(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg that they

1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or take steps to prevent;

2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and

3. have therefore violated the laws of the United States; and

4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

Berg stated "I will be detailing the charges against Bush and others and handing out copies of the

1. Amended Complaint;

2. a Letter from Ellen Mariani to President Bush that sets forth her beliefs that President Bush knowingly and willfully failed to act and prevent the murder of her husband on 911 and the ongoing obstruction of justice; and

3. a Sworn Affidavit that the United States government twenty-eight [28] years ago undertook a study to prevent the very events of 911.

Mrs. Mariani was the first victim family member to bring civil action regarding the events of 911 against United Airlines. Since then, the "truth" of 911 has not been forthcoming and Mrs. Mariani, for the good of her country, now seeks the truth via this courageous action under the RICO Act.

Berg said "The events surrounding "911" to date have yet to be uncovered.

While America was under attack, for approximately the next seven (7) to eighteen (18) minutes Defendant GWB continues to listen to the goat story while Plaintiff's husband was just murdered and does not immediately assume his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

Plaintiff, with her amended complaint intends to expose the truth to remember the dead and to prevent continued deaths of American military personnel due to President Bush's "failure to act and prevent" the worst attacks on our nation since Pearl Harbor.

Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" the murder of Plaintiff's husband, Louis Neil Mariani, for financial and political reasons and have "obstructed justice" in the aftermath of said criminal acts and omissions.

Defendant GWB has purported to the American People and the Plaintiff that the infamous attacks of "911" were directly masterminded by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda Network terrorists (hereinafter "OBL"), almost immediately after the attacks. Yet, Defendant GWB has not been forthright and honest with regard to his administration's pre-knowledge of the potential of the "911" attacks and Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant GWB to justify why her husband Louis Neil Mariani died on "911.'

Plaintiff believes Defendant GWB is invoking a long standard operating procedure of invoking national security and executive privilege claims to suppress the basis of this lawsuit that Defendant GWB, et al., failed to act and prevent the "911" attacks.

Plaintiff asserts, contrary to Defendant GWB's assertion that OBL is responsible for "911," the compelling evidence that will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power by this Court and testimony at trial will lead to one undisputed fact, Defendant GWB failed to act and prevent "911" knowing the attacks would lead to our nation having to engage in an "International War on Terror (IWOT)" which would benefit Defendants both financially and for political reasons.

There are significant business ties that will be proven between Defendants and OBL's family which raise serious conflict of interest and other matters wherein "failing to act and prevent" the "911" attacks have benefited Defendants.

Reports have emerged and will be confirmed through discovery that the Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defense contractor until recently employed Defendant and former President GHB. Hence, the "Bush Family" and other Defendants financial profiting by war goes to the heart of Plaintiff's RICO Act claim.

Plaintiff asserts, in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, Defendants were allies with OBL and Saddam Hussein during the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq war respectively, wherein, personal and political deals were made and it is believed upon discovery, these dealings hold the truth about "911."

In sum, Plaintiff will call to trial former federal employees with firsthand knowledge and expertise with military intelligence and other duties to support the underlying RICO Act foundational basis to prove Defendants have engaged in a "pattern of criminal activity and obstruction of justice" in violation of the public trust and laws of the United States for personal and financial gains.

Plaintiff will prove, Defendants have engaged our nation in an endless war on terror to achieve their personal goals and agendas.

///////

** Copy of sixty-one [61] page Amended Complaint available by e-mail" – contact Phil Berg at PJBLAW@aol.com

///////

G.O.P. to Run an Ad for Bush on Terror Issue, by Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, November 21, 2003

The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."

By indirectly invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, the commercial plays to what White House officials have long contended is Mr. Bush's biggest political advantage his initial handling of the aftermath of the attacks.

Republican Party officials said that television stations in Iowa were to begin broadcasting the commercial on Sunday, the day before a televised Democratic debate there. The commercial is to continue running through Tuesday and will also probably be broadcast in New Hampshire about the time of the next debate, which is scheduled to take place there two weeks later. The party said it was spending roughly $100,000 for the initial broadcast of the advertisement, which seemed intended for voters in the states with the first contests, as well as for the journalists who cover the race.

The Bush campaign has sought to keep a low profile and put off overt electioneering for as long as possible. But some Republicans are worried about Mr. Bush's popularity, and, officials acknowledge, some Bush supporters have pressed for a response to the avalanche of Democratic critiques of his performance in office, which have been extensively covered on television.

Still, the White House has sought to keep distance from this first commercial. It is not a product of the president's campaign committee, but was paid for and produced by the Republican National Committee.

The party has acted as a proxy for Mr. Bush while he tries to maintain the appearance of being above the political fray.

Bush campaign officials have been reluctant to discuss when they intend to broadcast their own commercials, but suggest they will come in mid-March, when they expect the Democrats to settle on their nominee.

Jim Dyke, the Republican National Committee's communications director, said the party did not believe that the Democrats' attacks were hurting Mr. Bush. Even so, he said, the time seemed right to provide a contrast to what Mr. Dyke called the negativism of the Democratic field — which he said had rallied around policies that are in sharp contrast with Mr. Bush's and, he argued, out of step with mainstream America.

"It's fine to say Iraq's wrong, Afghanistan's wrong," Mr. Dyke said. "But what we're talking about is the safety of the American people and who's putting forth the policies to address it."

Mr. Dyke added, "What we're going to start doing is point to the positive policies of this president and this party and present the sharp contrast in approach and also in tone."

The 30-second advertisement gives the first sampling of the powerful array of images Mr. Bush's campaign team will have at its disposal when it begins what is expected to be a formidable advertising campaign.

With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."

As the Democrats have seized on Mr. Bush's tenure as a rallying cry for the party's primary voters, some analysts and political scientists have questioned why Republicans have not responded more strongly.

According to the Wisconsin University Advertising Project, which has access to a computer system owned by a media research firm called TNS/CMAG that tracks political advertisements shown on television, many of the roughly $10 million worth of Democratic candidate and issue ads that have run so far have been either directly or indirectly critical of Mr. Bush.

A new commercial for Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts superimposes Mr. Bush's likeness over images of toxic clean-up crews and smog-spewing smokestacks while a narrator says the president "sided with polluters, not taxpayers," and "let corporate lobbyists rewrite our environmental laws."

In one ad, Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri says, "I want to stop George Bush and fight for America's middle class" after speaking with a man and woman who discuss financial problems.

It is unclear whether these commercials have hurt Mr. Bush much at this point. Democrats can point to poll numbers that show his support has fallen since the primary season began. For instance, the latest Los Angeles Times poll found a drop of 11 points in the number of people who said they believed the president had a clear notion of where he wanted to lead the country since March, falling to 45 percent from 56 percent.

"It is clear that the cumulative weight of it all has inflicted a fair amount of damage," Jim Mulhall, a communications strategist for the Democratic National Committee, said of the candidates' critiques. "The fact that the president is going on television a year out from the election is a reflection of nervousness on their part about his continued political deterioration."

He also said use of the State of the Union address ran the risk of reminding people of the disputed intelligence Mr. Bush relied on to claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

But in a recent memorandum to Republican Party and Bush campaign officials, Matthew Dowd, a chief Bush adviser, noted that several polls showed his approval rating as steady or moving slightly higher.

Still, some experts warned that the Republican Party would ignore the Democratic attacks at its own peril.

"Advertising matters when there's a one-sided flow of information," said Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin advertising project. "Clearly the R.N.C. and the Bush campaign were beginning to believe that the drum beat of Democratic advertising, in addition to the attention the Democrats were getting in the free media, created a one-sided drum beat against the president."

Compared with the last time a sitting president ran for re-election without a primary opponent, the Republicans are behind the advertising curve.

President Bill Clinton presented his first advertisements in June 1995, an extraordinarily early campaign that some of his strategists credited with having an important role in preparing the way for his re-election.

Bill Dal Col, a Republican consultant who ran Steve Forbes's primary campaigns in 1996 and 2000, argued that Mr. Clinton was a far weaker candidate then than Mr. Bush is now, and was under even greater political fire when he started his campaign.

Still, he said, the new Republican commercial was a smart bid to shape the Democratic debate from the sidelines. "In this case you balance the harsh attacks coming, but you also suck up resources they're raising and force them to spend money now," he said.

Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University, called the commercial a "clever strategy."

"It gives Republicans one more means to defend the president," Mr. West said. "If they stay silent, the next six months are going to be filled with Bush bashing. It's never good to leave an information vacuum."

The money was part of a $725 million aid package that Congress recently approved to help large metropolitan areas considered most vulnerable to terrorist attack. The federal Department of Homeland Security is disbursing the money.

The pot of money for high-risk urban areas was created this year to address concerns of New York lawmakers in both parties. The lawmakers had complained that the city, a past target for terrorists, was being shortchanged because Washington was distributing a limited pool of security money to every state, regardless of the threats they faced.

But Thursday's announcement provoked a new round of complaints from New York lawmakers, who said the money the Bush administration had set aside for the New York region was far less than what it received the last time such money was disbursed. In May, Homeland Security announced that it planned to provide the region a little more than $200 million in grants out of the money set aside for cities considered most vulnerable to attack.

After Thursday's announcement, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democrat from Manhattan, sharply questioned the Bush administration's commitment to fighting terrorism on American soil.

"Who would believe that New York City — still the terrorists' No. 1 target — has spent a billion dollars out of its own pocket for security, but gets only a fraction from the federal government?" she asked. "But that is the sad truth."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, was a little more conciliatory.

"The bottom line is every penny counts," he said. "But New York's security expenses are enormous, and we need the administration to do a better job of recognizing that."

 Even the office of Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, voiced concerns over the amount. Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, said that "the appropriations do not fully recognize the risks to New York."

"Again, we urge Congress to adopt a threat-based formula to appropriate Homeland Security dollars," she said.

The bulk of the grants announced on Thursday — $675 million — was divided among 50 cities, including New York City ($47 million), Chicago ($34 million), Washington ($29.3 million), Los Angeles ($28 million), San Francisco ($26.4 million), Philadelphia ($23 million) and Houston ($19.9 million), according to the administration.

In May, the aid was divided among only 29 cities, including New York. That is the main reason New York's allocation was so much larger the last time, officials said.

http//www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/11/ma_571_01.html

"It feels like somebody wrote a new rule -- the bigger a mess you make, the easier it should be to just walk away," says Laura Olah, a Wisconsin activist who heads a grassroots group called Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger. Badger, in this case, is a former Army ammunition plant near the town of Sauk Prairie, Wisconsin -- a sprawling industrial complex that operated from World War II through the mid-1970s and produced not only munitions, but a flood of toxic wastes. Today, a witches' brew of contaminants, including the heavy metals mercury and cadmium and the cancer-causing compounds carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene, is seeping into the groundwater beneath the 7,300-acre site. For more than a decade, several local farm families unwittingly drew their well water directly from the heart of the contamination; in the nearby Wisconsin River, sediments are contaminated with more than 20 times the allowable amount of mercury.

Olah says her group just wants the Defense Department to clean up the site before it abandons Badger entirely. But the Pentagon has missed a series of deadlines in a cleanup agreement with the state of Wisconsin. In recent years, it has also backed away from a plan to remove large volumes of contaminated soil from the base, proposing instead to fence off and monitor the toxic hot spots.

Badger is hardly an isolated case. From Cape Cod in Massachusetts to McClellan Air Force Base in California, the Pentagon is facing mounting criticism for failing to clean up military sites contaminated with everything from old munitions to radioactive materials and residues from biological-weapons research. Now, citing the demands of the war on terrorism and working with sympathetic officials in the administration and Congress, the department has stepped up efforts to remove substantial parts of its operations from environmental oversight.

Last December, Defense officials drew up a 24-page strategy memorandum, laying out a plan for a "multi-year campaign" to exempt the military from federal laws including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act, as well as rules governing solid and hazardous wastes. The strategy also called for Congress to state "that munitions deposited and remaining on operational ranges are not 'solid wastes'" -- a move that with one stroke would exempt the Pentagon from having to clean up the old shells, fuels, and other weapons "constituents" that turn places like Badger into health hazards.

The Pentagon is seeking these changes even though current law already allows it to gain exemptions from any environmental regulations that might hinder military preparedness; according to a 2002 study by Congress' General Accounting Office, the Defense Department has never run into any significant problems in this regard.

Nonetheless, Bush appointees at the EPA appear to have embraced the Pentagon's agenda. In April, EPA enforcement chief John Suarez told Congress that the Pentagon's proposals to ease hazardous-waste regulations were "appropriate" and in line with "existing EPA policy" -- even though only weeks earlier, a report from Suarez's own staff to the President's Office of Management and Budget had specifically warned against relaxing the waste rules, noting that the munitions could present "an imminent and substantial endangerment of health or the environment." The hazardous-waste exemption failed to pass Congress this spring -- though the Pentagon got one step closer to an item on its environmental wish list when the House approved an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has been an impediment to a controversial Navy sonar program. Hill staffers say they expect the hazardous-waste proposal to be introduced again in the coming months.

The changes could affect thousands of sites across the nation. Late last year, EPA staffers prepared an internal briefing document for Suarez, suggesting that removing toxic waste just from the Pentagon's thousands of weapons ranges "has the potential to be the largest environmental cleanup program ever to be implemented in the United States."

According to the report, which was never publicly released, the contaminated ranges cover an area as large as Florida, or about 40 million acres. Yet, it noted, there had been a "disturbing trend" on the Pentagon's part of taking "ill-advised short-cuts to limit costs."

In all, more than 27,000 military waste sites have been documented nationwide; they include the vast Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod, where contamination threatens the drinking water for more than a quarter million residents, as well as Fort Detrick in Maryland, where cleanup contractors in 2001 turned up test tubes filled with residues of anthrax and other bioweapons materials. But even as the scope of the problem continues to expand, internal EPA reports suggest, the Department of Defense is seeking to conceal the extent of the contamination.

According to a survey of inactive weapons ranges commissioned by the Pentagon in 2000, nearly half the 206 sites studied lacked adequate fencing, or even simple signs, to keep the public away from areas where hazardous munitions might lie. The same report also found that wastes from chemical or biological weapons might be present at more than 50 percent of the sites. The document's first draft stopped just short of calling the Defense Department a scofflaw, stating that it "often does not adhere to...applicable statutes or regulations" and concluding that "the ranges in this survey pose potentially significant threats to human health and the environment."

By the time the final version of the report appeared later that year, both of those statements, along with seven additional pages of observations and criticisms of the Pentagon, had been removed. Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility -- a whistleblower group that obtained copies of the original document -- says agency staffers told him that the report had been censored in response to pressure from the Pentagon.

In recent months, the Pentagon has quietly scored a series of other concessions from the EPA. In one decision -- announced in a press release late on a Friday last July -- the agency declared that it would not, as had been widely expected, tighten drinking-water standards for perchlorate, a rocket-fuel additive that has contaminated scores of bases and weapons-manufacturing sites. Perchlorate seeping into the Colorado River from a Nevada rocket plant has contaminated the drinking-water supply for 15 million people; a recent study by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group suggests that most of the nation's winter lettuce -- the bulk of which is irrigated with Colorado River water -- contains significant amounts of the toxin.

Also this summer, the EPA announced it would no longer require property owners to remove polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are also suspected carcinogens, from buildings before selling them -- a change that would largely benefit the Pentagon, which owns hundreds of PCB-contaminated sites. Under the new rules, the Pentagon could transfer those sites to schools, hospitals, and other civilian users without incurring liability for the contamination or requiring evidence of any cleanup.

The bill by U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis aimed to keep the EPA's ombudsman independent, but its newest version falls short of the original's ideals.

TARPON SPRINGS - Years ago, residents worried about toxic waste at the old Stauffer Chemical Co. plant had few places to turn for help. Some complained their appeals to government regulators to clean up the site were falling on deaf ears.

That changed when U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ombudsman to review regulators' plans for the site. Soon afterward the ombudsman, the federal agency's top independent investigator, persuaded the EPA to reconsider its controversial clean-up plan for the 130-acre Stauffer site.

So when EPA officials decided to reorganize the ombudsman's office three years ago, Bilirakis was one of the first to complain. Under the reorganization, the ombudsman was transferred from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to the EPA's Inspector General's Office. Bilirakis, an outspoken critic of the EPA's handling of the Stauffer site, drafted the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2003. The bill's goal was to restore the ombudsman's power to help ordinary citizens worried about environmental hazards in their communities, he said.

But these days, Bilirakis is singing a different tune.

His new draft of the bill backs away from a plan to restore the EPA ombudsman's watchdog powers. Under the new version of the legislation the ombudsman would continue to answer to the EPA's inspector general.

And that worries some Tarpon Springs residents. Community critics say the new draft would limit the ombudsman's power to help citizens get toxic waste sites like Stauffer cleaned up.

"I thought the biggest concern for all of us was the independence of the ombudsman, and I would say that he has less independence with this draft bill," said Tarpon Springs resident Chuck Lehr.

President of a group that monitors Stauffer, Lehr was one of the first to support Bilirakis' call for a more independent ombudsman. He credits the congressman and former EPA ombudsman Robert Martin with pushing federal regulators to listen to residents' concerns about contaminants left behind at the defunct phosphate processing plant. But now, Lehr said, he wants to know what's behind Bilirakis' change of heart.

Bilirakis was not available to comment on the draft of the bill. His legislative director Sarah Owen said the draft is a work in progress and has not yet been formally introduced in Congress.

Several members of Congress criticized the original Ombudsman Reauthorization Act for giving the ombudsman too much power. After White House advisers indicated that President Bush was likely to veto the bill, Bilirakis decided to revamp it, said the congressman's spokeswoman Christy Stefadouros.

"The original (House) bill and the Senate version both have been criticized for broadening the ombudsman's policing powers too much," Stefadouros said. "We have to be realistic and see what we can get."

Under the original legislation, the ombudsman would report directly to the head of the EPA - something that does not take place now. The ombudsman also would publish a detailed report to Congress and would be appointed for a five-year term.

The original act authorizes funding for the ombudsman's office to climb from $3-million for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to $5-million for fiscal years 2010-2013.

"Congressman Bilirakis would absolutely love to see that bill enacted into the law," Owen said last week. "But we know there are some members (of Congress) who still have questions about it."

Senators passed a similar version of Bilirakis' original bill in May by unanimous consent.

Now it's up to the House to decide whether to give the ombudsman a more independent role or place his position under the EPA's inspector general. Under the new version of the bill, the Inspector General's Office could hire and fire the EPA's top independent investigator once Congress has been informed of the change.

Martin, who quit his job as ombudsman in protest last year, said he was not familiar with the new draft. But he said the ombudsman's office should not have to answer to the inspector general.

"Its structural independence needs to be assured in order for the truth to be safeguarded," Martin said.

Stauffer watchers and other community activists agree, saying Bilirakis has watered down his original legislation to appease Bush administration demands to rein in the ombudsman.

"The bill looks like EPA wrote it," said longtime environmental activist Mary Mosley.

She hopes Bilirakis will change his mind.

"We've got no place to go if we can't rely on Bilirakis," Mosley said. "He's our last hope and he's done a good job. But this bill depends too much on EPA for direction."

- Candace Rondeaux can be reached at 727 445-4181 or rondeaux@sptimes.com

http//www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/nyregion/12CONV.html?pagewanted=2

At the same time, groups are busy planning protests, using the Internet and holding meetings to reach out to antiwar, anti-Bush and anti-Republican forces for the convention, scheduled Aug. 30 to Sept. 2. One group has even formed a committee to discuss details as specific as providing day care for protesters' children and pets.

The Republicans' decision to hold their nominating convention at Madison Square Garden presents the city with such a volatile mix of elements — an incumbent president, troops in Iraq, fear of terrorism, the existence of well-organized and active global protest groups — that the Police Department began preparations further in advance than it has for any event in a quarter-century, officials said.

Against this backdrop, the police are searching for a balance between the public's constitutional right to demonstrate and the need to keep the streets open, the trains running and the convention operating without interruption.

"We have the sense that there will be a lot of people coming in, not only from just in the United States but from outside the country, to voice their opinion," the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said in an interview. "So we want to be prepared."

An Internet search reveals that demonstrators are making plans for the convention, some with the goal of delivering a peaceful political statement, others hoping to have their say by disrupting events. Web sites have been formed (with names like R.N.C. Not Welcome and Counter Convention) and e-mail lists are being circulated so that people can exchange ideas about such strategies as how to tie up city traffic.

One group, United for Peace and Justice, has already filed two permit requests, one for 250,000 protesters to march past the Garden the weekend before the convention begins. United for Peace and Justice organized the antiwar rally in February that attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters, erupting at points into clashes between protesters and the police. The group is planning a peaceful march, but says that the convention could attract others intent on disrupting events.

"The resistance that the Bush administration attracts takes many forms, from people who might call or write an elected official to those who might sit down in the street and those who might want to resist" in more aggressive ways, said the group's spokesman, Bill Dobbs.

Mr. Kelly, like others preparing for the event, said he could not provide a hard estimate of how many protesters are expected. But the police are monitoring the Internet and the organizing groups, the commissioner said. They want to know what groups are coming to New York, who their leaders are and what their plans are, long before anyone ever raises a billboard or turns on a bullhorn. The police have created 30 committees within the department to address the myriad security concerns, including transportation around the city, safeguarding the 49 hotels that will house officials, delegates and news media, safeguarding the restaurants, theaters and other entertainment sites and making sure that officers are adequately trained to handle it all.

Mr. Kelly attends a weekly convention preparation meeting and is already talking about details as minute as whether law enforcement officials will have enough cameras and vans to process individuals who are arrested. In addition, the police meet regularly with the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast Guard and the Fire Department. There are also planned meetings with the mayor's office, the governor's office and the convention's committee on arrangements.

But the core of the work now involves research and intelligence gathering. "We're gathering information about plans that people may have to come here," Mr. Kelly said. "And we understand, this is what America's all about, people to demonstrate peacefully, make their feelings known. And we want to facilitate that and keep it peaceful."

The nexus of free speech and what the law deems to be criminal activity is a sensitive area, police officials concede. The New York Civil Liberties Union has already contacted police officials to try to meet and find the balance between the department's desire for absolute calm and the protesters' desire to be within the vicinity of the convention so that delegates can hear the protesters' concerns.

In 1992, when the Democrats held their national convention at the Garden, police set up an area on Eighth Avenue, on the sidewalk outside the nearby general post office building. When the crowds swelled, police expanded the protest area into the street, yet managed to keep one lane of traffic open.

But there were never more than about 5,000 protesters, a fraction of what is expected this summer, according to former police officials who were involved in security for the 1992 convention.

"If you have to deal with more than that, and people are violent, at that location, you will have a problem," said a former police official involved in the 1992 event.

In 1992, authorities also permitted a small group of protesters to set up on Seventh Avenue, so they could be seen by delegates entering the arena, former police officials said. This time the post office will be the main base for thousands of news media personnel, so the police suggested it is unlikely they will allow thousands of protesters to congregate right outside the building.

"Our concern is that the New York Police Department and the Secret Service will try to push demonstrators away from the convention site," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "We will mount an aggressive campaign to make sure this doesn't happen. It's critical that New York City be as welcoming to the protesters as it is to those who come to participate in the convention."

The easiest way to keep the peace, some officials said, is to seal off large areas of Manhattan from protesters. City officials have said that they want to accommodate peaceful protesters but are not sure how or where. Coming almost three years after the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, there is also the fear that terrorists will try to strike during the event.

The federal government has designated the Republican convention, and the Democratic National Convention that will be held earlier in the summer in Boston, as national special security events. That puts the Secret Service in charge of coordinating security between agencies, gives the F.B.I. responsibility for collecting intelligence and providing crisis management, and gives the Federal Emergency Management Administration the job of dealing with the effects of any possible crisis.

But the New York Police Department, with its 37,000 officers, while working in conjunction with the federal agencies, will ultimately be responsible for controlling the streets.

As soon as it was clear the convention was coming to New York, police officials visited Los Angeles, which hosted the Democrats, and Philadelphia, which hosted the Republicans, in 2000. Philadelphia police had taken a very aggressive, what some have called pre-emptive, approach, and in some cases arrested people before they ever protested. In virtually all the cases, prosecutions were either dropped or the defendant was acquitted, said Stefan Presser, legal director for the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania.

"From the way the criminal justice process played out, it was transparently clear the city was far less interested in securing convictions than in clearing the streets," Mr. Presser said.

Last February, the city saw perhaps a preview of what the convention scene could become. The group United for Peace and Justice had applied for a permit to conduct an antiwar march in Manhattan. The permit was denied, though one was granted for a rally. Hundreds of thousands of people tried to get into the designated area on First Avenue near the United Nations. While the police tried to funnel the crowd through designated access points, tensions rose and flare-ups broke out. For a city known for its control of crowds during presidential visits, sporting events, parades and celebrations, it was a public relations setback. Mr. Kelly said his department will be prepared to make sure that does not happen again, though he did not say exactly how.

http//www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df11122003.html

http//www.downtownexpress.com/de_28/epareleases.html

The lead results were released at an Oct. 28 Congressional hearing on the health effects of the W.T.C. disaster held at Mount Sinai medical center and attended by U.S. Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler. The results surprised Jo Polett, a resident of 105 Duane St. in Tribeca, who requested the wipe test results for her entire building after learning from the E.P.A. that her own apartment contained lead levels of five times the agency’s health-based benchmark.

Of the 21 pre-cleaning samples taken in Polett’s building as part of the E.P.A.’s residential clean-and-test program, six, or 28.5 percent, were found to have elevated levels of lead.

"I don’t understand the discrepancy, especially given the fact that 105 Duane is a new building with no internal source of lead," Polett said.

After 214 apartments in the program were scrubbed, three percent showed elevated levels of lead, down from 13.5 percent before cleaning. The E.P.A. said 0.4 percent of 214 wipe test samples released had elevated levels of dioxin before those apartments were cleaned.

Bonnie Bellow, an E.P.A. spokesperson, cautioned on Monday that the W.T.C. dust plume did not fall uniformly around Lower Manhattan. Other factors that might influence wipe test results include whether residents had their windows open on 9/11, and whether buildings are older and might contain lead paint, Bellow said.

"It is really extremely difficult to extrapolate," from the limited wipe test data to all of Lower Manhattan, "because there are many variables," Bellow said.

The E.P.A. rejected repeated calls by Downtowners to do wipe tests on a larger sample of apartments.

Like many residents, Polett said she was dissatisfied with the agreement brokered last week by Clinton. Under the plan, the E.P.A. will organize and head a panel with representatives from the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, among other agencies.

After securing a commitment from government officials to further address World Trade Center-related health concerns, Clinton on Oct. 27 withdrew her hold on President Bush’s choice to lead the E.P.A., and Gov. Michael Leavitt of Utah was confirmed to the position on Tuesday with her support. New York’s other senator, Chuck Schumer, was one of eight to vote against Leavitt. Schumer’s spokesperson did not return calls to explain why.

Residents expressed frustration last week with the terms and the vagueness of Clinton’s plan.

"We once again have the foxes minding the chicken coop," said Jenna Orkin, a member of 9/11 Environmental Action.

Orkin said that the E.P.A. should not be left in charge of the panel, since the agency’s independent inspector general reported in August that the E.P.A. misled the public about the air quality in Lower Manhattan the week after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. In addition, the report revealed that the White House influenced the E.P.A. to downplay potential health concerns after the disaster.

The E.P.A.-led panel will be charged with the following within three to six months of the Oct. 27 agreement

Sampling to determine whether any of the apartments scoured under the E.P.A.’s residential cleanup have been re-contaminated.

Reviewing the E.P.A.’s decision to use asbestos as a surrogate in determining the risk for other contaminants in all but 263 apartments that received more in-depth testing.

Within 18 to 24 months, the panel will pursue the following

Identifying areas where the city’s World Trade Center Health registry could be enhanced to allow better tracking of the mental and physical health risks of workers and residents.

Reviewing and synthesizing the ongoing work by federal, state, and local governments and private organizations to determine the characteristics of the World Trade Center dust cloud and where it was dispersed.

Reviewing the geographical boundaries of the E.P.A.’s residential cleanup, in Manhattan only south of Canal St., and evaluating the need for additional action to be undertaken by the E.P.A. and other public agencies.

A spokesperson for Clinton’s office said last week that she did not yet have details on how many apartments might be retested, or when. A spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality confirmed that the panel will work out the specifics of the agreement.

In a written statement, Clinton stressed that she would have liked to see the White House agree to all provisions recommended in the E.P.A. inspector general report. These include cleaning workplaces as well as residences and scientifically determining the extent of the contamination around ground zero instead of setting the seemingly arbitrary boundary of Canal St. But Clinton said that the agreement represents a beginning.

U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler praised Clinton for her efforts but called the agreement "a very minor step forward."

"This is no great concession from the White House," he said in a telephone interview.

Nadler said that the plan might nonetheless prove useful as a starting point for a reexamination of the safety of New York City after the trade center collapse.

Elizabeth@DowntownExpress.com

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney has introduced a bill to repeal the tax on 9/11 aid for Downtown small businesses.

Many small business owners were surprised when they learned last year that they would have to pay taxes on their 9/11 grants, Maloney (D-NY) said at a recent City Hall news conference. Meyer Feig, president of the World Trade Center Tenants Association, said that many of his members came to him distraught after they heard the news, saying they had already spent the full amount of their grants trying to rebuild their businesses.

"It’s awful to give 9/11 aid with one hand and take it back with another," Maloney said.

Federal disaster relief is usually not taxed, Maloney said, but the money given to Downtown small business owners originally came from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, not the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Based on this technicality, the I.R.S. is requiring small business owners to declare their grants as income, she added.

If the tax is not repealed, an estimated $268 million in 9/11 grants would return to the federal government, according to Maloney.

OKOMO, Ind., Nov. 6 — The worst has been removed from this industrial city's largest hazardous waste site. Barrels of chemicals have been carted away. Contaminated front yards have been stripped and covered with fresh sod. The rusty buildings where rats and homeless men took shelter have been demolished and removed.

Three years ago, a chain-link fence with barbed wire was put around the site, the former home of Continental Steel, a Kokomo manufacturer that went bankrupt in 1986. Since then, the city has been waiting for the federal government to finish the cleanup. But the money for the Superfund program, which restores the nation's worst abandoned toxic waste sites, has not kept pace.

Kokomo officials have been told for two years that the full cleanup is not being paid for and they fear that the delay will continue indefinitely. A three-inch-thick redevelopment plan sits on the shelves of the downtown library. And the city, which is trying to revitalize itself by building brick gazebos and renovating condominiums downtown, has a toxic site centrally located along one of its busiest roads.

Kokomo's Continental Steel site is only one in a big backlog of hazardous waste sites that has emerged over the last several years as Superfund dollars have been stretched thin.

Seven sites could not start final cleanup in 2002. Last year, that number rose to 10. The backlog for final cleanups is likely to grow as cleanups already in place consume a greater share of the available money, say officials at the Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund appropriations have hovered around $1.2 billion a year over the last two years, down from $1.6 billion in 1999.

While the immediate and visible hazards are gone, Kokomo residents say they still worry.

The final cleanup plan includes a full dredging of the creek beds, since the sediments of the nearby creeks are still contaminated with PCB's. An advisory says the fish in the creek are not fit to be eaten, but most of the warning signs are long gone — blown away by storms or vandalized. Many young people, who have only vague memories of the strong smells and toxic dust cast by the steel mill, fish in the creek regularly. The rock quarry is still contaminated, and the acid lagoons, once dry, fill up regularly with rainwater.

Neighbors complain about a rusty, moldy smell that they say comes from the site in the summer. Four-story black slag heaps sit between the creek and a main road.

"I feel abandoned," said Carolyn Kauble, who lives in a modest house one block away from the site. Her husband, Phillip, died this year of cancer, having lived 60 years in the neighborhood.

Before his death, Mr. Kauble, who had worked at Continental Steel, helped galvanize local and federal governments to begin cleaning up the site.

"It's been 14 years, and we haven't given up," Ms. Kauble said. "It's not completed. It's not done. It's not safe." She still keeps blue crates, stacked four and five high, with reams of her husband's documents on the Continental Steel site.

Kokomo's cleanup is delayed because federal officials do not consider pollution here severe enough to deserve high priority.

"They feel like they've taken care of the imminent threat," said Jolene Rule, a local environmental leader.

E.P.A. officials say that the lower numbers of cleanups reflect the complexity of Superfund operations. Cleanups have become more difficult, time consuming and expensive, leaving less money for the remaining cleanups to enter the final stage. Eight large sites are taking up 40 percent of the budget devoted to final cleanup.

"We just have fewer dollars to start new projects," said Marianne Horinko, an associate administrator of the E.P.A. who oversees toxic cleanup.

But money for cleanups may be tighter now that the industry-supported portion of Superfund, a trust created to clean up "orphaned" toxic sites, will essentially be depleted this year after hitting a high of almost $4.6 billion in 1996, according to recent projections by the General Accounting Office.

Now cleanup funds must come from general Congressional appropriations, competing with other domestic needs.

Environmental groups and Democratic senators have called for the reinstatement of the original corporate taxes that filled the Superfund coffers, which expired in 1995. But the Bush administration and industry have resisted, saying the taxes burden companies that do not pollute.

To clear the backlog, the administration has asked Congress for $150 million in additional funds — enough to jump-start 10 to 15 new cleanups. However, the Senate and the House have each appropriated only $30 million to $40 million of that request.

In the four generations that the hulking Continental Steel buildings stood out against Kokomo's skyline, people coped with the red soot that snowed down regularly on their houses and cars.

At one point Continental Steel, founded in 1914, employed 2,700 people in a city that currently has 46,000 residents.

But then the company went bankrupt. Instead of economic vitality, Continental Steel now symbolizes eyesores and headaches for city planners and neighbors alike. Neighbors requested that the environmental cleanup leave up one wall on the weed-covered lot, to shield the residents from the view and any blowing debris.

The state officials said they would move quickly to fill some of the void left by the Environmental Protection Agency, which decided this week to drop the investigations at the old coal-fired plants, a major source of the air pollution that drifts over the Northeast.

But they said that the states have far fewer resources than the federal government does to battle one of the nation's most powerful industries and that they would have to focus their actions against fewer utilities.

Still, the states, working with national environmental organizations, will have leverage in whatever suits they do bring. Under provisions of the Clean Air Act, any individual can sue over pollution violations and seek huge fines that could force some of the utilities back to the bargaining table and reduce pollutants.

And the fight, which could be joined by other states and pit the Northeast against utilities in the Midwest and the South, could introduce a volatile new type of regional warfare into next year's presidential election.

"There's no question some of these cases are so egregious that court action is inevitable," said Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat. Mr. Blumenthal said he had identified at least 10 power plants in the Midwest, South and other regions that have been the subject of E.P.A. investigations and would make likely targets.

Industry officials said new lawsuits would be counterproductive and delay air quality improvements.

Before the agency decided to start dropping investigations, it had already referred at least 13 more enforcement cases to the Justice Department, which can bring lawsuits against pollution violators, said Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general. Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, said he was waiting for the E.P.A. to provide him information, which has not been made public, on those referrals.

"Assuming these plants affect New York," Mr. Spitzer said, "then we will bring these cases" if the Justice Department does not. He said New York might also file suits against other plants that were at earlier stages of investigation by the E.P.A.

The agency's policy change, he said, "reflects a total schism" in the partnership between Northeast states and federal environmental officials to enforce clean-air laws. In the past, when states threatened their own legal actions, the agency toughened its enforcement approach or sought compromises among the competing interests.

The states and a number of major environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club, have used the citizens'-suit provision hundreds of times over the years to force settlements with polluters, though environmental advocates and state officials typically prefer the E.P.A. to take charge.

The agency disclosed the change in its enforcement policy to its enforcement lawyers last Tuesday. Some of the lawyers said they had been told that even investigations over violations that occurred years ago could now be pursued only if the plants were in violation of newly revised and more lenient rules that take effect next month.

Until now, the rules, known as New Source Review regulations, had generally required older coal-fired power plants and oil refineries to add new pollution controls if they were modernized in ways that increased harmful emissions.

But the revised enforcement standards, which grew out of industry complaints to Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force two years ago, create substantial exemptions for industry and would halt investigations that were nearing completion at more than 50 power plants owned by 10 different utilities, E.P.A. enforcement attorneys say. Officials at the agency confirmed the policy shift, but said some new lawsuits were still possible.

The Bush administration and representatives of the utility industry have strenuously defended the new rules, saying that the old standard was confusing, costly and inefficient and that it stifled power-plant expansions. The new standard, coupled with other changes, will reduce pollution, they say.

Having won a big victory at the E.P.A., the industry is taking the threat from the states seriously, singling out Mr. Spitzer.

"His apparent purpose is to perpetuate costly and counterproductive litigation instead of allowing real solutions to take hold," Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a statement. The new rules, Mr. Segal said, will "produce tangible benefit for emissions control, workplace safety and electric reliability."

Mr. Segal's group shows the political and financial clout of companies that lobbied for looser rules. One member, Southern Co., and its employees donated $3.4 million to the national political parties and federal candidates during the 2000 and 2002 elections, with 70 percent going to Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The council's lobbyists included Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman who just won election as governor of Mississippi.

Now that the E.P.A. has changed the rules, Mr. Segal said, the government "should not pursue new enforcement actions for projects that the law now recognizes as lawful."

But while Bush administration officials had long advocated softening the rules for future plant upgrades, critics say they had generally indicated they would continue to enforce violations of the old rules.

"This issue is a slam-dunk, politically, in the Northeast," said Mr. Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general. "I'm surprised the Bush administration has been so heavy-handed. They are really creating a political liability."

Given the tight budgets at the state level, however, the industry as a whole may not face as much risk as it would if the E.P.A. were involved.

"We have to focus on the worst of the worst — we can't take a scattershot approach," said Attorney General Peter C. Harvey of New Jersey, an appointee of Gov. James E. McGreevey, a Democrat. Mr. Harvey said he was "highly likely" to file suits.

The notion that utilities could be sued for violating the old rules — even as the E.P.A. was creating new exemptions — was strengthened in August when a federal district judge concluded that Ohio Edison had violated clean-air laws by failing to upgrade pollution controls at coal-fired power plants. The utility, a unit of FirstEnergy, mischaracterized renovation projects that led to higher emissions as "routine maintenance," the judge found.

But utility executives rejoiced in August after a federal judge in North Carolina, ruling on a motion in a case against Duke Energy, offered a broader definition of "routine maintenance" than the one E.P.A. lawyers sought. The definition is important, because utilities can be found in violation of the old rules if construction projects are found to exceed routine maintenance.

Some other suits filed during the Clinton administration have already led to sizable settlements. For example, Florida-based Teco Energy agreed in 2000 to spend $1 billion to improve emission controls.

That year, another big utility, Ohio-based Cinergy, agreed in principle to spend $1.4 billion to improve pollution controls at coal-burning plants. But E.P.A. officials say that deal stalled, and other utilities walked away from settlement talks, after the Bush administration first outlined its plans to loosen the rules. The agency says it will continue to pursue suits already filed, though critics say the agency's shift in policy will undermine those cases.

David G. Hawkins, director of air and energy programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said citizen's suits under the Clean Air Act had led to substantial fines and forced cleanups. But activists say it is impossible for the states and environmental groups to match the might of the federal government.

The official, Jack Spadaro, the superintendent of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy in Beckley, W.Va., has been an outspoken critic of a federal investigation into a huge spill of coal sludge in eastern Kentucky three years ago.

The accident, at the Martin County Coal Company, is considered one of the biggest environmental disasters in the Appalachian region.

Mr. Spadaro accused political appointees in the Mine Safety and Health Administration of cutting the investigation short, playing down the coal company's culpability and not holding federal regulators accountable for weak oversight. He was a member of the team investigating the spill before he resigned in protest in 2001.

Mr. Spadaro has also raised questions about no-bid contracts that he contends were awarded to friends and former business associates of David D. Lauriski, the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, and other senior mine safety officials. His complaints led to an investigation by the Department of Labor's inspector general.

The dispute has become a flashpoint between the Bush administration and critics of its mining policies, who contend the administration has tried to weaken environmental and safety regulations to help big coal companies that contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Mr. Spadaro's firing, the critics contend, is retribution for his outspokenness.

"I would have to say flat out that Jack would not be in the spot he's in if he had not been a whistle-blower," said Joseph Main, the administrator of health and safety for the United Mine Workers Union.

Rodney Brown, a spokesman for the mine safety and health administration, said on Friday that the agency would not comment on a personnel matter. But federal officials have in the past said that the Martin County investigation was tough and thorough, and denied any improprieties with the no-bid contracts.

In a 10-page complaint sent to Mr. Spadaro on Oct. 2, mine safety officials accused him of abusing his authority, failing to follow orders and proper procedures and misusing a government credit card by taking unauthorized cash advances that cost the government $22.60 in bank fees.

"I have considered your 26 years of service, recent satisfactory performance ratings, and the fact that you have had no prior disciplinary action taken against you in determining the level of discipline to propose," a senior mining official, Frank Schwamberger, wrote in the complaint. "However, these factors do not outweigh the seriousness of your actions."

The complaint says that Mr. Spadaro can be terminated at any time 30 days after its receipt.

Mr. Spadaro's lawyer, Jason E. Huber, argued in a response that the complaints, even if proved, were too trivial to justify firing.

Mr. Huber also said that several of the complaints against Mr. Spadaro involved labor-management disputes that had been resolved through grievance procedures. And he cited newspaper reports that dozens of other mine agency officials had used their government cards to make personal purchases without repaying the government. He said Mr. Spadaro had repaid his advances.

"It is readily apparent that Mr. Spadaro's proposed termination is not a result of meritorious complaints regarding how Mr. Spadaro dispatched his duties," Mr. Huber wrote, "but is rather the Department of Labor, Secretary Elaine L. Chao, Senator Mitch McConnell and the Bush administration's retaliation against Mr. Spadaro for whistle-blowing activities."

Ms. Chao as secretary of labor oversees the mine safety agency. Senator McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, is her husband. Mr. Spadaro has asserted that Mr. McConnell has tried to protect Martin County Coal and its parent, the Massey Energy Company, because they are major campaign contributors.

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell declined to comment.

The Martin County spill occurred on Oct. 11, 2000, when a portion of a huge lagoon of coal slurry — a thick black byproduct of the processing of coal from strip mines — broke through the earth into an abandoned underground mine.

More than 300 million gallons of the black wastewater spewed through the mine and into local streams, killing hundreds of thousands of fish, flooding homes, polluting wells and blackening waterways all along the Kentucky-West Virginia border.

The spill was twice as large as its biggest forerunner, in Buffalo Creek, W.Va., more than 30 years ago, which killed 125 people. The Martin County spill caused no casualties, mainly because it poured into two separate hollows, diminishing its impact.

The panel that investigated the spill found that the coal company and federal regulators had been aware of potential problems at the slurry impoundment for years, Mr. Spadaro and other panel members said.

For example, after a similar slurry spill at Martin County Coal in 1994, a federal mining engineer recommended nine measures to bolster the slurry lagoon. But federal regulators allowed the company to expand the impoundment, which at the time of the spill contained 2.2 billion gallons, without completing the safety measures, panel members said.

An engineer for the coal company also told investigators that the company was aware years ago that the natural barrier separating the impoundment from the abandoned mine was as thin as 15 feet, less than what was required by law.

Investigators said the company did not take action to strengthen the barrier.

Mr. Spadaro and some other panel members said they wanted to issue eight violations against Massey Energy, impose heavy fines and hold federal regulators accountable for inadequate oversight. But the final report recommended only two violations, carrying total fines of $110,000.

After resigning from the panel, Mr. Spadaro filed a complaint with the inspector general asserting that senior mine safety officials, including Mr. Lauriski, had interfered with the investigation and tried to punish him for refusing to sign the report.

The inspector general's report, released in January, concluded that while "some retaliatory events" against Mr. Spadaro "may have occurred," they were not related to his role in the investigation.

A federal grand jury in Kentucky is now looking into possible criminal charges relating to the spill. Massey Energy has declined to comment.

Mr. Spadaro was placed on administrative leave from his $108,000 a year job in June when the mine safety agency opened an investigation of his management of the academy.

In the tiny Martin County village of Inez, which was hardest hit by the spill, slurry still bubbles up in creek beds on rainy days. Some homeowners have received monetary settlements from Massey Energy to cover damages caused by the sludge. But many remain bitter, saying it was just by chance that the 2000 accident was not as deadly as Buffalo Creek.

"It's changed my view of the company," said Glenn Cornette, a 68-year-old retired miner whose home on Coldwater Creek was one of the first hit by the wave of sludge. "They just lied to me so much."

Nina McCoy, a biology teacher at the local high school, said many people in this low-income hamlet now bought bottled water because they believed that the slurry had poisoned their water supply. Slurry contains heavy metals, but state officials have said the area's water is fine.