Thursday, February 22, 2007
 From 9/11 activist attorney Jerry Leaphardt via 911Researchers.com 2007-02-16: "It was recently learned that NIST scientist, Richard Gann, wrote the so-called "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers" also known as NIST NCSTAR 1 (NCSTAR 1). There has been precious little public discussion about NCSTAR 1 and only one published article mentioned Richard Gann's name, that I could find.
Within the 9/11 Truth Movement, NCSTAR 1 is regarded as an incomplete treatise on what caused the destruction and pulverization of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 (WTC1,2), when the document is viewed in the most charitable light. To some, NCSTAR 1 does not meet data and/or information quality standards and is, therefore, fraudulent, deceptive and/or misleading.
Having learned that Richard Gann wrote NCSTAR 1, it was assumed that he might be an appropriate NIST official to correspond with on the 'data and information quality' aspects of NCSTAR 1. That is what I did and the correspondence is reproduced below, with a minor redaction of one email address.
What the correspondence yielded was a reply, not from Richard Gann himself, but rather a reply from NIST's Deputy Chief Counsel for Technology, one Melissa Lieberman, Esq. However, Attorney Lieberman's reply also includes portions of certain communications BETWEEN and AMONG other NIST officials about the correspondence addressed to Richard Gann. The extent of the communications is unclear, but we are clearly told that it includes both a "confidential pre-decisional document" as well as allegedly privileged "attorney-client communications."
However, mere assertion that a document is confidential and merely claiming that communications are "privileged" does not make them immune from public disclosure. Indeed, Deputy Chief Counsel Melissa Lieberman actually asserts in her reply to the email communication sent to Richard Gann that "NIST's WTC Investigation reports were prepared and disseminated in accordance with NIST's Information Quality Standards." Thus, by providing a reply to a query, I believe Attorney Lieberman is obliged to disclose the information upon which the reply is based. It is well-understood that disclosure of partial information results in waiver of privilege claims with respect to portions of the same communication that have been withheld. In other words, partial disclosure serves as a waiver of privilege.
Moreover, as an attorney for a governmental agency, with duties that likely include administrative and other duties, it is by no means clear that Deputy Chief Counsel Lieberman can properly assert that her communications with, say, Drs. Shyam Sunder and Richard Gann are privileged. I use those two names because they are included below in a way that suggests she did, in fact, communicate with each of them concerning the data and information quality query that had been addressed to Richard Gann.
What information was exchanged between and among those and other NIST officials about NCSTAR 1 that would allow her to claim that NIST's reports on the World Trade Center complied with information quality standards?
I think we have a right to know that and related information and to obtain copies.
Accordingly, I have, this date, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to NIST, specifically requesting that information and specifically asserting that claims of privilege and of confidentiality do not apply and cannot properly be asserted.
I here assert that it is possible that whistleblower material may be found in the information that Melissa Lieberman is seeking to shield from public disclosure.
----- - Follow hyperlink for appendices of original correspondence
Labels: 9/11, NIST, wtc
.....---
.....| Posted at 01:41 | PERMA-LINK |
|
FEED
TOTAL411 PODCAST
SELECTED VIDEO ]