Deposed NYC official admits he was ordered by lawyer to deny access to 9/11 toxin docs 33%

By Thomas Tracy42%

7/13/2026, 4:51:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 319 hits. Analysis detected 1,540 faulty-reasoning hits from 814 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.5% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,724 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

A New York City Freedom of Information Law official deposed over long-sought documents about the toxins swirling over Ground Zero admitted a city attorney told him to deny an appeal for the pivotal information from 9/11 survivors  a bombshell revelation that sparked a heated argument between attorneys and shut the deposition down early, the Daily News has learned. 
During the July 1 Manhattan Civil Supreme Court-ordered inquiry, Russell Pecunies, a records appeal officer for the city Department of Environmental Protection, testified he denied a FOIL appeal for the documents from 9/11 Health Watch on “advice of counsel.” 
He said he had not personally inquired if an appropriate search for the records had been made, a court transcript acquired by The News shows. 
“Did you interview any of the people who did the search to find out whether in your estimation or conclusion that their search was diligent, thorough and adequate?” 
Andrew Carboy, an attorney for 9/11 Health Watch, asked Pecunies. 
“No,” Pecunies admitted. 
“So basically what you’re telling me is a lawyer told you something, you adopted what the lawyer told you and that’s what ended up in your appeal?” 
Carboy asked over objections from Pecunies’ attorneys that the question violated attorney-client privilege. 
Pecunies later admitted that Musa Ali, one of the attorneys representing him at the deposition, was also the city attorney who told him to deny the appeal. 
“Is this the only FOIA appeal in your tenure as FOIA appeals officer where you’ve had your conclusion or the conclusion essentially dictated to you by another person?” 
Carboy asked. 
“Has there been another case where this has happened?” 
Pecunies answered. 
“Not to my recollection.” 
“So this is the one and only case in 18 years, during your tenure as the FOIA appeals officer?” 
Carboy pressed. 
“As far as I can remember, yes,” Pecunies said. 
The development sparked a heated back and forth between Carboy and Pecunies’ attorneys, who in court papers have accused the 9/11 Health Watch attorney of interrupting them, raising his voice and banging on the table. 
“This is not the end of this,” Carboy said at one point, according to the transcript. 
“This is outrageous. 
What do you think? 
We’re a bunch of morons? 
This is ridiculous.” 
“Counselor is screaming, pointing at attorneys and banging on the table,” Alfieri said. 
“This is well beyond professional behavior. 
You did not…” 
“This isn’t professional behavior,” Carboy said. 
“You’re violating a court order and you lied to us. 
You said there were no records.” 
Alfieri and Ali ended the deposition early, taking Pecunies with them. 
They then petitioned Judge James Clynes, requesting court supervision “to ensure that any remaining depositions proceed in a professional and orderly manner free from unnecessary disruption or abusive conduct.” 
Responding to the city’s request, Carboy supported judicial oversight at any further depositions to rule on attorney-client privilege objections. 
Carboy also asked to depose Ali as to why he told Pecunies to deny the appeal. 
“(Pecuines) did not actually determine the FOIL appeal denial,” Carboy wrote in court papers. 
“He certified that the appeal denial was ghostwritten by (Ali), who is neither a FOIL researcher or a FOIL appeals officer.” 
Clynes has not ruled on the city and Carboy’s requests. 
Attorneys for 9/11 Health Watch sued the DEP for the documents after three years of requests for air quality tests and toxin data at Ground Zero  which the agency said they couldn’t find after a thorough search  were denied. 
Clynes ordered that DEP FOIL officers be deposed  a rarity in these lawsuits  after the DEP suddenly admitted in November that they had found 68 boxes worth of materials, some of which were found as the agency replaced their carpets. 
The stunning discovery came after the city’s Department of Investigation was mandated by the City Council to determine what the city knew about the Ground Zero toxins and when. 
Both City Hall and the city’s Law Department declined to comment on Pecuines’ deposition. 
Carboy said Pecuines’ answers “shattered my worst expectations about the city’s efforts to hide its Sept. 11th archive.” 
“The city misused this career staffer as a cut out, stripping him of any independence and directing him to sign a scripted ‘decision,'” he said. 
“This is the most shocking testimony I have taken in my three decades of practice.” 
Benjamin Chevat, the executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, found it baffling that his organization is still being given the run around on their document request when Mayor Mamdani has vowed to release them to the public. 
“We just want to understand why on the one hand the city says it is going to disclose what it knows about 9/11 and on the other hand is trying to dismiss our case trying to get the documents,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Thomas Tracy: 2.7%East Bay Times: 2.9%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%East Bay Times: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Thomas Tracy: 3.8%East Bay Times: 2.6%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 2.6%Thomas Tracy: 1.2%East Bay Times: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.6%East Bay Times: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Thomas Tracy: 0.5%East Bay Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias1.8%This article: 10.6%Thomas Tracy: 6.6%East Bay Times: 3.5%Framing Effect10.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%East Bay Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.6%East Bay Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.6%East Bay Times: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%East Bay Times: 1.3%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 39.2%Thomas Tracy: 11.0%East Bay Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias39.2%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.7%East Bay Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Thomas Tracy: 1.5%East Bay Times: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%East Bay Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.9%East Bay Times: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%East Bay Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 4.0%East Bay Times: 7.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.7%East Bay Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Thomas Tracy: 1.2%East Bay Times: 0.8%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%East Bay Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Thomas Tracy: 1.0%East Bay Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Thomas Tracy: 3.0%East Bay Times: 2.5%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 13.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%East Bay Times: 1.1%False Dilemma13.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 3.0%East Bay Times: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%East Bay Times: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%East Bay Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Thomas Tracy: 7.7%East Bay Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 2.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%East Bay Times: 0.5%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 5.3%Thomas Tracy: 2.2%East Bay Times: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.7%Thomas Tracy: 0.5%East Bay Times: 0.6%Burden of Proof8.7%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Thomas Tracy: 2.5%East Bay Times: 2.3%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 2.3%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.3%This article: 3.3%Thomas Tracy: 1.5%East Bay Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%East Bay Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%East Bay Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Thomas Tracy: 2.5%East Bay Times: 1.0%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.1%East Bay Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.1%Thomas Tracy: 4.8%East Bay Times: 8.1%Biased Writer Voice13.1%This article: 3.6%Thomas Tracy: 1.0%East Bay Times: 2.8%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%East Bay Times: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.2%East Bay Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.2%East Bay Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

814 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers63%attributed speech301writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 39 words • 100.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 2 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Pecunies • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 3 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAlfieri • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAlfieri • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAlfieri • 3 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Carboy • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Chevat • 37 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Chevat • 41 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Benjamin Chevat

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words15% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.6 ptsWriter: 34.6%Benjamin Chevat: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Benjamin Chevat: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Benjamin Chevat: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.