9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters.
More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June.
The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan.
She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.'
'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process,' she wrote.
Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions.
'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote.
The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch.
As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000.
One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it.
'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.'
The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life.
'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.'
Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said.
'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.'
Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far.
The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial.
'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
21 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Obama applauds Newsom's California redistricting plan as ‘responsible' as Texas GOP pushes new maps
Former President Barack Obama has waded into states' efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom's response to alter his state's congressional maps, in the way of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans' position in next year's elections. 'I believe that Gov. Newsom's approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We're not going to try to completely maximize it,' Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. 'We're only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn't go into effect.' While noting that 'political gerrymandering' is not his 'preference,' Obama said that, if Democrats 'don't respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.' According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama's attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared. The former president's comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business. Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors including Newsom have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party's position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures. In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state's dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight to control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation's most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43. A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval. Newsom and Democratic leaders say they'll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline. 'And we're going to do it in a temporary basis because we're keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,' Obama said, referencing Newsom's take on the California plan. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at
CBC
22 minutes ago
- CBC
B.C. man gets life sentence for 2015 killing of rival drug dealer
Social Sharing A B.C. man has been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a rival drug dealer in northern B.C. more than a decade ago, with no chance of parole for 25 years. Darren Sundman, 43, was sentenced this week for the January 2015 killing of Jordan McLeod along a snowy forest service road near Prince George, and leaving his body to be discovered two months later, in March. Sundman was first found guilty of the killing of 2018 but the case faced several delays, including an appeal process that made its way to Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2022. Family members of McLeod described the impact the delays had on their lives in victim impact statements delivered in a court room as Sundman listened via video conference. "This tragedy did not just take Jordan from us, it destroyed our family," cousin Natalie Lawrence said Monday, Aug. 18. "My family has been irreparably fractured and none of us will ever be the same." "Mr. Sundman's moral culpability is very high," Justice Marguerite H. Church stated in delivering her sentence, stating that he "brutally murdered Jordan McLeod" while he was confined in a "prolonged and deliberate manner." Sundman will be allowed to apply to have his time without parole reduced after serving 15 years, Church said, but warned it would be a high bar to meet. Nor, she said, would he automatically be allowed to apply for parole after 25 years. Rival drug dealers with 'mutual animosity' According to a previous statement of facts published by the Supreme Court of Canada, Sundman — who was 32 or 33 at the time of the offence — and McLeod, who was 24, were both drug dealers "with a mutual animosity," operating in the Vanderhoof area, west of Prince George. On Jan. 16, 2015, Sundman, along with his brother Kurtis, trapped McLeod in a truck, which was also occupied by Sundman's girlfriend Staci Stevenson and another accomplice, Sebastien Martin. Both the Sundmans had handguns while Martin had a shotgun and McLeod was unarmed. While driving between Prince George and Vanderhoof, the court found, Sundman repeatedly hit McLeod in the head with his handgun while his brother egged him on and drove the truck fast enough that McLeod would not be able to escape. "The appellant [Sundman] was angry with Mr. McLeod for many reasons," the ruling reads. "He suspected that Mr. McLeod was having a relationship with Ms. Stevenson; Mr. McLeod was encroaching on the Sundman brothers' turf by supplying drugs to the Vanderhoof market; the Sundman brothers owed a drug debt to Mr. McLeod and he was pressuring them to repay the debt; and the appellant had seen messages on Mr. McLeod's phone that had upset him." As the truck traveled east of Prince George past Purden Lake, Kurtis Sundman slowed the truck to make a turn and McLeod jumped out, fleeing "through deep snow, across a shallow ditch and barbed wire fence, towards the bush," the 2022 ruling says. Sundman fired his gun at McLeod "at least four times" and hit him three times, before a fatal shot was fired by Martin. The three men then loaded McLeod's body into their truck and drove west of Prince George, where they hid the body in the foliage along Kaykay Forest Service Road, where it would be found later that year by police, with the assistance of Stevenson. In 2018, Kurtin Sundman was found guilty of manslaughter, while both Martin and Darren Sundman were found guilty of second-degree murder. Victim 'forcibly confined' while fleeing: Supreme Court Crown prosecutors initially charged Sundman with first-degree murder, which is typically reserved for cases where a killing is both planned and deliberate, or when it is committed at the same time as another serious offence, which the Crown argued in this case was the forcible confinement of McLeod. However, the initial 2018 ruling found that McLeod's killing was not planned in advance. Additionally, the judge found that because McLeod had managed to escape prior to being killed, he was no longer forcibly confined and the first-degree murder charge did not apply. The Crown appealed the case, arguing that because McLeod was on an isolated forest road with little option for escape when he was shot, he should still be considered confined at the time of the killing. The B.C. Court of Appeal agreed and convicted Sundman of first-degree murder, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. "Even though [McLeod] was not physically restrained outside the truck, he continued to be coercively restrained through violence, fear, and intimidation," Justice Mahmud Jamal wrote in that 2022 decision. Sundman's sentencing was further delayed because of another case currently making its way through the courts. While the minimum sentence for first-degree murder is 25 years in prison with no chance of parole, the constitutionality of the practice of treating all first-degree murderers the same is being challenged. Justice Church said the prolonged nature of the trial had further added to the anguish of McLeod's friends and family, with their pain still "as keenly felt today," as it was more than 10 years ago. Sundman apologizes to family but denies charge Sundman, appearing virtually from where he is being held in the Stony Mountain institution in Manitoba, represented himself during the sentencing, having gone through "at least" four lawyers over the course of the past decade. He accused the judge, prosecutors, past lawyers and others of being biased against him, claiming his conviction had relied on false testimony from his former girlfriend. While he did not deny his role in McLeod's confinement, he said the charge of first-degree murder should not hold because he was not the person who fired the fatal bullet. That, he said, was done by Martin, who is serving a lesser sentence, which McLeod felt was unfair. The decision to charge him with first-degree murder based on the argument that McLeod was confined while fleeing, he said, were a "hail Mary," which proved the legal system had gone to "extreme lengths to single me out," and he demanded either a reduced sentence or a retrial. To that, Justice Church said it was clear McLeod "continues to struggle to understand or accept the findings" of both the provincial and federal courts which had upheld his convictions and that his "outrageous" comments showcased a misunderstanding of the legal system. McLeod entered statements from his mother and son into the record, which were not read allowed, but which he said showed that there were also victims as the result of his imprisonment. He did not, however, deny that he deserved some punishment for what he had done to McLeod. "I hate myself," he said, apologizing to the family.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
US-led coalition captures a senior Islamic State member in Syria
BEIRUT (AP) — A U.S.-led coalition captured a senior member of the Islamic State group in northwest Syria on Wednesday, state media and a war monitor reported. It was not immediately clear if the man is the IS supreme leader. Abu Hafs al-Qurayshi, an Iraqi citizen and IS commander, was detained during a pre-dawn operation that included landing troops from helicopters in the town of Atmeh, near the Turkish border. Another Iraqi citizen was killed, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
