NYC Response to Twoofer 911 Investigation Petition: Call out the laughing dogs - Page 13

Orphia Nay · 8th September 2009, 06:45 PM

I received an email update from NYCCAN'T this morning, and Jon Gold has posted it to 9/11 Blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21174

Not much new in it, though.

Quote:

The court-appointed referee will begin a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures on Wednesday, September 9, and is scheduled to complete the review by Friday, September 18. If the referee and court accept at least 3,996 of the disputed signatures as valid – meeting the requisite number of 30,000 signatures – and if 15,000 of the 28,000 signatures from the September 4 submission are deemed valid, the only remaining hurdle to getting the referendum on the ballot will be the ongoing court case over the legality of the petition.

I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor.

This should be interesting...

Quote:

Once the schedule for the court case is set, NYC CAN will announce one or more rallies and events in the second half of September to demonstrate the tremendous public support that exists for a new, impartial investigation. NYC CAN calls upon all those who can be in lower Manhattan to join in solidarity with the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and 80,000 New Yorkers to say loud and clear: no longer will we tolerate a government that ignores the will of its people. For the 3,000 who died on that day, the hundreds who have died since, and those still suffering today, 9/11 must be properly investigated.

Now's the chance for twoofers to stand up and take action instead of hiding behind computer screens. How many will be up to the challenge?

deep · 8th September 2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by orphia nay

I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor.

You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective.

Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play?

There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper.

SpitfireIX · 8th September 2009, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by deep44

You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective.

Actually, I think the appointment of commissioners is the worst problem of all. Most (or all) of the named commissioners are ineligible because they don't live in NY. Further, the procedures for appointing commissioners apparently violate state laws.

Originally Posted by deep44

Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play?

LashL can undoubtedly explain this better than I, but I think the city attorney's point was that if you sever everything that's illegal or unconstitutional from the referendum, what's left is essentially useless. For example, if you can't appoint any commissioners how can you have a commission?

Originally Posted by deep44

There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with you; I don't fully understand it either, even after some research. I believe that LashL may have mentioned something about this part's being incorporated by reference to some other law.

Macgyver1968 · 8th September 2009, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by deep44

You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective.

Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play?

There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper.

I'm right there with you. I can understand the jurisdiction and funding problems..but that last bit is beyond my legal knowledge.

I know!

We can summon the Goddess of Legaltainment^TM!

(Macgyver dances around a fire...wearing nothing but a loincloth, body paint, and some jewelry made of bones of something)

We hail the force of knowledge from the land of hockey and ****** cold winters. Bring us your fair knowledge. (pours really good Belgium beer on fire as a sacrifice) LashL ....LashL....LashL!

Foolmewunz · 8th September 2009, 09:11 PM

Lash couldn't make it, but JimBen loaned me the stiletto heeled black patent leather boots. Will I do?

Essentially, it's their charter, and they can set their own rules for amending as long as they don't break any laws in those rules. Apparently, from the way I read the comment by Corporate Council, there's a provision in the charter that amendments to the charter must specifically relate to provisions in same.

This prevents the City Charter from becoming a catchall document for any piece of legislation; it makes the charter stay on course as a "charter" and not a receptacle for all the Laws of the City of New York.

In fact, I'd say it's probably designed for just this sort of situation. Getting a law passed in New York, through the City Council, is likely well beyond the capability of hot-button-issue groups, because they'd have to sway individual council-persons and whole political blocs and parties. But they can, if properly organized, get a petition going to put bikini pants on squirrels or whatever.

Macgyver1968 · 8th September 2009, 09:18 PM

Thanks Foolmewunz...while you are totally NOT rocking those boots like LashL would... I actually understood that. Thanks for the reply.

So as another eloquent poster put it..."Its a steaming pile of fail with a side a fail..a fail salad with fail dressing, and for dessert..two scoops of fail with fail sprinkles on top."

triforcharity · 8th September 2009, 10:19 PM

And a liter-of-fail-cola to wash it all down!!

ref · 9th September 2009, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by orphia nay

I received an email update from NYCCAN'T this morning, and Jon Gold has posted it to 9/11 Blogger:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21174

Not much new in it, though.

I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor.

This should be interesting...

Now's the chance for twoofers to stand up and take action instead of hiding behind computer screens. How many will be up to the challenge?

Isn't it great to see the "tremendous support" in the form of a total of 1 blogger comment, while the later posted AE911Truth live stream announcement already has 7 blogger comments.

jhunter1163 · 9th September 2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

If the referee and court accept at least 3,996 of the disputed signatures as valid – meeting the requisite number of 30,000 signatures – and if 15,000 of the 28,000 signatures from the September 4 submission are deemed valid, ...

They were way under 55% valid on their first try at obtaining signatures.

Both of these are very large ifs, and beyond them waits the Mountain of Legal Fail.

Brainster · 10th September 2009, 03:15 PM

Manny Badillo claims that NYC has caved:

The NY City Clerk reported that the city will accept the original petition signatures submitted on June 24 and will no longer dispute their validity.

CAN “went to the board of elections to see the referee (judge) and the city called us and said it conceded” Badillo said on Thursday.

Same claim being made on NYC-CAN site:

Quote:

In a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November.

However, they are more cautious and note the remaining hurdle:

Quote:

NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City’s motion for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an opportunity to reply before the referee’s decision is made on Monday September 28. Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins. A final decision will have to be made by September 30.

jhunter1163 · 10th September 2009, 04:00 PM

Nothing about any of this on SCROLL. Hmmmm...

Thunder · 10th September 2009, 04:46 PM

so basically, now NYCCAN has to provide their legal opinion as to why their petition does not violate the clear stipulations as to what a referendum can and can not do, in regards to the City Council, and in regards to the inappropriateness of the NYC Council investigating 9-11?

jhunter1163 · 10th September 2009, 04:51 PM

Actually, I was kinda hoping this would happen. I wanted to see the legal fail. Looks like I'll get the chance. I'm off to fix up some Jiffy Pop.

triforcharity · 10th September 2009, 04:55 PM

Sure, why name let them make themselves look like complete and total asses in front of everyone in NYC. Kinda show the people what these idiots are doing.

Plus, the comic value is priceless!!

Thunder · 10th September 2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Actually, I was kinda hoping this would happen. I wanted to see the legal fail. Looks like I'll get the chance. I'm off to fix up some Jiffy Pop.

agreed. this should be really entertaining.

the lawyers for NYC are gonna tell us all, in great detail, how stupid the 9-11 truth theories are, how how stupid they are to try to get the New York City Council to investigate 9-11.

I'm gonna print out the proceedings and frame it.

LashL · 10th September 2009, 05:21 PM

This is great because it means we will get to the fun part - which is the Legaltainment™ value of watching the "truth"ers try to deal with the multiple jurisdictional, constitutional, and other problems that their petition has.

Hopefully, NYCCANT won't be shy about posting their documents to share with their loyal followers in the ever-dwindling "truth" movement, although somehow I doubt that they will. Since this matter is only at a local city court, and since it appears that SCROLL doesn't post them, perhaps NYCCANT hopes to spare themselves the embarrassment of putting their documents online.

If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint)

dudalb · 10th September 2009, 05:26 PM

This is going to be like a episode of "Law And Order" written and performed by Monty Python.
I am waiting for Bill Smith to show up and claim a great victory for Twoof in 3...2...1....

jhunter1163 · 10th September 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint)

Oh, they will, they will.

BigAl · 10th September 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

This is great because it means we will get to the fun part - which is the Legaltainment™ value of watching the "truth"ers try to deal with the multiple jurisdictional, constitutional, and other problems that their petition has.

Hopefully, NYCCANT won't be shy about posting their documents to share with their loyal followers in the ever-dwindling "truth" movement, although somehow I doubt that they will. Since this matter is only at a local city court, and since it appears that SCROLL doesn't post them, perhaps NYCCANT hopes to spare themselves the embarrassment of putting their documents online.

If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint)

I'm not sure I'd know what to ask for.

Copies are 25 cents/page. Bring quarters.

Sam.I.Am · 10th September 2009, 05:38 PM

I can see it now: Tonight, in a special episode of Law & Order, the people are represented by two groups. The police, who keep sane people away from the offenders, and the lawyers, who rip them to shreds. This is their story.

LashL · 10th September 2009, 05:39 PM

September 6, 2009. jhunter1163 does his impersonation of New York City's counsel, suggesting that city council will accept that the petition got 30,000 signatures:

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

C'mon, Your Honor. We'll stipulate that they got 30,000 signatures. I wanna hear this argument. Puh-leeeeeeeeeeze?

September 10, 2009. It is reported that New York City's counsel has advised the referee that city council accepts that the petition got 30,000 signatures.

So, the burning question is "jhunter1163: Psychic? NYC counsel himself? Lucky guess? Disinfo shill? or Coincidence?"

You decide!

bje · 10th September 2009, 05:43 PM

The only news report on Google News at this point in time reporting this is a Reuters printing of NYCCAN's PR Newswire release.

It differs from the NYCCAN website report which left out the following:

Quote:

Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot should the petitioners prevail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090910

jhunter1163 · 10th September 2009, 05:43 PM

I'll take my million in twenties, thanks. And two rolls of quarters.

LashL · 10th September 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

I'm not sure I'd know what to ask for.

If it operates like most courts, one can ask to see everything that is in the file (identified by the file number, in this case SCROLL #110779-2009, alternatively Index #09110779) and then choose which documents one wants copied.

jhunter1163 · 10th September 2009, 05:49 PM

She.... misspelled my username...

*weeps softly in the corner*

LashL · 10th September 2009, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

She.... misspelled my username...

*weeps softly in the corner*

Please don't cry. I only messed up the numeric part, and only one digit at that. I got the important part right!

I'm sorry!

SpitfireIX · 10th September 2009, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by bje

The only news report on Google News at this point in time reporting this is a Reuters printing of NYCCAN's PR Newswire release.

It differs from the NYCCAN website report which left out the following:

Quote:

Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot should the petitioners prevail.

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090910

Translation: "We hope to persuade the court with an appeal to emotion, because we can't argue on the law or the facts."

Cl1mh4224rd · 10th September 2009, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

The NY City Clerk reported that the city will accept the original petition signatures submitted on June 24 and will no longer dispute their validity.

I suspect that's only because it's a relatively minor issue with the petition and NYCCAN are wasting a lot of time on it.

Lisanne! · 11th September 2009, 09:33 AM

I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done.

So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures.

BigAl · 11th September 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Lisanne!

I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done.

So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures.

I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue.

What is the address of the court where one could find the files?

SpitfireIX · 11th September 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Lisanne!

I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done.

So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures.

Welcome to the forum, Lisanne! If I may ask, how did you come to be interested in September 11 conspiracy theories?

DGM · 11th September 2009, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue.

What is the address of the court where one could find the files?

I don't think the city council cares about the signatures. At this point it makes sense to let the court shoot these fools and move on to more important things (move it down the line to fail).

Lisanne! · 11th September 2009, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Welcome to the forum, Lisanne! If I may ask, how did you come to be interested in September 11 conspiracy theories?

Hi SpitfireIX

We have been having a discussion about the Ballot initiative petition on a political discussion board on Flickr and I needed to hear a perspective from a more logical group of people. On that board those who find the truthers arguments to be based upon an automatic assumption that we are never told the truth are too polite to challenge their assertions. Even my own attempts to explain the legal impossibility of this initiative being implemented is met the usual cry of "blind sheep".

BigAl · 11th September 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lisanne!

Hi SpitfireIX

We have been having a discussion about the Ballot initiative petition on a political discussion board on Flickr and I needed to hear a perspective from a more logical group of people. On that board those who find the truthers arguments to be based upon an automatic assumption that we are never told the truth are too polite to challenge their assertions. Even my own attempts to explain the legal impossibility of this initiative being implemented is met the usual cry of "blind sheep".

Welcome.

You might want to post the letter the NYC City council sent in response to the delivery of the signatures. The links are in the original post for this thread. Look for official documents to be posted here as they come out. NYCCAN sure isn't going to publish any of them.

Lots of luck.

Lisanne! · 11th September 2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue.

What is the address of the court where one could find the files?

Big Al, I'm sure they did let this through. There's no question that the petition is fatally flawed. No emotional argument can cancel that out. If it was on the ballot and passed a new challenge could be made afterward. I don't think that the courts would like to see that occur.

Lisanne! · 11th September 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

Welcome.

You might want to post the letter the NYC City council sent in response to the delivery of the signatures. The links are in the original post for this thread. Look for official documents to be posted here as they come out. NYCCAN sure isn't going to publish any of them.

Lots of luck.

I did that weeks ago. It did cause some of them to start asking the right questions. This latest "victory" however, has caused them to restart their "proofs" offerings again. Having told them that the petition issue isn't important I shall wait a little before I remind them that they're not out of the woods. In fact, I suspect this will run its course as far as possible appeal wise before the deadline on the 30th.

The funniest thing I am reading right now is concern about all the "lost evidence" Apparently the tons of rubble was supposed to be stored for future investigation.

LashL · 13th September 2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

What is the address of the court where one could find the files?

60 Centre Street

Probably in the County Clerk's Records Room, which is Room 103B in the basement. Its hours of operations are 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

jhunter1163 · 13th September 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

60 Centre Street

Or Center Street, for those of us who don't use the metric system.

SpitfireIX · 13th September 2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Or Center Street, for those of us who don't use the metric system.

Sorry; it's Centre Street.

The name presumably predates Noah Webster's spelling reforms, and never got changed.

I would say "100 lashes from LashL's lash," except I'm sure you'd enjoy that far too much.

jhunter1163 · 13th September 2009, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Sorry; it's Centre Street.

The name presumably predates Noah Webster's spelling reforms, and never got changed.

I would say "100 lashes from LashL's lash," except I'm sure you'd enjoy that far too much.

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I must submit myself for correction at the feet of the Goddess of Legaltainment. I've been very bad... I deserve a severe punishment.

Although Lash's punishment will be trivial compared to what I'm about to receive, now that Mrs. JHunter1163 has read over my shoulder.

I wonder if Lash does wills?

8th September 2009, 06:45 PM	#481
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Photo Contest Winner Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 41,886	I received an email update from NYCCAN'T this morning, and Jon Gold has posted it to 9/11 Blogger: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21174 Not much new in it, though. Quote: The court-appointed referee will begin a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures on Wednesday, September 9, and is scheduled to complete the review by Friday, September 18. If the referee and court accept at least 3,996 of the disputed signatures as valid – meeting the requisite number of 30,000 signatures – and if 15,000 of the 28,000 signatures from the September 4 submission are deemed valid, the only remaining hurdle to getting the referendum on the ballot will be the ongoing court case over the legality of the petition. I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor. This should be interesting... Quote: Once the schedule for the court case is set, NYC CAN will announce one or more rallies and events in the second half of September to demonstrate the tremendous public support that exists for a new, impartial investigation. NYC CAN calls upon all those who can be in lower Manhattan to join in solidarity with the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and 80,000 New Yorkers to say loud and clear: no longer will we tolerate a government that ignores the will of its people. For the 3,000 who died on that day, the hundreds who have died since, and those still suffering today, 9/11 must be properly investigated. Now's the chance for twoofers to stand up and take action instead of hiding behind computer screens. How many will be up to the challenge?
	__________________ "We stigmatize and send to the margins people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid" - Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".

8th September 2009, 08:37 PM	#482
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	Originally Posted by orphia nay I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor. You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective. Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play? There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper.
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

8th September 2009, 08:51 PM	#483
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,781	Originally Posted by deep44 You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective. Actually, I think the appointment of commissioners is the worst problem of all. Most (or all) of the named commissioners are ineligible because they don't live in NY. Further, the procedures for appointing commissioners apparently violate state laws. Originally Posted by deep44 Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play? LashL can undoubtedly explain this better than I, but I think the city attorney's point was that if you sever everything that's illegal or unconstitutional from the referendum, what's left is essentially useless. For example, if you can't appoint any commissioners how can you have a commission? Originally Posted by deep44 There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper. Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with you; I don't fully understand it either, even after some research. I believe that LashL may have mentioned something about this part's being incorporated by reference to some other law.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

8th September 2009, 09:00 PM	#484
Macgyver1968 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 5,164	Originally Posted by deep44 You're right, there are major problems, but it sounds like the issue of investigative jurisdiction is the absolute show-stopper. The funding issue isn't far behind, but at least that one is somewhat subjective. Although.. if they could somehow bypass those two roadblocks (and I don't believe they can), wouldn't the severability clause come back into play? There's also the issue of "not relating to an existing charter provision", which I can't say that I fully understand (even after researching it). That could also be a show-stopper. I'm right there with you. I can understand the jurisdiction and funding problems..but that last bit is beyond my legal knowledge. I know! We can summon the Goddess of Legaltainment^TM! (Macgyver dances around a fire...wearing nothing but a loincloth, body paint, and some jewelry made of bones of something) We hail the force of knowledge from the land of hockey and ****** cold winters. Bring us your fair knowledge. (pours really good Belgium beer on fire as a sacrifice) LashL ....LashL....LashL!
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

8th September 2009, 09:11 PM	#485
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Lash couldn't make it, but JimBen loaned me the stiletto heeled black patent leather boots. Will I do? Essentially, it's their charter, and they can set their own rules for amending as long as they don't break any laws in those rules. Apparently, from the way I read the comment by Corporate Council, there's a provision in the charter that amendments to the charter must specifically relate to provisions in same. This prevents the City Charter from becoming a catchall document for any piece of legislation; it makes the charter stay on course as a "charter" and not a receptacle for all the Laws of the City of New York. In fact, I'd say it's probably designed for just this sort of situation. Getting a law passed in New York, through the City Council, is likely well beyond the capability of hot-button-issue groups, because they'd have to sway individual council-persons and whole political blocs and parties. But they can, if properly organized, get a petition going to put bikini pants on squirrels or whatever.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

8th September 2009, 09:18 PM	#486
Macgyver1968 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 5,164	Thanks Foolmewunz...while you are totally NOT rocking those boots like LashL would... I actually understood that. Thanks for the reply. So as another eloquent poster put it..."Its a steaming pile of fail with a side a fail..a fail salad with fail dressing, and for dessert..two scoops of fail with fail sprinkles on top."
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke." Last edited by Macgyver1968; 8th September 2009 at 09:20 PM.

8th September 2009, 10:19 PM	#487
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	And a liter-of-fail-cola to wash it all down!!
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

9th September 2009, 04:16 AM	#488
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685	Originally Posted by orphia nay I received an email update from NYCCAN'T this morning, and Jon Gold has posted it to 9/11 Blogger: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21174 Not much new in it, though. I like how they just slipped that last bit in as if it were minor. This should be interesting... Now's the chance for twoofers to stand up and take action instead of hiding behind computer screens. How many will be up to the challenge? Isn't it great to see the "tremendous support" in the form of a total of 1 blogger comment, while the later posted AE911Truth live stream announcement already has 7 blogger comments.
ref Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,685	__________________ 9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

9th September 2009, 04:28 AM	#489
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	Quote: If the referee and court accept at least 3,996 of the disputed signatures as valid – meeting the requisite number of 30,000 signatures – and if 15,000 of the 28,000 signatures from the September 4 submission are deemed valid, ... They were way under 55% valid on their first try at obtaining signatures. Both of these are very large ifs, and beyond them waits the Mountain of Legal Fail.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 03:15 PM	#490
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,859	Manny Badillo claims that NYC has caved: The NY City Clerk reported that the city will accept the original petition signatures submitted on June 24 and will no longer dispute their validity. CAN “went to the board of elections to see the referee (judge) and the city called us and said it conceded” Badillo said on Thursday. Same claim being made on NYC-CAN site: Quote: In a last minute decision, lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group comprising 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November. However, they are more cautious and note the remaining hurdle: Quote: NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City’s motion for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an opportunity to reply before the referee’s decision is made on Monday September 28. Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins. A final decision will have to be made by September 30.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

10th September 2009, 04:00 PM	#491
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	Nothing about any of this on SCROLL. Hmmmm...
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 04:46 PM	#492
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	so basically, now NYCCAN has to provide their legal opinion as to why their petition does not violate the clear stipulations as to what a referendum can and can not do, in regards to the City Council, and in regards to the inappropriateness of the NYC Council investigating 9-11?
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

10th September 2009, 04:51 PM	#493
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	Actually, I was kinda hoping this would happen. I wanted to see the legal fail. Looks like I'll get the chance. I'm off to fix up some Jiffy Pop.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 04:55 PM	#494
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961	Sure, why name let them make themselves look like complete and total asses in front of everyone in NYC. Kinda show the people what these idiots are doing. Plus, the comic value is priceless!!
triforcharity Banned Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961

10th September 2009, 04:55 PM	#495
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 Actually, I was kinda hoping this would happen. I wanted to see the legal fail. Looks like I'll get the chance. I'm off to fix up some Jiffy Pop. agreed. this should be really entertaining. the lawyers for NYC are gonna tell us all, in great detail, how stupid the 9-11 truth theories are, how how stupid they are to try to get the New York City Council to investigate 9-11. I'm gonna print out the proceedings and frame it.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

10th September 2009, 05:21 PM	#496
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 36,373	This is great because it means we will get to the fun part - which is the Legaltainment™ value of watching the "truth"ers try to deal with the multiple jurisdictional, constitutional, and other problems that their petition has. Hopefully, NYCCANT won't be shy about posting their documents to share with their loyal followers in the ever-dwindling "truth" movement, although somehow I doubt that they will. Since this matter is only at a local city court, and since it appears that SCROLL doesn't post them, perhaps NYCCANT hopes to spare themselves the embarrassment of putting their documents online. If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint)

10th September 2009, 05:26 PM	#497
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 58,545	This is going to be like a episode of "Law And Order" written and performed by Monty Python. I am waiting for Bill Smith to show up and claim a great victory for Twoof in 3...2...1....

10th September 2009, 05:27 PM	#498
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	Originally Posted by LashL If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint) Oh, they will, they will.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 05:31 PM	#499
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by LashL This is great because it means we will get to the fun part - which is the Legaltainment™ value of watching the "truth"ers try to deal with the multiple jurisdictional, constitutional, and other problems that their petition has. Hopefully, NYCCANT won't be shy about posting their documents to share with their loyal followers in the ever-dwindling "truth" movement, although somehow I doubt that they will. Since this matter is only at a local city court, and since it appears that SCROLL doesn't post them, perhaps NYCCANT hopes to spare themselves the embarrassment of putting their documents online. If that is the case, I hope that one of our local NYC dwellers will take it upon himself or herself to obtain the documents from the local court and scan them into pdf... (hint, hint) I'm not sure I'd know what to ask for. Copies are 25 cents/page. Bring quarters.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

10th September 2009, 05:38 PM	#500
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,627	I can see it now: Tonight, in a special episode of Law & Order, the people are represented by two groups. The police, who keep sane people away from the offenders, and the lawyers, who rip them to shreds. This is their story.
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,627	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

10th September 2009, 05:39 PM	#501
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 36,373	September 6, 2009. jhunter1163 does his impersonation of New York City's counsel, suggesting that city council will accept that the petition got 30,000 signatures: Originally Posted by jhunter1163 C'mon, Your Honor. We'll stipulate that they got 30,000 signatures. I wanna hear this argument. Puh-leeeeeeeeeeze? September 10, 2009. It is reported that New York City's counsel has advised the referee that city council accepts that the petition got 30,000 signatures. So, the burning question is "jhunter1163: Psychic? NYC counsel himself? Lucky guess? Disinfo shill? or Coincidence?" You decide!
	Last edited by LashL; 10th September 2009 at 05:52 PM. Reason: Ack! I messed up the numerics in jhunter's user name.

10th September 2009, 05:43 PM	#502
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	The only news report on Google News at this point in time reporting this is a Reuters printing of NYCCAN's PR Newswire release. It differs from the NYCCAN website report which left out the following: Quote: Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot should the petitioners prevail. http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090910
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,281	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. Last edited by bje; 10th September 2009 at 05:44 PM.

10th September 2009, 05:43 PM	#503
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	I'll take my million in twenties, thanks. And two rolls of quarters.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 05:46 PM	#504
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 36,373	Originally Posted by BigAl I'm not sure I'd know what to ask for. If it operates like most courts, one can ask to see everything that is in the file (identified by the file number, in this case SCROLL #110779-2009, alternatively Index #09110779) and then choose which documents one wants copied.

10th September 2009, 05:49 PM	#505
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,744	She.... misspelled my username... weeps softly in the corner
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

10th September 2009, 05:54 PM	#506
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 36,373	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 She.... misspelled my username... weeps softly in the corner Please don't cry. I only messed up the numeric part, and only one digit at that. I got the important part right! I'm sorry!

10th September 2009, 07:23 PM	#507
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,781	Originally Posted by bje The only news report on Google News at this point in time reporting this is a Reuters printing of NYCCAN's PR Newswire release. It differs from the NYCCAN website report which left out the following: Quote: Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot should the petitioners prevail. http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090910 Translation: "We hope to persuade the court with an appeal to emotion, because we can't argue on the law or the facts."
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

10th September 2009, 09:27 PM	#508
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778	Originally Posted by Brainster The NY City Clerk reported that the city will accept the original petition signatures submitted on June 24 and will no longer dispute their validity. I suspect that's only because it's a relatively minor issue with the petition and NYCCAN are wasting a lot of time on it.
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,778

11th September 2009, 09:33 AM	#509
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4	I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done. So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures.
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4

11th September 2009, 09:40 AM	#510
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by Lisanne! I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done. So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures. I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue. What is the address of the court where one could find the files?
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

11th September 2009, 09:46 AM	#511
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,781	Originally Posted by Lisanne! I suspect that even if a NYC court ruled in favor of NYC CAN an appeals court would reverse the ruling on the grounds that it is legal impossible to set up such a commission, period. Allowing a local jurisdiction to supersede a federal one just can't be done. So I guess that the corporate counsel had decided that it might be best to allow the legal issues to be heard so that this initiative doesn't keep returning every year to take up their time and other resources. They probably conceded without rechecking the supposed legitimatized signatures. Welcome to the forum, Lisanne! If I may ask, how did you come to be interested in September 11 conspiracy theories?
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

11th September 2009, 10:48 AM	#512
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by BigAl I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue. What is the address of the court where one could find the files? I don't think the city council cares about the signatures. At this point it makes sense to let the court shoot these fools and move on to more important things (move it down the line to fail).
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

11th September 2009, 12:20 PM	#513
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX Welcome to the forum, Lisanne! If I may ask, how did you come to be interested in September 11 conspiracy theories? Hi SpitfireIX We have been having a discussion about the Ballot initiative petition on a political discussion board on Flickr and I needed to hear a perspective from a more logical group of people. On that board those who find the truthers arguments to be based upon an automatic assumption that we are never told the truth are too polite to challenge their assertions. Even my own attempts to explain the legal impossibility of this initiative being implemented is met the usual cry of "blind sheep".
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4

11th September 2009, 12:24 PM	#514
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	Originally Posted by Lisanne! Hi SpitfireIX We have been having a discussion about the Ballot initiative petition on a political discussion board on Flickr and I needed to hear a perspective from a more logical group of people. On that board those who find the truthers arguments to be based upon an automatic assumption that we are never told the truth are too polite to challenge their assertions. Even my own attempts to explain the legal impossibility of this initiative being implemented is met the usual cry of "blind sheep". Welcome. You might want to post the letter the NYC City council sent in response to the delivery of the signatures. The links are in the original post for this thread. Look for official documents to be posted here as they come out. NYCCAN sure isn't going to publish any of them. Lots of luck.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept. Last edited by BigAl; 11th September 2009 at 12:26 PM.

11th September 2009, 12:27 PM	#515
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4	Originally Posted by BigAl I'd like to see the paperwork that allowed NYCCAN to say that they were OK with the signatures. I wouldn't be surprised if the city didn't put a sentence in there that allowed them to re-open the issue. What is the address of the court where one could find the files? Big Al, I'm sure they did let this through. There's no question that the petition is fatally flawed. No emotional argument can cancel that out. If it was on the ballot and passed a new challenge could be made afterward. I don't think that the courts would like to see that occur.
Lisanne! New Blood Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4