NYC Response to Twoofer 911 Investigation Petition: Call out the laughing dogs [Archive]

View Full Version : NYC Response to Twoofer 911 Investigation Petition: Call out the laughing dogs

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

BigAl

30th July 2009, 08:47 PM

Here is the NYC response to the NYCCAN Petition drive. It's a 2-page letter that shows the petition flawed on both the signature count and the legal issues. The guy in the City Clerk's office I spoke to said that the City Clerk has been officially informed that an appeal is about to be filed. That should be good for laughs, too.

Here are the two pages. I hope people can read them, the text of the copy I was given was small and somewhat blurry type. These jpgs do blow up to be readable. In FireFox, a double-click on the image will do it.

http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-1.jpg
http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-2.jpg

I stopped in unannounced. The people were very nice but I think I was lucky to find someone available to answer my request. I think they expect people to call and set up an appointment.

Thunder

30th July 2009, 08:56 PM

Ouch!!!

that is some brutally legalistic, honest, and forthright stuff!!

petition signatures missing addresses, not registered to vote in the most recent election, no method of financing provided, greatly overstepping the bounds of the Commission and the City Council, this thing looks dead as Lincoln.

Trojan

30th July 2009, 08:56 PM

As I said on another thread, there would have to be serious legal flaws for the clerks to throw this out -- and it appears it has several damning flaws,

The twoofer author is clearly very ignorant of the procedure.

R.Mackey

30th July 2009, 08:59 PM

Thunder

30th July 2009, 08:59 PM

The City Clerk put together a very well written and well argued defeat for this pathetic petition.

The Truther fools are welcome to challenge this..I guess. But they will suffer another embarrassing defeat if they do.

A W Smith

30th July 2009, 09:07 PM

One would have thought they'd run the basic petition by some legal professional before committing two years and $50,000 (?) to it, or at least listened to the very many critiques of its contents offered for free by "debunkers..."

... or not. Standard M.O. for the Truthers. Competence is not one of their strengths.

Maybe it's a swindle to collect 50K in the guise of a 9/11 petition? Though you will never see a full accounting of where the troofer dollars went. Looks like they retained nobody to oversee something that was crafted on a PC in one evening in some half wits basement. Perhaps their biggest expense was the web hosting of the scam.

Drudgewire

30th July 2009, 09:07 PM

So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.

Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol

Horatius

30th July 2009, 09:08 PM

Speaking as a professional bureaucrat who occassionally has to smack down members of the public with persistent delusions, I just have to say.....Epic Smack Down!

Twoofer pathetic response in three, two, one.....

Thunder

30th July 2009, 09:10 PM

Could the New York City Clerk be.....a Zionist???

ah soooo..the plot thickens!!!

No doubt the Mossad sent a direct order to Michael Zionist Bloomberg to quash this petition!!

=)

cyclonic

30th July 2009, 09:13 PM

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

Go suck a lemon twoofers.

A W Smith

30th July 2009, 09:20 PM

wonder when deep44 will read this thread?

I would be surprised if the older signatures were the problem, but there's certainly that possibility (see '9/11 investigation' thread for additional details).

I actually suspect they made some minor change(s) to the petition between campaigns. Either way - we'll find out soon enough.

Ohhh! we found out alright

http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-1.jpg
http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-2.jpg

:dl:

R.Mackey

30th July 2009, 09:23 PM

Maybe it's a swindle to collect 50K in the guise of a 9/11 petition?

The thought had crossed my mind, but no, I don't think so. When they do that, like in the TruthBurn (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4858920#post4858920) idiocy or Gage's shilling or Craig and Aldo's little movies, it's usually clumsy and obvious.

But then, who can say? Their minds work in mysterious ways.

triforcharity

30th July 2009, 09:25 PM

Wow, this is so epic fail, I cannot even begin to find a picture that conveys how much of an epic failure it is!!

I thought pretty much every one the reasons this was disqualified was pointed out in various threads on this forum.

AJM8125

30th July 2009, 09:35 PM

This is beyond "epic", this is failure on a galactic scale.

I'm almost at a loss for words. I think if you're trying to circumvent the law, a necessary step in that process would be actually, like, studying the law or hiring that lawyer instead of having him waiting in the wings. Am I wrong?

At least they aren't as stupid as the truthers who sent donations.

BigAl

30th July 2009, 09:39 PM

Here is the NYC response to the NYCCAN Petition drive.

http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-1.jpg
http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-2.jpg

Fee free to post these URLs to any Twoofer site you haven't been banned from. 911links isn't going anywhere.

Unsecured Coins

30th July 2009, 09:42 PM

http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp210/valueratio_2008/s640x480vt0.jpg

16.5

30th July 2009, 09:50 PM

1400 signatures?

Are they kidding?

Unbelievable.

Pack it up losers.

Cl1mh4224rd

30th July 2009, 10:02 PM

So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.
Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol

1400 signatures?

Are they kidding?

Unbelievable.

Pack it up losers.

Actually, it sounds to me like there were a total of 50,667 signatures. At least 24,664 of them were invalid, leaving at most 26,003 valid signatures.

LashL

30th July 2009, 10:32 PM

Here is the NYC response to the NYCCAN Petition drive. It's a 2-page letter that shows the petition flawed on both the signature count and the legal issues.

That's awesome, BigAl! Thank you very much for obtaining the letter and sharing it.

To the "truth"ers, I hate to say, "I told you so," but ... well, you know.

carlitos

30th July 2009, 10:38 PM

Attention Truthers! Do you see what BigAl did here? He wanted to know about something related to NYC government, so he stopped by the city clerk's office. In the real world!

Brainster

30th July 2009, 10:56 PM

Two thumbs up, Big Al! I have linked at SLC.

ETA: I don't know if they paid all the signature gatherers a buck a signature; I know they were paying them that rate at the end when they had some money to spend.

Hokulele

30th July 2009, 11:41 PM

NYCCANned.

jhunter1163

30th July 2009, 11:45 PM

NYCCANned.

Today's Golden Guffaw winnah!

Hoku, you should write headlines for the Post.

Hokulele

30th July 2009, 11:50 PM

Today's Golden Guffaw winnah!

:woot:

Hoku, you should write headlines for the Post.

Nah, they are Yankee territory. *Shudder*

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 12:09 AM

Actually, it sounds to me like there were a total of 50,667 signatures. At least 24,664 of them were invalid, leaving at most 26,003 valid signatures.
Not too sure about that. They did collect signatures from all 5 boroughs and not just NYC so those signatures are invalid.

jhunter1163

31st July 2009, 12:10 AM

Random observations regarding this epic, nay, Biblical fail:

I recall seeing somewhere (I think it was at 9/11 Blogger, not sure though; sorry) that NYCCAN'T spent $75,000 on this effort. When I think about the good they could have done for people with that money... :mad:

And is anyone else as tired as I am of the way Truthers hide behind the skirts of the families and first responders? It seems like everything they try to do is couched in "the families and first responders want..." when as far as I can tell most family members and first responders want no such thing.

deep

31st July 2009, 12:38 AM

Attention Truthers! Do you see what BigAl did here? He wanted to know about something related to NYC government, so he stopped by the city clerk's office. In the real world!

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 12:41 AM

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493
So? Are you hurt because NYCCAN failed for all the world to see and you now realize you are a member of a cult of liars?

jhunter1163

31st July 2009, 12:53 AM

I thought they had "the best election lawyer in NYC" on the case on this. You would think that a good lawyer would have told them that their petition contained no less than five disqualifying errors.

Foolmewunz

31st July 2009, 12:56 AM

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493

Wow, that's some amazing Truthtm, Deep.

You're totally ignoring the dozen pages of people telling you, step by step, that these are the things that were wrong with the petition and their campaign? Do you have nothing to add other than the pathetic "gotcha" above?

Orphia Nay

31st July 2009, 01:23 AM

So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.

Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol

Actually, it sounds to me like there were a total of 50,667 signatures. At least 24,664 of them were invalid, leaving at most 26,003 valid signatures.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/NYCCAN-Fail-3.jpg

As I read it, only 26,003 of the total signatories were qualified to sign. The others weren't in the right borough, perhaps, as ~enigma~ said.

24,664 of those signatories signatures were invalid, due to failing to include the date, their address and/or get their signature witnessed (ETA: or they were not registered to vote).

Perhaps LashL or Big Al might be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

funk de fino

31st July 2009, 01:41 AM

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493

ha ha

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_182444a729f4495d22.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17092)

cludgie

31st July 2009, 01:43 AM

I thought they had "the best election lawyer in NYC" on the case on this. You would think that a good lawyer would have told them that their petition contained no less than five disqualifying errors.

It doesn't even look like they managed to afford Lionel Hutz.

deep

31st July 2009, 01:46 AM

LashL

31st July 2009, 01:46 AM

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

And somehow you think that that is a valid criticism of an individual who, despite not knowing the specifics about whether or not he would able to obtain the document, actually took it upon himself to go to the source in the real world, make the appropriate inquiries, obtain the relevant document, and post it?

Bizarre.

I would think that you should be annoyed at the "truth"er cult leaders whose dogma you follow, as they did not share the document with you and your fellow "truth"™ movement members, and did not bother to tell you the reasons for the petition being rejected, choosing instead to simply make further appeals to "truth"ers for more money, without giving you the information that they should have shared with you. Are you getting it yet? Here you are making a left-handed (and utterly ridiculous) jab at a rationalist who took the time and trouble to ascertain the information and obtain the documentation that your "truth"er cult leaders should have given to you and should have published days ago, but didn't.

Does any of this make you realize that perhaps those whose dogma you follow are not telling you the whole, unvarnished truth™? And does that not make you rethink your willingness to follow that unsubstantiated dogma?

deep

31st July 2009, 02:08 AM

You're totally ignoring the dozen pages of people telling you, step by step, that these are the things that were wrong with the petition and their campaign? Do you have nothing to add other than the pathetic "gotcha" above?

Did you notice that most of those people were wrong? There's every indication that the older signatures were accepted, and the Corporate Council certainly didn't mention anything about subpoena power in his/her list of objections - those were the two big ones.

LashL made a few good points in one of her posts, but other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I suspected that the petition changed at some point -- so I was wrong, too. It's a discussion, not a contest.

Orphia Nay

31st July 2009, 02:24 AM

deep

31st July 2009, 02:28 AM

The document (image 2) says "the petition overreaches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission". I think you'll find subpoena power is covered there, but I could be wrong.

I believe this is what they were referring to:

10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for C-SPAN and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis. 15. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall during its lifetime enjoy the same immunities, privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors.

ref

31st July 2009, 02:34 AM

Wow. Who would have thought this effort would fail. :rolleyes:

Orphia Nay

31st July 2009, 02:38 AM

:D

The document (image 2) says "the petition overreaches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission". I think you'll find subpoena power is covered there, but I could be wrong.

I believe this is what they were referring to:

10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for C-SPAN and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis. 15. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall during its lifetime enjoy the same immunities, privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors.

Maybe. It could also be subpoena power too.

Dog Town

31st July 2009, 02:55 AM

I guess I'll go ahead and cancel my Elvis Suite, at the Fema Camp. I was so looking forward to the azalea blooms, though!

Count'em!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

Maybe next year!:D

Foolmewunz

31st July 2009, 03:08 AM

Well, the price of admission is 30,000 valid signatures - not sure what there is to "appeal", since it doesn't sound like the older signatures were rejected.

As for the additional comments, don't misinterpret them as anything other than the opinion of Corporation Counsel. Those objections could be challenged in court (had they actually factored into the rejection). The part about appointing Commissioners is clearly a problem (as LashL pointed out in another thread), but the other objections appear to be judgment calls.

Now, I'm not suggesting that a judge would necessarily feel any differently about those provisions, but at least there's room to argue.

Do you "sure play a mean pinball"?

I think you didn't read the first page of the letter, perhaps. The signatures are invalid because they weren't registered to vote in the latest city election prior to the filing of the petition. There were additionally many signatures that were not DATED, witnessed, or showing an address. How can the "older" signatures even be termed "older" if there were no dates.

Please also identify for us in that letter where it says that they can appeal about the older signatures. It's not in there. And to show just about how much you know about the law... the "opinion" of the corporate council is more important than anything else on there. They have a bogus severability clause and the final line of the letter is telling them, "Don't try it, Sparky! We're not going to let you try to cut this up and get certain parts of it snuck through because the entire barrel is full of rotten apples, not just the one or two on top."

Foolmewunz

31st July 2009, 03:22 AM

Did you notice that most of those people were wrong? There's every indication that the older signatures were accepted, and the Corporate Council certainly didn't mention anything about subpoena power in his/her list of objections - those were the two big ones.

LashL made a few good points in one of her posts, but other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I suspected that the petition changed at some point -- so I was wrong, too. It's a discussion, not a contest.

Wow! You don't even remember the discussion you were in. I suggest you re-read it, my posts in particular, as I was harping on the financing aspect.

And please stop saying that the older signatures were accepted! There's no mention of the older signatures, likely because the Clerk of the City of New York was blinded by the other egregious problems.

More important.... As Lash mentioned.... Don't you feel lied to and used? Your fearless leaders wouldn't post the rejection letter and an evil Debunker had to do it. What does that tell you.

Further, what kind of legal advice do these liars have? Or did they actually have any legal advice at all? Perhaps that was a ploy to suck more $25 donations out of the paranoid flock? I submit that it was. No attorney, even from Bob Jones University, would have missed very obvious tactical problems like the Clerk mentions.

I know, let's ask an attorney, why don't we....

Lash,
Can you tell me under what possible scenario you would advise a client to submit signatures for a petition which:
a) showed no address in the REQUIRED address column
b) had no date in the REQUIRED date column
c) had no witness on a form that clearl REQUIRES that it be witnessed

Would the answer be:
A) Never or
B) No, really, Never!

funk de fino

31st July 2009, 03:25 AM

Proof again that the 911TM is the worst political movement of all time.

deep

31st July 2009, 03:37 AM

I think you didn't read the first page of the letter, perhaps. The signatures are invalid because they weren't registered to vote in the latest city election prior to the filing of the petition. There were additionally many signatures that were not DATED, witnessed, or showing an address. How can the "older" signatures even be termed "older" if there were no dates.

Right - given the nature of the signature problems, what are they going to argue in their appeal? Doesn't seem like there's much room for interpretation.

On the other hand, if a large number of signatures were rejected because they were over 120 days old, they would have a legitimate case - since there's no age limit mentioned in the MHRL.

And to show just about how much you know about the law... the "opinion" of the corporate council is more important than anything else on there.

The petition was rejected because they fell short of 30,000 valid signatures - that is the law. Where in the MHRL does it say anything about the Corporate Counsel's opinion on the legality of certain provisions in an already-rejected petition?

Foolmewunz

31st July 2009, 03:48 AM

Deep,
I apologize. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but apparently you really don't understand this legal stuff.... The second page, where he cites the "opinion" of the Corporate Council is shorthand for "Even if the signatures were valid, here's why you shouldn't bother showing up here again with this nonsense:"

The "opinion" of the Corporate Council is not like the "opinion" of Korie Rowe. It has considerably more clout. And he doesn't say, you'll note, "oh by the way, here's what the Corporate Council thinks". It says that after obtaining the opinion of the CC, the petition is furthermore invalid because....

That does not leave a lot of room for appeal, especially with the non-severability mention.

(I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the interwebz, but I was paralegal without portfolio for my company for many years and deal with contract review, claims, insurance, etc... I have to say that as bureaucratese goes, this is rather straightforward and readable, though. There ain't a hope in hell of getting this thing through, now. Any appeal for funds is just to pad their coffers with sucker money.)

Quad4_72

31st July 2009, 05:59 AM

Right - given the nature of the signature problems, what are they going to argue in their appeal? Doesn't seem like there's much room for interpretation.

On the other hand, if a large number of signatures were rejected because they were over 120 days old, they would have a legitimate case - since there's no age limit mentioned in the MHRL.

The petition was rejected because they fell short of 30,000 valid signatures - that is the law. Where in the MHRL does it say anything about the Corporate Counsel's opinion on the legality of certain provisions in an already-rejected petition?

Stop trying to defend them. The twoofers FAILED MISERABLY, as usual. Deep, when will you guys stop failing? Please show the following pic to the organizers:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/Zaitsev72/doing-it-wrong.jpg

Horatius

31st July 2009, 06:14 AM

Twoofer pathetic response in three, two, one.....

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493

Called it.

Thunder

31st July 2009, 07:05 AM

I suggest the truthers try again. next time, make sure that EVERY petition has an address, is dated, is on time, is signed by a registered NYC voter, and has a witness signature.

this isn't really that hard....unless you are a dumb ass movement led by dumb asses.

=)

16.5

31st July 2009, 07:14 AM

Actually, it sounds to me like there were a total of 50,667 signatures. At least 24,664 of them were invalid, leaving at most 26,003 valid signatures.

Nope, 26,000 qualifying signatures, 24,600 invalid ones means:

Only 1400 valid signatures.

EPIC FAIL!

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 07:28 AM

Nope, 26,000 qualifying signatures, 24,600 invalid ones means:

Only 1400 valid signatures.

EPIC FAIL!
95% failure rate. And 911blogger tries to spin this as something good!!!!!!!!

Justin39640

31st July 2009, 07:32 AM

Nope, 26,000 qualifying signatures, 24,600 invalid ones means:

Only 1400 valid signatures.

EPIC FAIL!

yeah when the paper states "therein" didnt that mean 24000 of the 26000 where invalid?
thats how i took it

then again i turn wrenches for a living
i dont have to read legal opinions very often in the course of that lol
though i do have to keep liability in mind all the time

carlitos

31st July 2009, 08:14 AM

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 08:18 AM

Indeed. It's almost as if scoring points on the internet is the primary objective, and the "truth" is secondary.
No. According to the scum known as the TM, the passengers are secondary.

AJM8125

31st July 2009, 08:22 AM

I'm astonished about the failure on many levels, not just the signatures in question. Admittedly I haven't been following this or any of the petition threads and I hate to sound like a Monday morning quarterback but the way I read it, they could have had the entire population of NYC sign the damned thing and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference because of the serious errors contained within, you know, like that little overreaching federal jurisdiction thing.

But nonetheless, it is a delicious failure. One that should be savored. For quite some time to come.

Seymour Butz

31st July 2009, 08:43 AM

It looks like their "top elections attorney" may have been a shyster.

Oh the delicious irony if that's true.

That a group that associates with Holocaust deniers get taken by a Jewish lawyer.

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 08:51 AM

It looks like their "top elections attorney" may have been a shyster.

Oh the delicious irony if that's true.

That a group that associates with Holocaust deniers get taken by a Jewish lawyer.
Considering that everytime the TM opens it's collective mouth a crapload of lies come forth like projectile vomit (or diarrhea), why do you believe that they actually retained a lawyer rather than line the pockets of some idiot member of NYCCAN?

AJM8125

31st July 2009, 09:04 AM

Considering that everytime the TM opens it's collective mouth a crapload of lies come forth like projectile vomit (or diarrhea), why do you believe that they actually retained a lawyer rather than line the pockets of some idiot member of NYCCAN?

Then of course that means the petition was designed to fail and the troofers have been bilked out of their money. Sounds like somebody needs to start "just asking questions".

This just keeps getting better.

Seymour Butz

31st July 2009, 09:08 AM

Considering that everytime the TM opens it's collective mouth a crapload of lies come forth like projectile vomit (or diarrhea), why do you believe that they actually retained a lawyer rather than line the pockets of some idiot member of NYCCAN?

So tell me,how did you wind up making the correct deduction in regards to 9/11?

Cuz anyone with some logic and reading comprehension would have noticed the part "if it's true", and deduced that it was a joke.

Oh well, some things are just too tough to figure out for some people.

Back to ignore for you, troll.

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 09:14 AM

So tell me,how did you wind up making the correct deduction in regards to 9/11?

Cuz anyone with some logic and reading comprehension would have noticed the part "if it's true", and deduced that it was a joke.

Oh well, some things are just too tough to figure out for some people.

Back to ignore for you, troll.
Saying Considering that everytime the TM opens it's collective mouth a crapload of lies come forth like projectile vomit (or diarrhea), why do you believe that they actually retained a lawyer rather than line the pockets of some idiot member of NYCCAN? means I am a troll? Acting like a pompous jerk means something else. Would you like me to tell you?

Donal

31st July 2009, 10:07 AM

What are you two arguing over?

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 10:08 AM

What are you two arguing over?
Have no idea what he took offense over. Hope he enjoys his world...

nicepants

31st July 2009, 10:19 AM

So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.

Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol

LOL

So BEST CASE scenario....1,339 of the signatures are valid.

Brilliant!

ETA: Just got to the 2nd page. I, too, was wondering how they were going to pay for this. I'm glad to see that the city clerk brought some logic to the situation, specifically:

- How the [rule10] was this going to be paid for?
- The city can't grant the power that they were requesting (to subpoena Bush, Cheney, etc)

Are the troofers spinning this as a conspiracy against them by the city council yet?

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 10:28 AM

LOL

So BEST CASE scenario....1,339 of the signatures are valid.

Brilliant!

ETA: Just got to the 2nd page. I, too, was wondering how they were going to pay for this. I'm glad to see that the city clerk brought some logic to the situation, specifically:

- How the [rule10] was this going to be paid for?
- The city can't grant the power that they were requesting (to subpoena Bush, Cheney, etc)

Are the troofers spinning this as a conspiracy against them by the city council yet?Of course. The claim is the clerk was gotten to. Guess it is an expected reaction when the TM realizes they have been lied to and taken advantage of by their own. Also, it is a very thin line between perseverance and fanaticism and there is no question where the Taliban Movement belongs.

BigAl

31st July 2009, 10:33 AM

Of course. The claim is the clerk was gotten to. Guess it is an expected reaction when the TM realizes they have been lied to and taken advantage of by their own. Also, it is a very thin line between perseverance and fanaticism and there is no question where the Taliban Movement belongs.

Why would anyone "get to" someone on the legal opinion when the document in question is publicly viewable. Anyone can make a copy of the petitions and do their own validity count and check the numbers published by the CC.

~enigma~

31st July 2009, 10:38 AM

Why would anyone "get to" someone on the legal opinion when the document in question is publicly viewable. Anyone can make a copy of the petitions and do their own validity count and check the numbers published by the CC.
TM thinks that there is a vast conspiracy to hold them down. Only thing is the entire world recognizes them as paranoid lunatics not an oppressed bunch of people.

NoZed Avenger

31st July 2009, 01:33 PM

Wow, this is so epic fail, I cannot even begin to find a picture that conveys how much of an epic failure it is!!

This denial letter may well become the new "Epic Fail" picture for other efforts.

But then, how can other efforts get close enough to this level of fail to deserve the photo?

funk de fino

31st July 2009, 02:15 PM

I hope this clerk is not jewish.

Cause we all know what comes next.................

Trojan

31st July 2009, 02:23 PM

I notice that the web site is off line

www.nyc911initiative.org/

Some one leaving town quickly?

JoeyDonuts

31st July 2009, 02:32 PM

I notice that the web site is off line

www.nyc911initiative.org/

Some one leaving town quickly?

Must be just you.

Loads up fine for me.

jhunter1163

31st July 2009, 02:51 PM

Loads for me too, but inexplicably hasn't been updated to reflect the arrival of their shipment of fail. The donation button still works fine, though.

Horatius

31st July 2009, 03:01 PM

The donation button still works fine, though.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Thunder

31st July 2009, 03:17 PM

Nope, 26,000 qualifying signatures, 24,600 invalid ones means:

Only 1400 valid signatures.

EPIC FAIL!

r u sure this doesn't mean 26,000 out of 50,600 signatures are okee dokee?

i have to say, even for a truther petition, i would really be surprised if such a high percentage were not filled out correctly or were ineligable.

Macgyver1968

31st July 2009, 03:27 PM

Wow...epic fail is much to tame of a phrase for this. Super-duper-Jesus-Christ-Superstar-expanding universe sized failure.

16.5

31st July 2009, 03:30 PM

r u sure this doesn't mean 26,000 out of 50,600 signatures are okee dokee?

i have to say, even for a truther petition, i would really be surprised if such a high percentage were not filled out correctly or were ineligable.

I am pretty sure.

johnny karate

31st July 2009, 04:08 PM

I am pretty sure.

Seconded.

orphia nay pretty much nailed it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4956747&postcount=31).

Cl1mh4224rd

31st July 2009, 05:51 PM

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/NYCCAN-Fail-3.jpg

As I read it, only 26,003 of the total signatories were qualified to sign. The others weren't in the right borough, perhaps, as ~enigma~ said.

24,664 of those signatories signatures were invalid, due to failing to include the date, their address and/or get their signature witnessed (ETA: or they were not registered to vote).

Perhaps LashL or Big Al might be able to correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope, 26,000 qualifying signatures, 24,600 invalid ones means:

Only 1400 valid signatures.

EPIC FAIL!

Seems possible, but... wow... even I have trouble believing that. Out of a claimed 50,000+ signatures, less than 1,500 were actually valid. That's less than 3%.

That's got to be a Super Ginormous Epic Mega Fail, or something.

And I think I may be resisting the idea, because this level of fail hints that my mind may not have been quite as open as I thought.

Kudos on that, truthers. Wow...

BigAl

31st July 2009, 05:55 PM

This was posted to USENET.

[My] Executive Summary;
Reasons for denial not mentioned.
Please send money.

(Full text)

Posting to International Wire of Scoop
Press Release: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Date: Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Time: 9:48 am NZT

UQ Wire: NYCCAN Takes NYC To Court Over Petition

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

A CALL TO ACTION b FORWARD WIDELY
Press Release
www.NYCCAN.org

July 27, 2009

9/11 FAMILIES, FIRST RESPONDERS AND SURVIVORS TO TAKE NEW YORK
CITY TO COURT OVER NYC CAN PETITION

SEVENTY THOUSAND New Yorkers signed the NYC CAN petition, raising
their voices in support of NYC CANbs demand for accountability. They have chosen to place the decision to create a new 9/11 investigation b a REAL 9/11 investigation b exactly where it belongs: before the voters of New York City this November. The voices of SEVENTY THOUSAND Americans who believe in democracy and believe that government exists to serve the people b and not the other way around b have been GAGGED by ONE so-called bPUBLIC SERVANTb b The New York City Clerk b who denied the petition and the voice of the people.

Welcome to America. Democracy denied.

Did you REALLY expect those in halls of power to honor the WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Did you expect this demand for accountability to go uncontested by those who have forgotten the very meaning of the word? Perhaps this obstruction of democracy would go unchallenged in THEIR America. Not in OUR America.

9/11 family members, first responders and survivors expected nothing less than business as usual and ARE NOT HAVING IT. They are preparing to take the City of New York to court to challenge the wrongful denial of our right to decide on the creation of a new 9/11 investigation.

Friends, your determination and generosity have brought us to this crucial moment. TRUTH IS AT THE CROSSROADS, DEMOCRACY UNDER FIRE AND THE DEFINING MOMENT IN THE QUEST FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS UPON US. This is YOUR movement and nothing may bring you closer to attaining truth than NYC CAN. Stand in the light and demand ANSWERS, not in the shadows of those who would deny you such answers.

THE BIG NEWS: the most experienced election lawyer in New York City stands ready to represent the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors in court in an HISTORIC FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND TRUTH. BUT WE DESPERATELY NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. This is your chance b your ONE chance b to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, and demand accountability. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE WORKED FOR, AND WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE IF WE STAND TOGETHER NOW.

Donate over $25 and webll mail you a free NYC CAN button. Donate over $50 and you will receive a free NYC CAN button and a well-made NYC CAN t-shirt.

ACT RIGHT NOW. Go to b http://nyccan.org/donate.php b and donate whatever you can to bring the quest for answers to the biggest stage it has ever had: THE NEW YORK CITY BALLOT.
www.NYCCAN.org

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards
justice.b Theodore Parker

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Scoop website is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/
This Story is at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0907/S00455.htm

deep

31st July 2009, 06:13 PM

http://911blogger.com/node/20768#comment-212981

NYC CAN News Bulletin -- July 31, 2009 -- PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

New York City– On Wednesday, several 9/11 victim family members and a survivor took the first step in challenging the City Clerk’s rejection of the NYC CAN petition for a new investigation in New York City. The group filed a Verified Petition/Order to Show Cause with the Supreme Court of the State of New York requesting a review of Board of Election documentation and a ‘special referee’ appointed to re-validate the over 52,000 signatures filed by NYC CAN on June 24th.

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, a week ago, certifying less than the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors. This benchmark, according to the Clerk’s office was not met. A ‘qualified elector’ is a registered New York City voter who was eligible to vote in the last election. According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified.

At a hearing scheduled for Monday, August 3rd, before a Supreme Court Justice, the plaintiffs, representing tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers who support a new 9/11 investigation, will formally raise their request for an independent review of the Board of Elections findings. If granted by the presiding Justice, a re-validation of the petition signatures by an independent special referee will follow.

In addition to the requirement to reach the threshold of 30,000 qualified electors, the petition itself must comply with New York Municipal Home Rule Law and relevant Election Laws. The City Clerk maintains the Petition fell short in several areas but it should be emphasized that this is the legal opinion of the Corporation Counsel, the City of New York’s top lawyer, and will be challenged in court by lawyers for the five plaintiffs.

Legal advisers to the plaintiffs believe that the legal objections raised by the Corporation Counsel are specious and should be set aside, however considering the political implications and official opposition to the proposed Commission, obtaining approval for placing the referendum question on the ballet itself will be fraught with difficulty and challenge each step of the way.

The fact is historically in New York City ballot initiatives have not been successful. The last two were denied by the City Clerk. In both cases the petitioners filed a suit and ultimately lost and thus NYC CAN anticipated the response of the Clerk. And though the odds are stacked against us, we are committed to take the next steps available to us.

Regardless of the outcome, the court case will serve to amplify the demand for a new 9/11 investigation and with lessons learned, should serve to strengthen the ability of the people to petition their government for meaningful referendums in the future.

Please donate to support this historic court case now: Go to – http://nyccan.org/donate.php

NYC CAN is non-partisan organization comprised of 9/11 Families, First Responders, Survivors and proud, concerned citizens committed to bringing about an independent, impartial investigation into the events of September 11. For more info: http://www.nyccan.org

LashL

31st July 2009, 06:29 PM

Seems possible, but... wow... even I have trouble believing that. Out of a claimed 50,000+ signatures, less than 1,500 were actually valid. That's less than 3%.

That's got to be a Super Ginormous Epic Mega Fail, or something.

And I think I may be resisting the idea, because this level of fail hints that my mind may not have been quite as open as I thought.

Kudos on that, truthers. Wow...

I did not read that as a total of 26,003 with 24,664 of them being invalid. The clerk's letter is poorly worded, but I took it to mean that there were some 50,667 signatures of which 26,003 were valid and 24,664 were invalid.

I suppose we will find out when they go to court to ask for a review of the Board of Election validation results, but it doesn't make sense, even for "truth"ers to submit a petition with only 26k signatures, as it would be a non-starter from the word 'go'.

scissorhands

31st July 2009, 06:30 PM

Simple.
They just need more trooferbucks.
Your trooferbucks.
Dig deep in your pockets, deep44.:D

I have a risky free business opportunity in Nigeria that you may be interested in too.
PM me about that.

LashL

31st July 2009, 06:37 PM

This was posted to USENET.

[My] Executive Summary;

Reasons for denial not mentioned.
Please send money.

(Full text)

It is strange that the authors of the petition have not updated their own website to reflect that their petition did not garner the threshold number of qualified signatories, and that it does not meet other applicable law.

You would think that its own website should be the place for updates on its petition.

Cl1mh4224rd

31st July 2009, 06:39 PM

http://911blogger.com/node/20768#comment-212981

According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified.

Hmm...

The City Clerk maintains the Petition fell short in several areas but it should be emphasized that this is the legal opinion of the Corporation Counsel [...]

Ahh, so it's just an opin--

[...] the City of New York’s top lawyer [...]

Oh.

[...] obtaining approval for placing the referendum question on the ballet itself will be fraught with difficulty and challenge each step of the way.

Put on your tutus, truthers.

Regardless of the outcome, the court case will serve to amplify the demand for a new 9/11 investigation [...]

"We are winning the war against Eurasia."

Please donate to support this historic court case now: Go to – http://nyccan.org/donate.php

"We're pretty sure we're going to fail... again... but you should probably give us money anyway. You know... just in case." :rolleyes:

LashL

31st July 2009, 06:40 PM

At a hearing scheduled for Monday, August 3rd, before a Supreme Court Justice, the plaintiffs, representing tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers who support a new 9/11 investigation, will formally raise their request for an independent review of the Board of Elections findings.

That should be interesting. Hey, deep, how about asking your pals to post up a copy of their filing? I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

LashL

31st July 2009, 06:45 PM

Please donate to support this historic court case

Ahahaha. Historic?

Petition is declared invalid; petition submitter seeks judicial review; what exactly is "historic" about that?

"We're pretty sure we're going to fail... again...

Yeah, it certainly does have that ring to it, doesn't it?

jhunter1163

31st July 2009, 06:48 PM

Before they bother with an appeal, shouldn't they address the five disqualifying errors the Corporation Counsel pointed out in the petition? It's almost like they're not concerned with actually getting on the ballot; they just want to draw attention and donations to their organization. Once they got on the ballot, their raison d'etre would no longer exist and the donations would stop flowing in.

Oh, wait... :rolleyes:

BigAl

31st July 2009, 06:52 PM

That should be interesting. Hey, deep, how about asking your pals to post up a copy of their filing? I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

While you are at it, ask them what the legal basis is for their funds collection and who they have to report it to. That report should make good reading.

(Follow the money.)

Cl1mh4224rd

31st July 2009, 06:54 PM

Ahahaha. Historic?

Petition is declared invalid; petition submitter seeks judicial review; what exactly is "historic" about that?

It's even better, since they made that claim after they pointed out that the "last two [unrelated petitions] were denied by the City Clerk. In both cases the petitioners filed a suit and ultimately lost".

Perhaps they mean "historic" in the sense that it's happened before. :p

BigAl

31st July 2009, 07:07 PM

[QUOTE]The fact is historically in New York City ballot initiatives have not been successful. The last two were denied by the City Clerk. In both cases the petitioners filed a suit and ultimately lost and thus NYC CAN anticipated the response of the Clerk. And though the odds are stacked against us, we are committed to take the next steps available to us.

I suspect that the two cases that went to court had the huge advantage of having enough valid signatures or the signature count was short by such a small number that all of the rejected signatures had to be contested. For the NYCCAN petition, the chance that the Board of Election was off by 10% in their count of the signatures is ZERO.

It's typical of the "Half Truth Movement" to allude to things like these court challenges that when checked are found to be completely irrelevant.

Does anyone know, offhand, what these cases were?

Regardless of the outcome, the court case will serve to amplify the demand for a new 9/11 investigation and with lessons learned, should serve to strengthen the ability of the people to petition their government for meaningful referendums in the future

There is no indication that NYCCAN is serious or competent about the above. They have clearly made no attempt to put out any press releases that escape the loon side of the InterWebs. They need a new PR agent as well as a new lawyer.

R.Mackey

31st July 2009, 07:13 PM

Legal advisers to the plaintiffs believe that the legal objections raised by the Corporation Counsel are specious and should be set aside,

(from deep44's link above)

I'm just going to call "shenanigans." Who are these alleged "legal advisers?" The problems with the petition, even apart from the signature issues, are neither specious nor simple. So who's advising these morons? Names, please.

Maybe this is just an attempt to fleece people, after all. Surely some of you Truthers can see this for the spectacular clusterfail that it is, right? Anyone??

jhunter1163

31st July 2009, 07:21 PM

Surely some of you Truthers can see this for the spectacular clusterfail that it is, right? Anyone??

I had another eleven-letter clusterf-word in mind, but this works for me.

stateofgrace

31st July 2009, 07:27 PM

http://911blogger.com/node/20768#comment-212981

Please donate to support this historic court case now: Go to – http://nyccan.org/donate.php

Yep, no con here.:rolleyes:

BigAl

31st July 2009, 08:00 PM

Yep, no con here.:rolleyes:

That link points to this address.
You can also mail a check, made payable to NYC CAN, to this address:
NYC CAN
1173A Second Avenue, Suite 155
New York, NY 10065
It had better be known to some city or state agency and if not, I suspect some agency is going to open inquires. If it is legit, there should be financial reports for us to pick over. Either way, it's a win for us. I think I'll make some phone calls on Monday morning.

(It's around 63rd st in Manhattan. Can someone case the joint?)

Hokulele

31st July 2009, 08:06 PM

At least their most recent press release doesn't suffer from ALL CAPS SYNDROME. Maybe they can learn...

LashL

31st July 2009, 08:16 PM

That link points to this address.

$5 says it's a mail drop and the "suite" number is a mailbox number.

ETA: My Google-fu suggests that the above is a very strong possibility indeed.

Mailbox Rentals & Shipping (http://www.esna-nyc.net/SWAPPID/102/SubPageID/18023)

The UPS Store

1173A Second Avenue (61st-62nd)
212-832-1390; Fax: 212-832-1586
e-mail: store0647@theupsstore.com
www.theupsstore.com (http://www.theupsstore.com/)
Private mailbox rentals & mail forwarding , Packages shipped via UPS

Unsecured Coins

31st July 2009, 08:19 PM

$5 says it's a mail drop and the "suite" number is a mailbox number.

I'll take that bet

Hokulele

31st July 2009, 08:20 PM

$5 US or Canadian?

LashL

31st July 2009, 08:22 PM

$5 US or Canadian?

The loonie is strong at present, so I'll go all out. :)

A W Smith

31st July 2009, 08:23 PM

That link points to this address.

It had better be known to some city or state agency and if not, I suspect some agency is going to open inquires. If it is legit, there should be financial reports for us to pick over. Either way, it's a win for us. I think I'll make some phone calls on Monday morning.

(It's around 63rd st in Manhattan. Can someone case the joint?)

im on it
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
All businesses at 1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10065

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
UPS Store‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=17662840853096313643&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=SjbZTF1dRSZP2jrmN2Yowg)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=17662840853096313643&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=SjbZTF1dRSZP2jrmN2Yowg)
1173 2nd Ave # A, New York, NY‎ - (212) 832-1390‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=17662840853096313643&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=SjbZTF1dRSZP2jrmN2Yowg&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Mail Boxes Etc. #0647‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=12148560243457045701&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=o4BUMhe0YoytNu_HfFqAsw)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=12148560243457045701&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=o4BUMhe0YoytNu_HfFqAsw)
1173a Second Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 753-4800‎ - 0.1 mi N
Unverified listing
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=12148560243457045701&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=o4BUMhe0YoytNu_HfFqAsw&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Richard Lounsbery Foundation‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=3&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14565551486241315662&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=cIcogbMWPYpGSbu6GZ-gkg)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=3&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14565551486241315662&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=cIcogbMWPYpGSbu6GZ-gkg)
1173A 2nd Ave # 152, New York, NY‎ - (212) 319-7033‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14565551486241315662&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=cIcogbMWPYpGSbu6GZ-gkg&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
3 H Technologies‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=4&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14369623336609285548&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=3MRSOVw3Q0o90Zwsd4hADg)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=4&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14369623336609285548&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=3MRSOVw3Q0o90Zwsd4hADg)
1173 2nd Ave # 1, New York, NY‎ - (212) 588-8760‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14369623336609285548&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=3MRSOVw3Q0o90Zwsd4hADg&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Legal Capital‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=5&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14004497461020091110&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=EafSJiH1sK8707B5x7WncQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=5&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14004497461020091110&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=EafSJiH1sK8707B5x7WncQ)
# A, 1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (866) 935-5440‎ - 0.1 mi N
Unverified listing
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14004497461020091110&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=EafSJiH1sK8707B5x7WncQ&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
NYC Computer Repair Tech Team‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=6&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=6461263710178294080&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=bokCiUq5BzlsdqS1iO0eOA)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=6&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=6461263710178294080&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=bokCiUq5BzlsdqS1iO0eOA)
1173A Second Ave, New York, NY‎ - (862) 596-7336‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=6461263710178294080&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=bokCiUq5BzlsdqS1iO0eOA&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Type Right Inc‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=7&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3934967548637698653&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=hA8_7PBx88hB51F2eHJJuQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=7&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3934967548637698653&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=hA8_7PBx88hB51F2eHJJuQ)
1173A 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 645-6648‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3934967548637698653&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=hA8_7PBx88hB51F2eHJJuQ&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Global Motion Ltd‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=8&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3773871658851670794&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=trGBOej9nwUnHALwXHy_jQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=8&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3773871658851670794&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=trGBOej9nwUnHALwXHy_jQ)
1173 2nd Ave # A, New York, NY‎ - (212) 832-5683‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=3773871658851670794&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=trGBOej9nwUnHALwXHy_jQ&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
NY Entertainment Connection‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=9&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14563043861971055635&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=KVAVdeRHLqnc_coNMwuP3g)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=9&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14563043861971055635&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=KVAVdeRHLqnc_coNMwuP3g)
# a PMB 289, 1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 260-6100‎ - 0.1 mi N
Place closed
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=14563043861971055635&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=KVAVdeRHLqnc_coNMwuP3g&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Big Apple News Inc‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=10&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=4547380479328218441&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=pmMmF8rg2CeRIyEIoHGTwg)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=10&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=4547380479328218441&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=pmMmF8rg2CeRIyEIoHGTwg)
1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 755-5579‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=5&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=4547380479328218441&ei=qaZzSpaqDpn48gTR28Rt&sig2=pmMmF8rg2CeRIyEIoHGTwg&dtab=2&action=open)

Congregation Beth El‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=11&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=821936801553933932&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=rJfEOjEZKiVxnjPdPsrYzw)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=11&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=821936801553933932&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=rJfEOjEZKiVxnjPdPsrYzw)
1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 772-7500‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=821936801553933932&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=rJfEOjEZKiVxnjPdPsrYzw&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
Dovelet T Shashou, MD‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=12&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=13206864997802859497&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=3ISmsFItAwH4ViRRWslhIQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=12&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=13206864997802859497&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=3ISmsFItAwH4ViRRWslhIQ)
1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 591-2420‎ - 0.1 mi N
Unverified listing
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=13206864997802859497&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=3ISmsFItAwH4ViRRWslhIQ&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
One Source International Incorporated‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=13&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=15738007373832596180&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=5l0q_OgNr1NQeYSZc0Ir2Q)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=13&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=15738007373832596180&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=5l0q_OgNr1NQeYSZc0Ir2Q)
1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 486-8087‎ - 0.1 mi N
Unverified listing
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=15738007373832596180&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=5l0q_OgNr1NQeYSZc0Ir2Q&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
D & B Apple Incorporated‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=14&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=7137609242514108396&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=tS1UKAERO0jcw-sAYtsbLQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=14&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=7137609242514108396&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=tS1UKAERO0jcw-sAYtsbLQ)
1173 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 207-8114‎ - 0.1 mi N
Unverified listing
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=7137609242514108396&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=tS1UKAERO0jcw-sAYtsbLQ&dtab=2&action=open)

http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png
New York Freudian Soc Psychoanalytic Consultation Svc‎ (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=15&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=5262131497729620749&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=dJBgMW2CzY3WJzu8InzyrQ)http://maps.gstatic.com/intl/en_us/mapfiles/transparent.png - more info » (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=15&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=5262131497729620749&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=dJBgMW2CzY3WJzu8InzyrQ)
1173A 2nd Ave, New York, NY‎ - (212) 873-7029‎ - 0.1 mi N
Write a review (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=1173+2nd+Ave,+New+York,+10065&vps=6&jsv=169c&sll=40.762335,-73.963072&sspn=0.000000,0.000000&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=Fej7bQIdrGmX-w&split=0&latlng=5262131497729620749&ei=3KZzSrPcD4rg9QTf6u1Y&sig2=dJBgMW2CzY3WJzu8InzyrQ&dtab=2&action=open)

BigAl

31st July 2009, 08:24 PM

$5 says it's a mail drop and the "suite" number is a mailbox number.

ETA: My Google-fu suggests that the above is a very strong possibility indeed.

Mailbox Rentals & Shipping (http://www.esna-nyc.net/SWAPPID/102/SubPageID/18023)

The UPS Store

Yup, seems to be. In any case, it's enough info to use to call up the relevant city and state agencies.

LashL

31st July 2009, 08:28 PM

The problems with the petition, even apart from the signature issues, are neither specious nor simple.

I agree. And as I wrote in another thread prior to the petition being declared invalid:

A City Council cannot delegate to others authority which it does not have itself. That is the jist of the jurisdictional problems with the petition, in my view. It seeks to obtain from City Council authority above and beyond that which City Council has itself. It seeks to intrude upon spheres of law and spheres of authority beyond the City, and even beyond the state, for that matter. The City does not have the right or the authority to pass a law that would ostensibly put into the hands of a few people (not even necessarily NYC residents according to the petition) powers that are vested in state and federal agencies and governed by state and federal statutes (employment, criminal, and other).

Unsecured Coins

31st July 2009, 08:29 PM

The loonie is strong at present, so I'll go all out. :)

so do I have to pay or what?:jaw-dropp

LashL

31st July 2009, 08:32 PM

so do I have to pay or what?

Nah, you were writing your post taking the bet seconds before I edited my post to add the Google-Fu results, so I'll let you off the hook...this time. ;)

Foolmewunz

31st July 2009, 08:49 PM

The suite number is the give away. In the USA, the first floor is on the ground. Ergo, Suite #1 dash anything is on the ground floor. That's a storefront in NYC, because there are no ground floor offices - only lobbies and storefronts. Up in Lash country the first floor is one flight up as with the most of the rest of the world.

Upshot? Damn, this is such an obvious attempt at fleecing the sheep. They know they're going to fail, but they're going forward and they're garnering those twenty-five and fifty dollar donations. Look at the comments on 911Blogger. Poster after poster is sending in money.

If anyone gets the name of the attorney who shows up on their behalf, it'd be interesting to see if it's really "the top election lawyer in New York" or their usual neighborhood activist type.

By the way, how does one gauge the "top election lawyer"? Is there a ranking system or are they basing this on the fact that this is the guy who's taken all those other failed cases to the courts?

Orphia Nay

31st July 2009, 08:49 PM

yeah when the paper states "therein" didnt that mean 24000 of the 26000 where invalid?
thats how i took it

then again i turn wrenches for a living
i dont have to read legal opinions very often in the course of that lol
though i do have to keep liability in mind all the time

I'm becoming more certain that what you say is right. The "therein" comment seems to be key.

I did not read that as a total of 26,003 with 24,664 of them being invalid. The clerk's letter is poorly worded, but I took it to mean that there were some 50,667 signatures of which 26,003 were valid and 24,664 were invalid.

I suppose we will find out when they go to court to ask for a review of the Board of Election validation results, but it doesn't make sense, even for "truth"ers to submit a petition with only 26k signatures, as it would be a non-starter from the word 'go'.

Have a look at it again, dear LashL.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/NYCCAN-Fail-3.jpg

He seems to think it's amazing that so few were valid... "I have further concluded that not less than 24,664 signatures contained therein are invalid."

"Therein" meaning of the 26,003 mentioned in the sentence beforehand.

http://911blogger.com/node/20768#comment-212981

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, a week ago, certifying less than the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors. This benchmark, according to the Clerk’s office was not met. A ‘qualified elector’ is a registered New York City voter who was eligible to vote in the last election. According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified.

Twoofer Maths Fail! That should be 1339.

Thunder

31st July 2009, 09:04 PM

Horatius

31st July 2009, 09:12 PM

Ahahaha. Historic?

Perhaps they meant "Histrionic"?

Unsecured Coins

31st July 2009, 09:22 PM

Nah, you were writing your post taking the bet seconds before I edited my post to add the Google-Fu results, so I'll let you off the hook...this time. ;)

nonsense. a woman of your stunning good looks, superior wit and wisdom deserves her just rewards. as such, I present you not 5 loonies, but a queenly sum of 1,231.
Enjoy!! (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/)

BigAl

31st July 2009, 09:23 PM

Upon further review and thought, I think I was wrong.

There appears to be two distinct levels of acceptance for this petition.

First, there are the qualifying signatures. There were 26,003 of them, according to the NYC Clerk.

Second, there are the valid signatures. There appear to be only 1,339 of these. The rest appear to have been invalid due to the lack of current voter registration in NYC, missing addresses, missing signing dates, and other reasons.

Though we could be wrong. The older style legalistic older style English is a bit confusing.

I just made an attempt to find definitions of "valid" and "qualifying" on the NYC elections web site: http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us

I did find the document that should have them but doesn't.

http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/Adopted2009IndependentNominatingPetitionRules.pdf

I'm going to shoot an email message to the address published by the CC.

That document does have a list of the number of ways a signature can be thrown out.

AI Address illegible or so abbreviated it cannot be identified.
ALT Alteration (date/signature)
DI Date incomplete
DUP v._p._l_ Duplicate of same signature located in the petition at volume identification # ___, page__, line__
DSP Date of witness statement is prior to date of signature
F Forgery
ILLS Illegible signature
ILLD Illegible date
NA No address stated
ND No date stated
NFN No first name\name is so abbreviated it cannot be identified
NPN No page number –petition page not sequentially numbered
NR Not registered as stated in BOE records
OD Out of the district of the contest
P Pencil or not in ink
PR Signature is printed or not handwritten
SH Similar handwriting
TE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
TL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for
circulating petitions or subsequent to date of witness signature
SAP v._ p._ l_ Signed another petition for the same office on same or prior date designating another as candidate, at petition volume identification #______ page ___, line___.
SW Signature is that of the subscribing witness to the page
SWALT Subscribing Witness information altered (not initialed)
SWNQ Subscribing witness not qualified
SWNR Subscribing witness not registered, as stated
SWDI Date incomplete in subscribing witness statement
SWA No address or wrong address stated in subscribing witness statement
SWND No date stated in subscribing witness statement 11
SWNN Name of subscribing witness omitted from body of subscribing witness statement
SWNS Signature of subscribing witness omitted
SWNSO Number of signatures omitted from subscribing witness statement
SWWNS Wrong number of signatures stated in subscribing witness statement
SWTE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
SWTL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for circulating petitions
WA Wrong address stated on petition

cyclonic

31st July 2009, 09:23 PM

Executive Council
Donna Marsh O’Connor, Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer
Bob Mcilvaine, Father of Bobby Mcilvaine
Jean Canavan, Sister in law of Sean Canavan
Edith Beaujon, First Responder
Janette MacKinlay, Survivor
William Rodriguez, Survivor

Executive Director
Ted Walter

http://www.nyccan.org/contact.php

Good ole william is involved.

16.5

31st July 2009, 09:35 PM

LashL

31st July 2009, 09:49 PM

Have a look at it again, dear LashL.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/NYCCAN-Fail-3.jpg

He seems to think it's amazing that so few were valid... "I have further concluded that not less than 24,664 signatures contained therein are invalid."

"Therein" meaning of the 26,003 mentioned in the sentence beforehand.

I don't think so. I think it's just poorly worded and that the "therein" refers back to the petition as a whole, as the sentence starts with "Based on the foregoing review [the foregoing review being the review of the petition as a whole], I further conclude that not less than 24664 signatures contained therein are invalid."

It then goes on to set out the reasons why 24,664 were invalid (or non-qualifying), including the primary reason being that signatories were not registered or qualified to vote in the last NYC general election, etc.

It doesn't make sense to call the 26,003 "qualifying signatures" and then go on to also call 24,664 of those invalid, because by definition, qualifying signatures are those that met the requirements re: residency, registered voter, etc.

Plus, even for "truth"ers, it would have made absolutely NO sense to submit only 26,003 signatures in total, knowing that such a figure would not meet the numerical threshold even if every single one of them was found to be valid. In fact, the signatures would not even have had to be examined beyond counting, had that been the case.

Twoofer Maths Fail! That should be 1339.

I think their math goes like this: 52,000 total signatures (the number they say they submitted), 26,003 of which were deemed valid and 24,664 of which were deemed invalid, leaves 1,333.

Anyway, I guess we will find out if and when the "truth"ers go to court next week, or if and when they post their documents. I won't hold my breath on them providing same, though.

Orphia Nay

31st July 2009, 10:04 PM

Cheers, Lash. That makes sense too. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

Even if 26000 of the 70000 signatures they say they've got qualified, that's still only 37% of them, and a massive fail.

BigAl

31st July 2009, 10:05 PM

And even for "truth"ers, it would have made absolutely NO sense to submit only 26,003 signatures in total, knowing that such a figure would not meet the numerical threshold even if every single one of them was found to be valid. In fact, the signatures would not even have had to be examined beyond counting, had that been the case.

I can't believe a campaign manager would submit a petition filing without knowing, statistically at least, that he had met the minimum. With volunteer effort, it's not that hard do do.

I just worked on the petition drive for a NYC city council race. The requirement was for 900 good signatures. Because our opposition has deep pockets for legal fees and plays legal hardball, we shot for 3,000 signatures via door-to-door to registered Dems plus whatever we did on the street.

As the pages came in, we did a voter database lookup on every name, page by page and always had an running total. We got 4,100 signatures and checked all of them until we knew we had 2500+ identified good names.

We turned in all 4,100 names anyway. No reason to make life easy for our opponent.

Justin39640

31st July 2009, 10:31 PM

Cheers, Lash. That makes sense too. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

Even if 26000 of the 70000 signatures they say they've got qualified, that's still only 37% of them, and a massive fail.

i made my guess after reading it about 20 times lol
the under 30K didnt make sense to me either but then again what does when it comes to truthers? so it was still a coin toss

i guess ill stick to wrenches and trust the lawyers :) lol

triforcharity

31st July 2009, 11:25 PM

:woot:

Nah, they are Yankee territory. *Shudder*

I will second that, but only when I am NOT in the company of some certain City firefighters...... I would get ragged for MONTHS for that......I couldn't hide it, I have a big Boston B tattoo... That my friends, is dedication.

triforcharity

31st July 2009, 11:28 PM

Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4945493

Dude, deep, I knew it was public record. There isn't much IN the City Clerks office that ISNT public record. That would be address, phone numbers, and SSNs of employees. Pretty much everything else is though.

Heck, you could go down to my city hall, and find out how much i make, how many hours a week i work, damn near everything. Come on now......

I see, Deep is upset that this failed so miserably that he has resorted to attacking posters. How cool.....:rolleyes:

triforcharity

31st July 2009, 11:47 PM

So, Lash, say they get the approval on these Mickey Mouse signatures, wouldn't it STILL fail, based on the other qualifications??? I mean, I am not a lawyer, but like to play one on the interwebs sometimes.

*Bows three times in the direction of Toronto* <~~ Not sure what this is about, but it sounds cool, and makes me seem cool.

jhunter1163

1st August 2009, 12:17 AM

*Bows three times in the direction of Toronto* <~~ Not sure what this is about, but it sounds cool, and makes me seem cool.

That's how you summon the Goddess of Legaltainment. It's a running joke around here. Buying her adult beverages works too, but I live too far from Toronto for that, not to mention the fact that Mrs. JHunter1163 has advised me that she won't make the mistake Lorena did of throwing it where the cops could find it if I start buying women drinks.

deep

1st August 2009, 12:18 AM

That should be interesting. Hey, deep, how about asking your pals to post up a copy of their filing? I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

Yes, I'd also be interested in seeing it, but I doubt they will post it themselves..

Shifting gears for a moment - I was wondering if you had any thoughts on one of the issues raised by the Corporate Counsel:
".. the subject of this proposed amendment to the Charter does not relate to an existing Charter provision as required by section 37."I've been unable to find any such requirement in section 37 (or anywhere else in the MHRL). In fact, section 37(3) seems to contradict it (bolding mine):

Such local law shall set forth the new matter to be added to the charter either in italics or underlined and the matter to be deleted therefrom either in brackets or with lines drawn through it, and after adoption the matter so set forth in italics or underlined may be set forth in the charter in ordinary type, and the matter in brackets or with lines through it may be omitted; but failure so to set forth any provision of the charter which is in fact superseded shall not invalidate the amendment or new charter or any portion thereof.Have you ever heard of a requirement like the one described by the Corporate Counsel?

LashL

1st August 2009, 12:27 AM

So, Lash, say they get the approval on these Mickey Mouse signatures, wouldn't it STILL fail, based on the other qualifications???

Yes, it will still fail regardless of the number of valid signatures because the petition has major problems, including (but not limited to) jurisdictional and constitutional problems, as well. In short, it's a clusterf...ail* of extremely poor draftsmanship without regard to existing local, state or federal law, and it is apparent that no competent lawyer had any input into it.

*Thanks to RMackey for that new word.

triforcharity

1st August 2009, 12:33 AM

Ok, thank you so much Lash, much appreciated.

So, my assumption was correct that if they HAD the signatures, if would be a clusterfail like nothing we had ever seen before.

I just want them to call me and try to supeonea (Sp?) me, and I can tell them where to go and where to stick it. Gotcha. Thanks.

LashL

1st August 2009, 01:04 AM

Yes, I'd also be interested in seeing it, but I doubt they will post it themselves..

I doubt it, too. I have to ask, though, does it not give you pause that the very promoters of the petition will not post it themselves?

Shifting gears for a moment - I was wondering if you had any thoughts on one of the issues raised by the Corporate Counsel:
".. the subject of this proposed amendment to the Charter does not relate to an existing Charter provision as required by section 37."I've been unable to find any such requirement in section 37 (or anywhere else in the MHRL).

Section 37 also cross references other sections, and of course, one must read the MHRL as a whole in order to properly interpret it, as a petition is required to comply with all of the relevant provisions of the MHRL and with all applicable law, even outside of the MHRL. Take a look at section 11 and section 24, for instance.

In fact, section 37(3) seems to contradict it (bolding mine):Such local law shall set forth the new matter to be added to the charter either in italics or underlined and the matter to be deleted therefrom either in brackets or with lines drawn through it, and after adoption the matter so set forth in italics or underlined may be set forth in the charter in ordinary type, and the matter in brackets or with lines through it may be omitted; but failure so to set forth any provision of the charter which is in fact superseded shall not invalidate the amendment or new charter or any portion thereof.

You are misinterpreting the bolded part there, deep. It only means that failure to set out portions of the charter that are, in fact, superceded, by a proposed amendment will not, on its own, invalidate the amendment. For a section or subsection to be superceded means that it is replaced by a new version or a new section or subsection. What often happens when rules or statutes are revised is that the revision impacts on other rules or statutes or other subsections of the same rule or statute, and the new provision, as a matter of law, must supercede those other rules or statutes or subsections, because the new provision cannot properly co-exist with the former provisions. So, the bolded part is just saying that if you fail to specify a provision that is in fact superceded by the new provision, that does not, on its own, invalidate your petition. That particular bit has nothing to do with the reasons for this petition to have been rejected by the City Clerk.

KoihimeNakamura

1st August 2009, 02:05 AM

Thank you SCROLL.

I've found the filed paperwork for the case.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/C_PDF?CatID=511040&CID=110779-2009&FName=0

It seems no attorney. Also, who is this guy?

Orphia Nay

1st August 2009, 02:24 AM

MikeW

1st August 2009, 02:25 AM

KoihimeNakamura

1st August 2009, 02:28 AM

Mc.. I so badly misread that entire thing. Well, at least he IS an attorney. Congrats, TM! You got one thing right.

LashL

1st August 2009, 02:35 AM

Thank you SCROLL.

I've found the filed paperwork for the case.

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/C_PDF?CatID=511040&CID=110779-2009&FName=0

It seems no attorney. Also, who is this guy?

Nice work, Rika! From the document, it appears that there is an attorney (of sorts) named, one Dennis P. McMahon:

Hoo boy.
(http://www.journeyintothemystic.com/about_dennis.html)
http://www.journeyintothemystic.com/about_dennis.html

Fits in with the "truth" movement quite nicely, it seems.

Dennis P. McMahon is a writer, editor, and attorney living in Brooklyn, New York.

After experiencing what he would later describe as spontaneous mystical events, Dennis became deeply involved in seeking explanations thru shamanism, past-life regressions, communications with the dead, and the like. Part of his process is to share what he has perceived and learned, reflecting the tradition of sharing practiced for thousands of years among members of indigenous societies who recognize that the sharing of mystical experiences benefits the human condition.I sure hope that this fellow is not "the best election lawyer in NYC" whom the promoters of the petition have been espousing, because if that were true, then NYC as we know it would be utterly and completely doomed. No, really.

KoihimeNakamura

1st August 2009, 03:01 AM

Well, the voices in my head tell me that in their past lifes they also advise people to charge money..
... Seriously, I think "best" because he agrees with them.

Hokulele

1st August 2009, 03:45 AM

Nice job, Rika!

Will LegaltainmentTM ensue?

Foolmewunz

1st August 2009, 04:23 AM

Nice job, Rika!

Will LegaltainmentTM ensue?

Will it ensue???? You may have to redefine the term in their honor.

BigAl

1st August 2009, 06:59 AM

Brainster

1st August 2009, 07:05 AM

As of Saturday AM, that link is broken.

Works for me; you just have to type in the captcha code on the right in order to get the pdf file to download.

BigAl

1st August 2009, 07:16 AM

Works for me; you just have to type in the captcha code on the right in order to get the pdf file to download.

Do'H. I didn't have my coffee yet.

Thunder

1st August 2009, 07:32 AM

16.5

1st August 2009, 07:33 AM

Well, the voices in my head tell me that in their past lifes they also advise people to charge money..
... Seriously, I think "best" because he agrees with them.

Maybe he needs the money to buy a typewriter.

Hey truthers, very impressive legal minds you have assembled. He is too lazy to fill out a new form, so he simply scribbles out the errors.

Brilliant! A lesser lawyer would have taken two minutes and filled out a new form.

Brainster

1st August 2009, 07:40 AM

I doubt it, too. I have to ask, though, does it not give you pause that the very promoters of the petition will not post it themselves?

Nothing the Troofers do these days should surprise me anymore, but I have been struck by the absence of curiosity they've displayed about what happened, and the complete lack of disclosure by the NYC-CAN group. Indeed, if you look at the NYC-CAN Website, there's still no mention that the petition has been rejected; the latest "news" there is "NYC CAN files petitition".

triforcharity

1st August 2009, 08:28 AM

You know, you would think a "lawyer" would know better than to scratch something out, and not initial it. If I EVER make even a TINY mistake on a report, I initial it right near that mistake.

But, if I make more than 2-3 mistakes, I start over. That looks like a couple of uneducated 5th graders wrote it!! Holy craptastical fail!!!

triforcharity

1st August 2009, 08:33 AM

Oh, here is what I found on the Schrstopher Burke guy. Seems he works/owns a PR firm in NYC....Not sure wht HE is doing with NYCCAN, but Hey, whatever.

http://www.lighthouse-pr.com/home.html

Aany clues as to what exactly he does???

jhunter1163

1st August 2009, 08:39 AM

If this McMahon had an ounce of integrity, he'd say "Look, guys, this petition has major flaws. There's no way in hell we're going to get this on the ballot, so my advice to you is to punt for 2009, redo the petition to address the Corporation Counsel's issues, and try again in 2010."

The fact that this is not happening says a lot about McMahon, and about NYCCAN'T (thanks to Brainster for that nickname) as well.

Brainster

1st August 2009, 12:54 PM

SLC gets results. I posted on the fact that none of the Troofers had linked to the letter from the City Clerk to the Council, preferring to let it be thought that the number of signatures was the only problem, and that NYC-CAN had not updated their website to reflect the rejection. Now NYC-CAN (http://www.nyccan.org/) has this up, dated yesterday, but obviously posted today:

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, a week ago, certifying less than the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors. This benchmark, according to the Clerk’s office was not met. A ‘qualified elector’ is a registered New York City voter who was eligible to vote in the last election. According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified.

Note that even if the July 31st date was correct, that would be 7 days they waited before posting about this.

Jon Gold also put up a quick post at OpEd News linking to the letter. The post at OpEd News is dated July 31st as well, but Gold didn't see that the header includes an actual time stamp showing that it was posted after my post this morning at SLC.

Apparently these clowns can be shamed into doing what they should have all along, but they're not about to admit that they were shamed into it.

Bobert

1st August 2009, 05:49 PM

This is what occurs when crack heads and meth addicts collect signatures.
BTW Deep44 what area of law do you practice?

Justin39640

1st August 2009, 09:26 PM

This is what occurs when crack heads and meth addicts collect signatures.
BTW Deep44 what area of law do you practice?

ad-lib lol

Orphia Nay

2nd August 2009, 12:18 AM

Dennis P McMahon is representing them? He's the attorney who said (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469) ""To accept the official version of 9/11 is to be an accessory after the fact of mass murder", so his grasp of legal matters seems a little shaky to me... But we'll find out soon enough.

Nice work, Rika! From the document, it appears that there is an attorney (of sorts) named, one Dennis P. McMahon:

Hoo boy.
(http://www.journeyintothemystic.com/about_dennis.html)
http://www.journeyintothemystic.com/about_dennis.html

Fits in with the "truth" movement quite nicely, it seems.

I sure hope that this fellow is not "the best election lawyer in NYC" whom the promoters of the petition have been espousing, because if that were true, then NYC as we know it would be utterly and completely doomed. No, really.

The lawyer's a twoofer AND a woo? :big:

This petition saga is twoofism at its finest.

:popcorn1

jhunter1163

2nd August 2009, 12:20 AM

I'm looking forward to reading the judge's smackdown at the Monday hearing. It ought to be a good one.

Thunder

2nd August 2009, 08:40 AM

I think it would be wise for the Truthers to quit while they are ahead. All of these failures can't be good for the self-esteem.

I expect another mass defection of truthers. This may be the final straw.

Unsecured Coins

2nd August 2009, 08:44 AM

I think it would be wise for the Truthers to quit while they are ahead.

when did this happen?

~enigma~

2nd August 2009, 08:45 AM

when did this happen?
Think about it Jay, they have ahead on each one of their stupid torsos.

Unsecured Coins

2nd August 2009, 08:48 AM

Think about it Jay, they have ahead on each one of their stupid torsos.

ooooooooohhhhh..... I see what you did there...

BigAl

2nd August 2009, 08:54 AM

I'm looking forward to reading the judge's smackdown at the Monday hearing. It ought to be a good one.

When and where?

I assume the Judge's order will show up online and someone knows where to find it, or do I have to show up at the Clerk's office again?

jhunter1163

2nd August 2009, 09:49 AM

When and where?

I assume the Judge's order will show up online and someone knows where to find it, or do I have to show up at the Clerk's office again?

The hearing is tomorrow, don't know the time, Judge Lehner presiding. I'm not sure how long it'll take to get the result posted, but the city seems to be pretty efficient. Should be up by Wednesday at latest, I'd think.

ETA: Rika found the appeal filing through SCROLL. Maybe the hearing result will be available the same way.

BigAl

2nd August 2009, 10:29 AM

In this thread, the people running the petition drive think they can still bring in more signatures. http://groups.google.com/group/911-national-leaders/browse_thread/thread/9c22f91c03a2bf65?hl=en

There has to be a cutoff date for the delivery of petition signatures. Does anyone know what it is?

triforcharity

2nd August 2009, 10:32 AM

Yeah, the daay they filed the petition. They can bring them all the signatures of every single person on the planet, and it won't help them a bit.

Its assinine for them to try.

jhunter1163

2nd August 2009, 10:43 AM

IIRC, August 24 is the absolute drop-dead date for submitting petitions to the City Council in order to get them on the ballot for the November election. So they're scurrying around desperately trying to scratch up 30,000 valid signatures, while ignoring the elephant in the room; the petition, as currently written, has multiple fatal flaws and would not be approved to be put on the ballot if they had three million valid signatures.

Alt+F4

2nd August 2009, 12:10 PM

the petition, as currently written, has multiple fatal flaws and would not be approved to be put on the ballot if they had three million valid signatures.

It's not about the petition or gathering signatures, it's about this:

You can also mail a check, made payable to NYC CAN, to this address...

Thunder

2nd August 2009, 12:24 PM

I love how this "Commission" wants the power to subpoena Bush, Rumsfeld, Condy, Wolfowitz, and other folks.

what makes them think the NY City Council has the power to do such a thing? if a petition was made to have a NYC Space Program...does that mean we can just do it?

nope

jhunter1163

2nd August 2009, 12:58 PM

It's not about the petition or gathering signatures, it's about this:

You can also mail a check, made payable to NYC CAN, to this address...

You know that, I know that... but until the Twoofers realize it, we'll likely see more of this nonsense.

Brainster

2nd August 2009, 01:56 PM

One of the Troofers pointed out this fatal flaw in the petition:

Commissioners may come from any part of the world and shall not be required to maintain a residence in New York State.

But the state law says (http://www.tenant.net/Other_Laws/Pubofc/pubofc02.html):

No person shall be capable of holding a civil office who shall not, at the time he shall be chosen thereto, have attained the age of eighteen years, except that in the case of youth boards, youth commissions or recreation commissions only, members of such boards or commissions may be under the age of eighteen years, but must have attained the age of sixteen years on or before appointment to such youth board, youth commission or recreation commission, be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the state, and if it be a local office, a resident of the political subdivision or municipal corporation of the state for which he shall be chosen, or within which the electors electing him reside, or within which his official functions are required to be exercised, or who shall have been or shall be convicted of a violation of the selective draft act of the United States, enacted May eighteenth, nineteen hundred seventeen, or the acts amendatory or supplemental thereto, or of the federal selective training and service act of nineteen hundred forty or the acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto.

Bolding added for emphasis.

It's a darn good thing they have the best election lawyer in New York working on the case!

jhunter1163

2nd August 2009, 02:13 PM

The way I see it, the Twoofies are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their petition is fatally flawed, but they can't throw it out because then they'd have to throw out all their signatures and get another 30K, which ain't gonna happen with three weeks left to the deadline. So all they can do is keep trying to polish their current turd.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, do not play one on TV, and if I said anything erroneous I agree to be incentivized by LashL. As long as she wears the matching boots.

triforcharity

2nd August 2009, 03:43 PM

She will hve to pick them up from my house, as she left them here on her last visit!

:D

Thunder

2nd August 2009, 03:45 PM

The petition is fatally flawed. Even if it did have enough valid signatures..it is still unworkable and ineligable for a NYC Commission.

another truther grave that they themselves dug.

=P

drainbread

2nd August 2009, 04:10 PM

This demotivational poster is dedicated to all the twoofers across the interwebz:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=214&pictureid=1206

Unsecured Coins

2nd August 2009, 04:45 PM

She will hve to pick them up from my house, as she left them here on her last visit!

:D

your house, your ass... same difference :)

Scott Sommers

2nd August 2009, 05:34 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

stateofgrace

2nd August 2009, 05:49 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

Somebody called Kevin posted a comment on youtube, oh well it must be true.:rolleyes:

Thunder

2nd August 2009, 05:57 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

well, the Clerk of the City of New York found that only 1,339 of these petitions were validly signed.

Truthers can suck a lemon.

:p

~enigma~

2nd August 2009, 05:58 PM

Title asks for laughing dogs so...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1325748527f32e37ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12538)

Scott Sommers

2nd August 2009, 06:01 PM

My point was supposed to be that there does not seem to be clear information among TM about what happened to their petition.

Sam.I.Am

2nd August 2009, 06:04 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

Don't you find it a tad suspicious when the number is so even? 24,664 were found to be invalid, so even if they had exactly 52,000 signatures they still fell short by over 2,000 signatures to get it considered to be placed on the ballot.

stateofgrace

2nd August 2009, 06:12 PM

My point was supposed to be that there does not seem to be clear information among TM about what happened to their petition.

Really?

So your point wasn't to show that the TM had massive support based on a youtube comment by Kevin last month?

Scott Sommers

2nd August 2009, 06:41 PM

Really?

So your point wasn't to show that the TM had massive support based on a youtube comment by Kevin last month?

Is that what I wrote?

stateofgrace

2nd August 2009, 06:52 PM

Is that what I wrote?

Yep, you wrote

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan
Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

In future rather than post links followed by obscure points, maybe you would be so kind as to specify the exact point you are trying to make.

Orphia Nay

2nd August 2009, 07:05 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

Hi, Scott. Yes, the link deep44 posted from 9/11 Blogger (http://911blogger.com/node/20768#comment-212981) mentions that figure too.

It was from a NYCCAN mailing.

NYC CAN News Bulletin -- July 31, 2009 -- PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

New York City– On Wednesday, several 9/11 victim family members and a survivor took the first step in challenging the City Clerk’s rejection of the NYC CAN petition for a new investigation in New York City. The group filed a Verified Petition/Order to Show Cause with the Supreme Court of the State of New York requesting a review of Board of Election documentation and a ‘special referee’ appointed to re-validate the over 52,000 signatures filed by NYC CAN on June 24th.

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, a week ago, certifying less than the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors. This benchmark, according to the Clerk’s office was not met. A ‘qualified elector’ is a registered New York City voter who was eligible to vote in the last election. According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified.

So it seems that twoofers can sign their names correctly 50% of the time. ;) :D

triforcharity

2nd August 2009, 07:11 PM

Stateofgrace,

Easy, he's one of us!! He's a good guy!! He's just new here. You'll have to forgive him.

Cl1mh4224rd

2nd August 2009, 08:45 PM

Pro tip: If you're encountering a member you haven't seen before and they have some posts under their belt, check their posting history1 to get a feel for their position. You might be misreading, or it might be a Poe. One or two data points usually aren't enough, and might even lead one to the wrong conclusion about another member.

-----
1. Click on their name / View Public Profile / Statistics (tab) / Find all posts by <member>

UNLoVedRebel

2nd August 2009, 08:56 PM

My point was supposed to be that there does not seem to be clear information among TM about what happened to their petition.

The truth movement can't even decide if planes hit the twin towers or not. Have you heard of the no-planer?

Brainster

2nd August 2009, 09:17 PM

Someone on this Youtube page named KevinMerck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI posted last month that the NYCCAN had 52,000 signatures on it.

50,667, 52,000, not much of a difference.

Foolmewunz

3rd August 2009, 03:47 AM

stateofgrace

3rd August 2009, 03:50 AM

Ok, I'm suitably embarrassed by jumping to the wrong conclusion, apologies to Scott.

Foolmewunz

3rd August 2009, 04:01 AM

Ok, I'm suitably embarrassed by jumping to the wrong conclusion, apologies to Scott.

Oh, gawd. Now I'm suitably embarassed for jumping on the jumping on.

Apologies to stateofgrace.

stateofgrace

3rd August 2009, 04:05 AM

Oh, gawd. Now I'm suitably embarassed for jumping on the jumping on.

Apologies to stateofgrace.

Ok I'm suitably embarrassed you’re embarrassed that I'm embarrassed.

Apologies all round. In fact apologies to everybody who is or isn't embarrassed.

Comsat Angel

3rd August 2009, 04:14 AM

I'm curious - their total number of votes is @ 50K. Where does the 70,000 figure come from?

Dave Rogers

3rd August 2009, 04:16 AM

I suppose we will find out when they go to court to ask for a review of the Board of Election validation results, but it doesn't make sense, even for "truth"ers to submit a petition with only 26k signatures, as it would be a non-starter from the word 'go'.

Unless they assumed that, because it listed the first name and the last name of each signatory, that counted as two names each ;).

Dave

Scott Sommers

3rd August 2009, 05:45 AM

AJM8125

3rd August 2009, 05:51 AM

Hoo boy. This petetion is dead and here we have none other than David Ray himself shilling for more donations. Funny thing is while drones on about signatures, he fails to tell his readers that the whole thing was screwed from the start.

The good news here is that NYC CAN, I am told, has already raised
almost enough to hire this lawyer. But several thousand dollars more
are still needed.

Please consider donating right away to NYC CAN’s legal defense fund

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20800

*insert facepalm please, I have the flu and it hurts to lift my arms*

Thanks.

BigAl

3rd August 2009, 06:43 AM

Hoo boy. This petetion is dead and here we have none other than David Ray himself shilling for more donations. Funny thing is while drones on about signatures, he fails to tell his readers that the whole thing was screwed from the start.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20800

No Lawyer today? I can't wait to read the opinion of the judge.

NYC CAN will go to court this Monday, August 3, for its first hearing. But its formal plaintiffs---four 9/11 family members and one survivor---are proceeding without the aid of an experienced election lawyer.

timhau

3rd August 2009, 06:56 AM

I go away for a few hours to buy some shoes and everyone's apologizing to me. No worry. We're all friends here.

Hey, you can't do that! It's against everything internet forums stand for! You should now make a long, whiny post about respect and lack thereof, throw a hissy fit calling everyone names, write a verbose essay on the meanness and closed-mindedness of the average poster here, and declare your martyrdom and intention to leave. The last part should preferably be done multiple times, with escalating levels of whininess. The protocol isn't set in stone so you can ad lib a little, but you can't just shrug and say 'no worry'.

Brainster

3rd August 2009, 09:14 AM

No Lawyer today? I can't wait to read the opinion of the judge.

NYC-CAN was all prepared to go to court. I can see Ted Walter: "Okay, let's go over the checklist. Clown car, check. Two-dollar suit from Salvation Army, check. Signs saying '9-11 Was An Inside Job', check. Lawyer? Oh, crap, who forgot to hire the lawyer?"

ElMondoHummus

3rd August 2009, 10:07 AM

dtugg

3rd August 2009, 10:27 AM

Pfff... what lawyer would touch this case?

I am sure there are some lawyers with questionable ethics who would be glad to take those idiots' money.

NoZed Avenger

3rd August 2009, 10:34 AM

I am sure there are some lawyers with questionable ethics who would be glad to take those idiots' money.

Did someone ring?

timhau

3rd August 2009, 12:52 PM

I am sure there are some lawyers with questionable ethics who would be glad to take those idiots' money.

It doesn't have to be a sleazy lawyer. A law degree doesn't guarantee sanity.

dtugg

3rd August 2009, 12:57 PM

It doesn't have to be a sleazy lawyer. A law degree doesn't guarantee sanity.

True.

Macgyver1968

3rd August 2009, 02:00 PM

NYC-CAN was all prepared to go to court. I can see Ted Walter: "Okay, let's go over the checklist. Clown car, check. Two-dollar suit from Salvation Army, check. Signs saying '9-11 Was An Inside Job', check. Lawyer? Oh, crap, who forgot to hire the lawyer?"

Guffah of the day award. Dang it...made me LOL at work.

I'm no lawyer, but even I know that NYC doesn't have jusidiction over any Federal entities. What the H...E... double hockey sticks were they thinking?

TruthersLie

3rd August 2009, 02:06 PM

Pfff... what lawyer would touch this case?

I'm sure that you have heard that they are thinking of replacing lab rats with lawyers. This is for several reasons. 1. the lab assistants were getting attached to the rats. 2. there were even somethings that lab rats wouldn't do.

BigAl

3rd August 2009, 02:12 PM

Pfff... what lawyer would touch this case?

I don't think any real lawyer wants to have a judicial slap-down for wasting the court's time on his record.

NoZed Avenger

3rd August 2009, 02:32 PM

It doesn't have to be a sleazy lawyer. A law degree doesn't guarantee sanity.

Did someone ring?

Leviath

3rd August 2009, 03:54 PM

Pfff... what lawyer would touch this case?

It's good money. All you have to do is show up in court with a list of links to very important youtube videos and a copy of Loose Change. The case will solve itself from there on.

Josarhus

3rd August 2009, 04:01 PM

Isn't it about time that we got some news on how the NYC CAN day in court went?! It was to day right?!

jhunter1163

3rd August 2009, 04:22 PM

Nothing on SCROLL yet. Anyone can check if they want, it's free. Rika linked a document in post #124; cut off the part after the word "scroll" and paste it in your browser, and it'll take you to the homepage. It's pretty intuitive. They were before Justice Lehner, IIRC.

Wolrab

3rd August 2009, 04:59 PM

The lawyer, Dennis P. McMahon, was a corporate lawyer for Pfizer and was lead on a defense of a death supposedly caused by Viagra. So while he is not technically a top Election Lawyer, it can be said he is a top ....

I'm so very sorry.

Justin39640

3rd August 2009, 05:02 PM

jhunter1163

3rd August 2009, 05:03 PM

I'm so very sorry.

As you should be.

ETA: @ Justin: Ba-dum-ching.

DGM

3rd August 2009, 05:07 PM

In 2003 I helped organize and collect volunteers to circulate a petition to fund gym classes in our elementary schools. We got 11,000 valid signatures in 3 weeks with a budget of $0 in a town of just over 28,000. It must suck to have a cause so thin as a "truthers'".:D

Audible Click

3rd August 2009, 05:31 PM

Justin39640

3rd August 2009, 06:17 PM

A top...erection lawyer.

his latest effort didnt stand up to scrutiny

Brainster

3rd August 2009, 06:24 PM

his latest effort didnt stand up to scrutiny

In fact it collapsed at freefall speed.

Hokulele

3rd August 2009, 06:24 PM

In fact it collapsed at freefall speed.

Prematurely.

Mr.D

3rd August 2009, 06:30 PM

In fact it collapsed at freefall speed.

Brings new meaning to "sagging" trusses
So what was ejected from the building?
Brings new meaning to "mini"-nukes
Where do the keebler elves fit in?
Clunkety-clunk

Gives "pull it" a whole new context ...

Cl1mh4224rd

3rd August 2009, 06:37 PM

I go away for a few hours to buy some shoes and everyone's apologizing to me. No worry. We're all friends here.

But I am confused about the number situation. Earlier in this thread, we concluded from this NY City document
http://911links.webs.com/NYCCAN-Fail-1.jpg
the statement "26,003 qualifying signatures" meant that the total number of signatures gathered was 26,003. The "not less than 24,664 contained therein" that are invalid referred to the number of these signatures that were invalid, so that there is only a total of 1,339 valid signatures on the petition.

Where are these 50,000 + numbers coming from?

I'm going with the lawyer here, LashL (and not just because I came to the same conclusion :p).

The 26,003 is the number of valid signatures.

The 24,664 is the number of invalid signatures. The "therein" refers back to the petition as a whole, and not the 26,003 number.

Therefore, the total number of signatures submitted was 50,667.

P.S. A question to anyone who can answer it: My suspicion is that these responses should acknowledge, in some way, the total number of signatures submitted with the petition. It seems like the formal thing to do. Is this correct?

Thunder

3rd August 2009, 06:41 PM

Even if they had enough valid signatures, the petition would still have to be thrown out. The City Council can not do the things that the petition asks it to do. Nor can the District Attorney of Southern New York do a nation wide 9-11 investigation.

A DA decides for himself if there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation. 100,000 signatures cannot force a DA to investigate something be considers to be baseless.

Justin39640

3rd August 2009, 06:42 PM

jhunter1163

3rd August 2009, 06:44 PM

It seems that the attorney for the plaintiff has not acknowledged the petition's.... SHORTcomings.

Justin39640

3rd August 2009, 06:46 PM

It seems that the attorney for the plaintiff has not acknowedged the petition's.... SHORTcomings.

their hopes were then deflated

BigAl

3rd August 2009, 06:51 PM

It seems that the attorney for the plaintiff has not acknowledged the petition's.... SHORTcomings.

Spoken to some character portrayed by Dudley Moore, no doubt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z61e1Hv6gIQ

jhunter1163

3rd August 2009, 07:13 PM

Actually, this is what I had in mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IIl3zSYL8k

~enigma~

4th August 2009, 12:17 AM

A top...erection lawyer.
Thank you Emily Latella...

KoihimeNakamura

4th August 2009, 01:16 AM

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=110779-2009

^ That's an index by case, which is most likely a better way to keep track of them.

Orphia Nay

4th August 2009, 01:40 AM

The splitters are at it again!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789

Like most things I read on those sites, it made me angry. It didn't make me angry because of the usual inaccuracies, name calling, selective memories, slander, and other ******** we usually see. I was more angry at those who wrote the petition. I would have thought that those responsible would have made every effort to make sure the petition was legally sound.

In my opinion, "proceeding in the most thoughtful, strategic, skeptical way we can" is great, but how do we accomplish our overall goal? If the Supreme Court denies the petition, and says that the Corporation Counsel's judgement is correct, then what do we do?

Aside from "never letting Les Jamieson near anything important ever again?"

:dl:

Orphia Nay

4th August 2009, 01:59 AM

I'm going with the lawyer here, LashL (and not just because I came to the same conclusion :p).

The 26,003 is the number of valid signatures.

The 24,664 is the number of invalid signatures. The "therein" refers back to the petition as a whole, and not the 26,003 number.

Therefore, the total number of signatures submitted was 50,667.

No wonder we're confused. The NYCCAN website says:

"New York City– On Wednesday, several 9/11 victim family members and a survivor took the first step in challenging the City Clerk’s rejection of the NYC CAN petition for a new investigation in New York City. The group filed a Verified Petition/Order to Show Cause with the Supreme Court of the State of New York requesting a review of Board of Election documentation and a ‘special referee’ appointed to re-validate the over 52,000 signatures filed by NYC CAN on June 24th.

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, a week ago, certifying less than the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors. This benchmark, according to the Clerk’s office was not met. A ‘qualified elector’ is a registered New York City voter who was eligible to vote in the last election. According to the letter sent by the Clerk to the City Council, the NY Board of Elections validated 26,003 signatures and invalidated 24,664, leaving 1,333 that were not certified."

http://www.nyccan.org/index.php

"Over 52,000 signatures"?

Yet 26,003 validated; 24,664 invalidated, and 1333 not certified adds up to exactly 52,000.

WTF? :con2:

Did someone ask where the 70,000 figure came from someone (me?) mentioned earlier?

It's the total of signatories the NYCCAN website claims they have. As of this moment, it's 72,748:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/NYCCAN-Fail-4.jpg

timhau

4th August 2009, 02:24 AM

jhunter1163

4th August 2009, 04:49 AM

The splitters are at it again!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20789

:dl:

The comments in that thread are beautiful. The NWO disinfo ops in NYC are earning their money this week.

Wolrab

4th August 2009, 08:56 AM

Basic prophylactic measures should have been followed to ensure acceptance of the petition. Did the filers expect the petition to be rubber-stamped? There was obviously a need for more intercourse between all parties. This has got to be hard on all those involved.

~enigma~

4th August 2009, 09:01 AM

Basic prophylactic measures should have been followed to ensure acceptance of the petition..
Basic prophylactic measures should have been followed before the idiots were born.

nicepants

4th August 2009, 09:21 AM

Josarhus

4th August 2009, 01:01 PM

ETA: Orphia nay beat me to it!

From their website:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894a7850cbbd2ae.png

Yet the article states:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894a785199a52e9.png

Check my math:

72,748 = How many signatures they claim they got
24,664 (invalidated) + 26,003 (validated) + 1,333 (not certified) = 52,000

Looks to me like their site is reporting about 20,000 more signatures than they actually got. Surely they wouldn't exaggerate like that.....not truthers! :eek:

They ONLY handed in 52,000 signatures or 22,000 more than the 30,000 needed. They were confident that it was enough, but continued to collect signatures, so that the total today is above 72,000 signatures. The last 20,000 signatures (72,000-52,000) have not been handed in yet.

This is what I make of the different numbers.

johnny karate

4th August 2009, 02:23 PM

The last 20,000 signatures (72,000-52,000) have not been handed in yet.

I bet those are the good ones.

Josarhus

4th August 2009, 02:31 PM

I bet those are the good ones.

Sure they are:rolleyes:

George152

4th August 2009, 02:33 PM

I bet those are the good ones.

That they're going to keep to themselves and gloat over in the future.

Thunder

4th August 2009, 03:04 PM

They ONLY handed in 52,000 signatures or 22,000 more than the 30,000 needed. They were confident that it was enough, but continued to collect signatures, so that the total today is above 72,000 signatures. The last 20,000 signatures (72,000-52,000) have not been handed in yet.

This is what I make of the different numbers.

they can hand in 100,000 signatures. The NYC Council can not bestow upon itself authority that it does not already have.

it cannot give the New York District Attorney more power then given to him by New York State.

Aitch

4th August 2009, 03:05 PM

Josarhus

4th August 2009, 03:54 PM

they can hand in 100,000 signatures. The NYC Council can not bestow upon itself authority that it does not already have.

it cannot give the New York District Attorney more power then given to him by New York State.

I know, besides the missing valid signatures the city clerk also listed 5 clear reasons describing why this investigation will never happen.

I just tried to clear up why they say that they have 72,000 signatures, but only 52,000 were submitted.

jhunter1163

4th August 2009, 04:04 PM

Nothing on SCROLL today about the new shipment of fail arriving. Actually, I did see a comment on the 911blogger thread that said that Monday's date was just to set a hearing date, not an actual hearing itself. Every day that goes by, though, brings them closer to the August 24 deadline. Not that there's the proverbial snowball's chance they'll get on the ballot, but once August 24 passes there's nothing left for them to do but point fingers and bicker about who's to blame for this pooch-screw.

AJM8125

4th August 2009, 04:08 PM

I just tried to clear up why they say that they have 72,000 signatures, but only 52,000 were submitted.

You shouldn't have to think too much about it. They're truthers. Enough said.

BigAl

4th August 2009, 04:26 PM

Nothing on SCROLL today about the new shipment of fail arriving. Actually, I did see a comment on the 911blogger thread that said that Monday's date was just to set a hearing date, not an actual hearing itself. Every day that goes by, though, brings them closer to the August 24 deadline.

Wouldn't the data be published on SCROLL or somewhere else? I'd think that court actions for election ballot access issues would be fast-tracked.

I think the judge needs a day or two to write up the decision. He may know that it will be a slapdown, but he needs to cite law to explain why and possibly write it up for a 5th grade reading level audience.

LashL

4th August 2009, 04:51 PM

I just tried to clear up why they say that they have 72,000 signatures, but only 52,000 were submitted.

Probably because they expected that of the initial 52,000 they would get the requisite 30,000 valid signatures, but that the petition would be denied anyway, in which case they would submit the remaining signatures in hopes of getting the requisite 15,000 valid signatures among the second crop, to over-ride the denial and get on the ballot.

jhunter1163

4th August 2009, 04:54 PM

Wouldn't the data be published on SCROLL or somewhere else? I'd think that court actions for election ballot access issues would be fast-tracked.

I think the judge needs a day or two to write up the decision. He may know that it will be a slapdown, but he needs to cite law to explain why and possibly write it up for a 5th grade reading level audience.

I'd agree that an issue like this would be expedited, especially since the deadline is so close. I don't see anything for a court calendar on SCROLL or I would have checked for an upcoming hearing. Does anyone know if the calendars for NYC courts are available online?

Travis

4th August 2009, 04:54 PM

1) How many signed the petition as just "V" with no address?

2) Using this example of Truther Activism as a model I propose a petition, in my own town, authorizing it to make treaties with other countries, US Constitution be damned!

3) How much you want to bet that this lawyer they got has "top election attorney" written right on his coffee stained business cards?

Lupie

4th August 2009, 05:21 PM

Oftentimes, I have asked, and have seen others ask as well, why, if the "movement" has such damning evidence of an "inside job", don't they act upon that evidence and get the truther ball finally rolling in the (their) right direction.

The answer lies within this petition issue. Truthers have no idea, no concept whatsoever as to the procedures and nature of the process they want to use to further their cause. The standards that are applied to a petition, are a matter of public record, it's not difficult to read and understand the minimum standards for which a petition like this is held to. They cannot even run a somewhat simple petition initiative, and I believe they know that anything more involved than this simple task is even further beyond their abilities.

Of course, to truthers, this is just more "disinfo", or whatever they want to call it. They are absolutely doomed to failure because of their lack of an ability to learn from their mistakes. And now, the clerk who decided, and explained why this petition is fatally flawed, is possibly a target of harassment, abuse, and stalking because he did his job. I have already seen posts on truther websites "demanding" that the names, phone numbers, and physical address of those who work at the office where their petition was denied, be posted publically so truthers can (demonstrate) outside of their homes.

Truthers don't even know that the clerk who disqualified this fatally flawed petition, did them a favor, and spared them a very public, and possibly humiliating defeat further down the line. What absolute losers they are.

L.

tsig

4th August 2009, 05:50 PM

Lupie

4th August 2009, 05:57 PM

BigAl

4th August 2009, 07:42 PM

Enjoy. I'm going to guess that that something like 1% of the invalid signatures will be found to be valid. Place your bets.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13983

NY Supreme Court Appoints Referee To Oversee Revalidation Of Rejected Signatures

August 4, 2009

NYC CAN is asking for volunteers over the next two weeks to help review the signatures invalidated by the City Clerk and Board of Elections. If you will be available at least three whole business days between August 10 and August 21 and you live in or near New York City, please email your name, schedule of availability and phone number to volunteer@nyccan.org, and please put VOLUNTEER in the subject field. NYC CAN will provide lunch!

NY Supreme Court Appoints Referee to Oversee Revalidation of Rejected Signatures

New York City Monday, the New York Supreme Court appointed an independent referee to oversee a line-by-line review of the NYC CAN petition signatures that were declared invalid by the New York City Clerk and Board of Elections. Chris Burke, a petitioner in the lawsuit filed against the City of New York, joined by Dennis P. McMahon, a volunteer attorney assisting the petitioners and NYC CAN at this stage of the process, appeared before Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner who issued the ruling in accordance with the petitioners' request.

A hearing is scheduled for Thursday August 6 to set a schedule and outline logistics of the signature re-count and review process. NYC CAN will assemble staff to review each of 24,664 signatures against an April 2009 Board of Elections database of registered voters. All disputed signatures will be assembled into a Bill of Particulars and presented to the referee for review.

The review is the next step in challenging the City Clerk's rejection of the NYC CAN petition for a new investigation in New York City and comes after the group filed a Verified Petition/Order to Show Cause with the Supreme Court of the State of New York last week. 52,000 signatures were filed with the City Clerk's office by NYC CAN on June 24th.

The NYC CAN petition was rejected by the City Clerk on Friday, July 24th, who certified 26,003 signatures-3,997 shy of the minimum of 30,000 qualified signatures of electors, the benchmark prescribed in the applicable Home Rule Law.

If the threshold of 30,000 qualified electors is reached as a result of the recount, lawyers for the petitioners and the City will argue the fine points of the Home Rule Law and Election Law in a later proceeding. Both sides are confident that their respective but contrary positions regarding the legality of this unprecedented matter will be upheld. If the court rules in favor of the petitioners and validates the Petition, the City Council is compelled to take up the question. If the initiative is rejected by the Council NYC CAN will submit another 15,000 qualified signatures to move the question directly to the voters in November.

In the meantime NYC CAN is actively lobbying members of the City Council who despite the City Clerk's ruling can work with the petition toward establishing a new investigation into September 11th attacks. Each member of City Council will be presented with a copy of a documentary film, 9/11 Press for Truth , which tells the story of the 9/11 family members who were betrayed by the 9/11 Commission in its failure to answer most of the questions posed by the 9/11 families. NYC CAN calls upon its supporters to continue the flood of phone calls City Council has seen over the past two weeks.

FUNDRAISING FOR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Since Monday, July 27, we have raised over $20,000, thanks to your generosity and determination. This is enough to get us started, but the process promises to be long and difficult, and we will need more.

With proceedings under way, we have our foot in the door. Let's see to it we don't fall short at this crucial moment.

Please donate now: http://nyccan.org/donate.php

Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.//www.911pressfortruth.com>//www.nyccan.org/nyccanfilespetition.php>

Orphia Nay

4th August 2009, 08:01 PM

http://www.nyccan.org/NY_Supreme_Court.php

NY Supreme Court Appoints Referee to Oversee Revalidation of Rejected Signatures
August 4, 2009

New York City– Monday, the New York Supreme Court appointed an independent referee to oversee a line-by-line review of the NYC CAN petition signatures that were declared invalid by the New York City Clerk and Board of Elections.
[...]
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday August 6 to set a schedule and outline logistics of the signature re-count and review process. NYC CAN will assemble staff to review each of 24,664 signatures against an April 2009 Board of Elections database of registered voters. All disputed signatures will be assembled into a Bill of Particulars and presented to the referee for review.[...]
If the threshold of 30,000 qualified electors is reached as a result of the recount, lawyers for the petitioners and the City will argue the fine points of the Home Rule Law and Election Law in a later proceeding.
[...]
If the initiative is rejected by the Council NYC CAN will submit another 15,000 qualified signatures to move the question directly to the voters in November.

In the meantime NYC CAN is actively lobbying members of the City Council who despite the City Clerk's ruling can work with the petition toward establishing a new investigation into September 11th attacks. Each member of City Council will be presented with a copy of a documentary film, 9/11 Press for Truth , which tells the story of the 9/11 family members who were betrayed by the 9/11 Commission in its failure to answer most of the questions posed by the 9/11 families.
[...]

They think a recount is going to polish this turd of a petition? :newlol

I've never watched much of 9/11 Press for Truth - does it "just ask questions" that imply controlled demolition and no plane at the Pentagon?

Sam.I.Am

4th August 2009, 08:32 PM

FUNDRAISING FOR LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Since Monday, July 27, we have raised over $20,000, thanks to your generosity and determination. This is enough to get us started, but the process promises to be long and difficult, and we will need more.

The call of the hucksters goes on.

Mr.D

4th August 2009, 09:43 PM

Have they even accounted for the money donated _before_ July 27th?

ETA: Wonder how many of the valid signatures will be found invalid on further review?

Orphia Nay

4th August 2009, 10:13 PM

Have they even accounted for the money donated _before_ July 27th?

ETA: Wonder how many of the valid signatures will be found invalid on further review?

I think they're just rechecking the signatures that were already found invalid, not the ones that were valid.

NYC CAN is asking for volunteers over the next two weeks to help review the signatures invalidated by the City Clerk and Board of Elections. If you will be available at least three whole business days between August 10 and August 21 and you live in or near New York City, please email your name, schedule of availability and phone number to volunteer@nyccan.org, and please put VOLUNTEER in the subject field. NYC CAN will provide lunch!

Those instructions sound too complicated for the likes of twoofers! :newlol

A hearing is scheduled for Thursday August 6 to set a schedule and outline logistics of the signature re-count and review process. NYC CAN will assemble staff to review each of 24,664 signatures against an April 2009 Board of Elections database of registered voters. All disputed signatures will be assembled into a Bill of Particulars and presented to the referee for review.

Wouldn't it be delicious if the reviewing twoofers put heaps of invalid signatures forward for review? I'd love to see the legal smackdown they'd get for wasting the court's time. I honestly can't imagine twoofers would be able to ascertain a signature's validity, based on the long list of ways a signature can be disqualified that Big Al posted...

I just made an attempt to find definitions of "valid" and "qualifying" on the NYC elections web site: http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us

I did find the document that should have them but doesn't.

http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/Adopted2009IndependentNominatingPetitionRules.pdf

I'm going to shoot an email message to the address published by the CC.

That document does have a list of the number of ways a signature can be thrown out.

AI Address illegible or so abbreviated it cannot be identified.
ALT Alteration (date/signature)
DI Date incomplete
DUP v._p._l_ Duplicate of same signature located in the petition at volume identification # ___, page__, line__
DSP Date of witness statement is prior to date of signature
F Forgery
ILLS Illegible signature
ILLD Illegible date
NA No address stated
ND No date stated
NFN No first name\name is so abbreviated it cannot be identified
NPN No page number –petition page not sequentially numbered
NR Not registered as stated in BOE records
OD Out of the district of the contest
P Pencil or not in ink
PR Signature is printed or not handwritten
SH Similar handwriting
TE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
TL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for
circulating petitions or subsequent to date of witness signature
SAP v._ p._ l_ Signed another petition for the same office on same or prior date designating another as candidate, at petition volume identification #______ page ___, line___.
SW Signature is that of the subscribing witness to the page
SWALT Subscribing Witness information altered (not initialed)
SWNQ Subscribing witness not qualified
SWNR Subscribing witness not registered, as stated
SWDI Date incomplete in subscribing witness statement
SWA No address or wrong address stated in subscribing witness statement
SWND No date stated in subscribing witness statement 11
SWNN Name of subscribing witness omitted from body of subscribing witness statement
SWNS Signature of subscribing witness omitted
SWNSO Number of signatures omitted from subscribing witness statement
SWWNS Wrong number of signatures stated in subscribing witness statement
SWTE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
SWTL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for circulating petitions
WA Wrong address stated on petition

jhunter1163

4th August 2009, 10:42 PM

If the threshold of 30,000 qualified electors is reached as a result of the recount,

A very, very large "if".

lawyers for the petitioners and the City will argue the fine points of the Home Rule Law and Election Law in a later proceeding.

Here's where the wheels come off. The problems with the petition aren't "fine points": they're glaring errors, and arguing them is an utter waste of time.

In the meantime NYC CAN is actively lobbying members of the City Council who despite the City Clerk's ruling can work with the petition toward establishing a new investigation into September 11th attacks.

And the City Council members are going Chretien on them and using those DVDs as coasters.

Foolmewunz

5th August 2009, 12:14 AM

The City Council includes a lot of people who you could describe as "street activists". You never know what they might support in lieu of free speech or right to petition, particularly since 911 Press for Truth was chosen for an obvious reason - it's the most innocuous and least incendiary of the various media constructs that the TM so love to promote.

I'd suggest that any New Yorkers write their rep on the City Council. (Already did mine - District 2, Rosie Mendez.)

Macgyver1968

5th August 2009, 08:10 AM

AJM8125

5th August 2009, 09:05 AM

I'm still not understanding what they are arguing for...the petition asks the City of New York to give authority to investigate parts of the Federal Governement. Anyone who has seen a couple of episodes of "Law and Order" would know they don't have the authority to do that. Only Congress can. The petition was dead before the first person ever signed it.

And yet the donations continue to roll in, demonstrating the level of truther IQ is somewhere between that of a common garden slug and the rock it crawled from under.