue. The real issue is who was supposed to make the decision about assigning the job of inspecting 130 Liberty Street to some part of FDNY and, given that 130 Liberty Street is toxic - how to safely make inspections? Right now 130 Liberty Street is being inspected by one or two Battalion Chiefs. Clearly, the captain of the local firehouse is too low in the FDNY hierarchy to make the decision to have one or two Battalion chiefs inspect 130 Liberty Street. Clearly, the Captain of the local firehouse was not in a position to put together a H.A.S.P for such inspections or arrange for decontamination, hazmat suits etc. What level of FDNY could do this? (Click Here)? It seems it takes the FDNY's Manhattan Borough Commander in conjunction with the New York State Department of Labor to decide who and how (Click Here). Blaming the Ten House is nothing but a filthy canard in which the top of FDNY is attempting to pass the buck to the bottom of FDNY. It is a red herring intended to divert attention away from the top of FDNY who had since 9/11/2001 to figure out the who and how questions. The FDNY failure was a failure not at the level of the local firehouse but a failure of planning and foresight at a much higher FDNY level: at the level of Scoppetta and his henchmen. [It's a shame because there was no reason for any internecine recriminations within the FDNY (click here)]
⇒ The October 9, 2007 Weinlein Memorandum Revisited (Click Here)
⇒ Is Captain Peter Bosco being framed for violating rules that did not exist during his assignment to Ten Engine? (Click Here)
⇒ The speech the scoundrel Scoppetta ought to have made (Click Here).
FDNY WAS NOT GIVEN THE JURISDICTION TO INSPECT 130 LIBERTY STREET - A STATE BUILDING WHOSE OWNER WAS EXEMPT FROM THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 130 Liberty Street was not an ordinary building. It was unique because of its toxicity. However, its toxicity alone did not make it unique. It was also unique because it was owned by an entity that was exempt from the laws of the City of New York. 130 Liberty Street was owned by LMDC. LMDC is a supra-municipal entity. It is exempt from the laws of the City of New York. It is above the laws of the City of New York. FDNY was not given the jurisdiction to inspect State buildings in general and 130 Liberty Street in particular. There is a specific FDNY rule that tells its members not to issue Notices of Violations, Violations and Summons to State Buildings. At the most, FDNY could only make recommendations. Look at the excerpt below from the FDNY Fire Prevention Manual. Even with regard to NYC owned buildings, FDNY only has "limited enforcement power". With State Buildings, FDNY has no enforcement powers. To blame the captain of the local firehouse, his battalion and division chiefs for not inspecting a building over which FDNY has no jurisdiction is like blaming them for not inspecting a building in Hoboken, New Jersey. It just doesn't make any sense. Moreover, the Captain of the local firehouse, his battalion chief and his division chief had nothing to do with removing 130 Liberty Street from the jurisdiction of FDNY. This occurred at a level above their rank.
⇒ Jurisdiction Revisited (Click Here)
⇒ NY Post Editorial of 11/9/2007 and the speech FDNY Commissioner ought to have given (Click Here)
⇒ WTC Contaminated Buildings: FDNY: ALL BARK; NO BITE and NO JURISDICTION (Click Here)
JURISDICTION OVER 130 LIBERTY STREET WAS ASSIGNED TO THE NYC DEPT. OF BUILDINGS NOT FDNY. At a meeting involving the FDNY, the NYC DOB and others, jurisdiction was assigned not to FDNY but to the NYC Dept. of Buildings. An FDNY memorandum of the meeting is displayed below. Notice that FDNY said that it "will proceed in reliance upon the decisions and statements set forth below." No-one invited the Captain of the local firehouse to the meeting. The decision to assign jurisdiction to the NYC DOB was above the rank of Captain of the local firehouse. Notice who received emails of the FDNY Memorandum: Scoppetta, Cassano, McNally and Weinlein. Of note, Chief Paul Cresci who was present at the jurisdictional allocation meeting - and who is also a good and honest fire officer - paid a visit to the Ten House with "others" and informed Ten House that 130 Liberty Street was being inspected not by FDNY but by "others".
⇒ Jurisdiction Revisited (Click Here)
⇒ NY Post Editorial of 11/9/2007 and the speech FDNY Commissioner ought to have given (Click Here)
⇒ FDNY was not invited to sit at the table (Click Here)
FDNY WAS NOT A REGULATOR OF THE DECONTAMINATION - DECONSTRUCTION OF THE UBER TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING. THE NYC DEPT. OF BUILDINGS WAS A REGULATOR.
⇒ FDNY was not invited to sit at the table (Click Here)
⇒ LMDC's Power Point Presentation to the Community Board I WTC Redevelopment Committee. (Click Here)
⇒ Has FDNY now become a regulator of the decontamination - deconstruction of the toxic Deutsche Bank Building? (Click Here)
THE PLANNER OF THE DECONTAMINATION - DECONSTRUCTION OF THE UBER TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING ASSIGNED NO ROLE TO FDNY OTHER THAN THE ROLE OF EMERGENCY RESPONDER. The Planner of the decontamination - deconstruction of 130 Liberty Street - the planner being LMDC, the owner of the building - did not assign the role of inspector to FDNY. The only role assigned to FDNY in the plans was the role of emergency responder. To blame the local firehouse for not inspecting 130 Liberty Street when the Plans assigned inspections to others just doesn't make any sense. The Captain of the local firehouse had nothing to do with formulating the plans. This occurred at a level above the rank of Captain of the local firehouse.
LMDC HAD COMPLETE LEGAL CONTROL OVER THE DECONSTRUCTION - DECONTAMINATION OF 130 LIBERTY STREET AND THE 1968 NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT BARRED NYC FROM INTERFERING IN ANY WAY. Even if NYC wanted FDNY to inspect 130 Liberty Street during its deconstruction - decontamination, NYC and FDNY were forbidden because LMDC, in its plans, gave the role of inspector to others. NYS Law backs up LMDC on this not NYC. Moreover, NYS law gives immunity - both civil and criminal - to anyone who followed LMDC's plan. FDNY followed LMDC's plan, for, under LMDC's plan, FDNY's only role was that of emergency responder. The deconstruction - decontamination of 130 Liberty Street was LMDC's project -- not NYC's -- and it was up to LMDC to decide how and by whom it was to be done. NYC was without power to say how or by whom.
⇒ LMDC & NYS Urban Development Corporation Act and Immunity (Click Here)
INSPECTIONS OF THE LMDC OWNED 130 LIBERTY STREET WOULD HAVE BEEN A FDNY "COURTESY" EXTENDED TO THE BUILDING OWNER, BUT WERE NOT MANDATORY AND, BEING A COURTESY, REQUIRED AN INVITATION FROM LMDC TO THE VERY TOP OF FDNY WHICH INVITATION DOESN'T EXIST OR HAS SO FAR STAYED HIDDEN.
⇒ WTC Contaminated Buildings: FDNY: ALL BARK; NO BITE and NO JURISDICTION (Click Here)
FDNY COULD ONLY HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO LMDC. LMDC HAD THE OPTION TO ACCEPT FDNY'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR REJECT THEM. Why would anyone think that LMDC would accept FDNY recommendations that are optional not mandatory when LMDC did not abide by the numerous applicable contract and planning document provisions that were mandatory and not optional? The contracts and planning documents had teeth. FDNY had no teeth. The classic example of one of these supra-municipal entities rejecting FDNY recommendations involved the oil tank in 7 World Trade Center and a FDNY Chief who pestered the PA of NY and NJ about it. Did the PA of NY and NJ listen to FDNY? No. Notice who was one of the Chiefs mentioned with regard to orders not to go into 130 Liberty Street (click here) Who was the chief involved with the oil tank in 7 World Trade Center? Coincidence? There was no trust between the working firefighters and fire officers of FDNY and these supra-municipal entities. These supra-municipal entities couldn't be trusted to keep firefighters safe and FDNY had no power over them so wasn't it best to stay away from them as much as possible? Sometimes the arrogance of these supra-municipal entities - the knowledge that they were above the law - was contagious and spread to their contractors (Click Here)
LMDC DID NOT INVITE FDNY INTO 130 LIBERTY STREET VIA A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. With regard to buildings over which FDNY lacks jurisdiction, FDNY tries to come to an understanding with the Owner so that FDNY may inspect their buildings. Negotiations of memoranda of understanding take place at a level of FDNY much higher than the Captain of the local fire house. With regard to 130 Liberty Street, FDNY and LMDC never agreed upon a memorandum of understanding. In fact, according to the plans for the deconstruction - decontamination of 130 Liberty Street, LMDC did not assign to FDNY the role of inspector. What level of FDNY is involved with memoranda of understanding? If the memorandum of understanding between FDNY and PA of NY & NJ that is displayed below is any indication, its the Commissioner of FDNY who ought to be involved with Memoranda of Understanding.
⇒ Jurisdiction Revisited (Click Here)
THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION NOT THE LOCAL FIREHOUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE ROLE OF INSPECTOR HAD LMDC INVITED FDNY INTO 130 LIBERTY STREET PURSUANT TO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. There is a precedent for memorandum of understanding between FDNY and others. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and FDNY entered into a memorandum of understanding with regard to the World Trade Center and surrounding Port Authority Buildings. It is displayed above. Keep in mind that 130 Liberty Street would eventually be owned by the PA of NY & NJ. This Memorandum of Understanding put inspections into the hands of the FDNY's Bureau of Fire Prevention not into the hands of the local firehouse. There is no reason to believe that this memorandum of understanding would not have been the model for one between LMDC and FDNY. The Captain of the local firehouse had nothing to do with deciding which unit of FDNY inspects. This occurs at a level above the rank of Captain of the local firehouse.
⇒ Jurisdiction Revisited (Click Here)
FDNY'S HAZ MAT UNIT WAS THE APPROPRIATE UNIT OF FDNY TO INSPECT THE UBER-TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING NOT THE LOCAL FIREHOUSE - OR, AT LEAST, THE APPROPRIATE UNIT TO FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR THE LOCAL FIREHOUSE OR FOR THE BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION. FDNY has its own Haz-Mat Unit. If you were FDNY Commissioner, who would you send into the toxic Deutsche Bank Buidling? The Haz Mat unit what has the proper gear, special training, and decontamination ability or the local firehouse that has nothing? At the very least, the Haz Mat unit ought to have set up a safe procedure for the local firehouse to follow. The FDNY's Haz-Mat unit did not do so in all probability because Scoppetta and Cassano did not ask them to do so. Keep in mind that toxicity became a problem at ground zero as a result of 9/11/2001. Scoppetta and Cassano certainly had enough time to figure out how to handle the toxicity. Captain Bosco only arrived on the scene in late December 2006 early January 2007 - when everything appeared to have been already set in stone. Below is 12/4/2004 "Mayday" memorandum from the Ten House that sent up the chain of command the Ten House's cry for help. How shall the Ten House handle this uber-toxic building? Give us an Standard Operating Procedure, an S.O.P. This "Mayday" sent up the chain of command from the Ten House was sent up two years before Captain Peter Bosco arrived at the Ten House. Surely it is safe to assume that FDNY figured out the S.O.P. on how to handle 130 Liberty Street during the two year period, no? Surely, after two years, new commanders at the Ten House could safely assume that the procedure to handle 130 Liberty Street was already established?
THE RULE OF 3 RCNY § 11-01 (Click here) THAT CALLS FOR THE INSPECTION - AT LEAST EVERY 15 DAYS - OF BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO 130 LIBERTY STREET FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
⇒ [FDNY'S OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF 3 RCNY § 11-01 MAKES DISTINCTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE TEXT OF 3 RCNY§ 11-01 DOES NOT] FDNY's Chief of Operations - presumably with the knowledge, permission and consent of Cassano and Scoppetta - has already interpreted 3 RCNY § 11-01 to distinguish between buildings under 75 feet and buildings over 75 feet even though the text of 3 RCNY § 11-01 does not make such a distinction. Hence, FDNY itself does not strictly construe 3 RCNY § 11-01. FDNY itself does not construe the text literally. FDNY itself reads exceptions into it. Hence, a distinction between "clean" and "dirty" buildings is a reasonable interpretation of the text of 3 RCNY § 11-01 too. In fact, 3 RCNY § 11-01 is an impossible burden if it is strictly construed as not making any distinction between "clean" and "dirty" buildings especially when one considers that FDNY also banned the wearing of PPE during inspections.
⇒ [NO JURISDICTION] 130 Liberty Street was outside of the jurisdiction of FDNY. Saying that 3 RCNY § 11-01 applied to 130 Liberty Street is akin to saying that it applied to a building in Hoboken, NJ. It simply did not. 3 RCNY § 11-01 only applies to buildings within the jurisdiction of FDNY. There are some buildings that exist within the physical boundaries of the City of New York over which FDNY has no jurisdiction. 130 Liberty Street is one of them. It is a State building.
⇒ [FDNY & NYS DOL TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO INSPECT WTC CONTAMINATED BUILDINGS AFTER THE FATAL AUGUST18, 2007 FIRE] 130 Liberty Street was toxic - Uber-toxic as a matter of fact. If 3 RCNY §11-01 applied to toxic buildings then why is FDNY's Manhattan Borough Commander trying to figure out how to inspect toxic buildings. You don't try to figure out something for which you already have the solution.
⇒ [THE DATE 3 RCNY§11-01 WAS PUT ON THE BOOKS & FDNY'S BAN ON PPE] 3 RCNY § 11-01 was put on the books before the toxic buildings of ground zero existed and hence those who put it on the books did not contemplate the toxic ground zero buildings. Those who put it on the books envisioned inspections of "clean buildings" in ordinary clothes. This is buttressed by FDNY's rule banning the use of PPE during inspections. Toxic buildings require PPE to safely inspect them. That FDNY bans PPE indicates conclusively that FDNY envisions inspections of "clean buildings" only.
NO ONE ORDERED CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO TO INSPECT THE UBER-TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING. Since Captain Peter Bosco arrived at the TEN HOUSe in late December 2006 early January 2007, no superior officer ever ordered him to inspect the UBER-TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING. Captain Bosco did not defy any order. Moreover, no superior officer even questioned him about inspections of the UBER-TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING. Everyone just knew that it was just too toxic to inspect. The building had its own inspectors and NYC Department of Buildings was on the job too.
BEFORE CAPTAIN PETER BOSCO ARRIVED AT THE TEN HOUSE, ORDERS WERE ISSUED NOT TO GO INTO THE UBER-TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING. Before Captain Pete Bosco arrived at the TEN HOUSE, orders were issued not to go into the uber-toxic Deutsche Bank Buidling.
FORMER FDNY FIRE COMMISSIONER, THOMAS VON ESSEN, SCOPPETTA'S PREDECESSOR, RECOGNIZED THAT THE TEN HOUSE LACKED THE ABILITY TO INSPECT THE UBER TOXIC DEUTSCHE BANK BUILDING
⇒ Listen to former FDNY Commissioner, Thomas Von Essen, defend Captain Peter Bosco (Click Here)
⇒ FDNY Engine 10 ordered back into 130 Liberty Street. This time everyone is dressed in TYVEK - not just one but two TYVEK suits (Click Here)
OUR SUMMARY OF THE DEFENSE IS CONTINUED ON PAGE 2. TO GO THERE, CLICK HERE ...