Is this true that NYCCAN has enough valid signatures on their petition

[Scott Sommers]

NYCCAN claims they have enough valid signatures on their petition. Is this true?

http://nyccan.org/

City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition
Has 30,000 Valid Signatures To Put
Referendum For 9/11 Investigation on November Ballot
September 10, 2009

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


In an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24, 2009, the City had claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite 30,000. The City’s concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures submitted were in fact valid paves the way for lawyers from both sides to argue the legality of petition.

Representatives for NYC CAN, 9/11 family member Manny Badillo and Executive Director Ted Walter, arrived at the Board of Elections on the morning of Wednesday, September 9, to assist the court-appointed referee in commencing a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures, only to learn the referee’s review had been called off due to a last minute concession by the City. Mr. Badillo immediately got on the phone to inform others of the news.

“The City conceded we have 30,000 valid signatures. Big victory.”

The City’s concession comes as a result of the immense effort put forth by 50+ volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two week period from August 10 to August 25 to identify a total of 7,166 signatures that were wrongly invalidated by the NYC City Clerk and Board of Elections. On August 27, NYC CAN filed the 631-page Bill of Particulars cataloguing each of the 7,166 signatures it contended were in fact valid. NYC CAN submitted another 28,000 signatures on September 4 to guarantee the referendum will go on the ballot if they win the court case, bringing the total signatures submitted to 80,000.

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

If the referendum passes in November, it would lead to the creation of a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks

[~enigma~]

NYCCAN claims they have enough valid signatures on their petition. Is this true?

Have no idea if it's true and there are a ton of legal reasons that make it a moot point if it is true.

[jhunter1163]

My gut feeling is that after the Corporation Counsel gets through with them, NYCCAN'T will wish that they hadn't gotten the signatures. The petition has at least five serious legal errors in it, any one of which by itself would be enough to keep it off the ballot.

[Lupie]

Two things come to mind. As you know, truthers manipulate information and use that twisted info to make big, attention getting public statements like this. Rarely, are these statements true. The more desperate they become, the bigger the lies will get.

From what I have read by people here with a legal background whom I trust, no amount of valid signatures will fix the fatal flaws in the petition itself.

I think this claim of sufficient valid signatures is nothing more than delusional denial, and another shameless attempt to fleece the flock of more greenbacks.

L.

[BigAl]

[QUOTE=scott.in.taiwan;5099204]NYCCAN claims they have enough valid signatures on their petition. Is this true?

http://nyccan.org/

I want to see what the city said. If whatever they said was unqualified good news it would be posted on the Internets.

[grmcdorman]

Given their, um, unique abilities to ... interpret ... the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court said something like "We do not need to contest these signatures since the petition itself is inadmissible" - and they only chose to hear the first part as "we accept the signatures."

IANAL, of course.

[Thunder]

Honestly, not one word that Truthers say can be trusted. They lie again and again. They exaggerate again and again. They willfully misinterprate quotes, again and again.

I will not believe that they have enough signatures until I read it from a NYC government source.

[jhunter1163]

NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City’s motion for summary judgment by Monday, September 21.

So the City has moved for summary judgment, apparently. They didn't want the signature thing to cloud the legal issues, so they stopped fighting that and moved to the other stuff.

[grmcdorman]

Which would imply it's exactly what I said - the Court is not accepting the signatures as valid, but rather will not contest them to permit the Petition to be judged on other grounds (in other words, all the rest of the spectacular Fail).

[BigAl]

Honestly, not one word that Truthers say can be trusted. They lie again and again. They exaggerate again and again. They willfully misinterprate quotes, again and again.

I will not believe that they have enough signatures until I read it from a NYC government source.

So what court building do I go to to see the file?

[bill smith]

NYCCAN claims they have enough valid signatures on their petition. Is this true?

http://nyccan.org/

City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition
Has 30,000 Valid Signatures To Put
Referendum For 9/11 Investigation on November Ballot
September 10, 2009

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


In an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24, 2009, the City had claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite 30,000. The City’s concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures submitted were in fact valid paves the way for lawyers from both sides to argue the legality of petition.

Representatives for NYC CAN, 9/11 family member Manny Badillo and Executive Director Ted Walter, arrived at the Board of Elections on the morning of Wednesday, September 9, to assist the court-appointed referee in commencing a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures, only to learn the referee’s review had been called off due to a last minute concession by the City. Mr. Badillo immediately got on the phone to inform others of the news.

“The City conceded we have 30,000 valid signatures. Big victory.”

The City’s concession comes as a result of the immense effort put forth by 50+ volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two week period from August 10 to August 25 to identify a total of 7,166 signatures that were wrongly invalidated by the NYC City Clerk and Board of Elections. On August 27, NYC CAN filed the 631-page Bill of Particulars cataloguing each of the 7,166 signatures it contended were in fact valid. NYC CAN submitted another 28,000 signatures on September 4 to guarantee the referendum will go on the ballot if they win the court case, bringing the total signatures submitted to 80,000.

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

If the referendum passes in November, it would lead to the creation of a local, independent commission with subpoena power that would be tasked with comprehensively reinvestigating the attacks

Excellent- though this should not be mistaken for the full-scale enquiry that the Movement for Truth are demanding. This is just another step on the road to that destination.

They got a mention on 'Russia Today' as well. I tought you might be interested.

Oops...wrong link...sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&hl=nl&v=olF0RAI6ETE&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/dailynews?page=1

[jhunter1163]

Of course NYCCAN'T is spinning this as a win. They either don't see or don't want to admit the obvious; like grmcdorman said, they're skipping the signatures and going directly to the legal smackdown.

[bill smith]

Of course NYCCAN'T is spinning this as a win. They either don't see or don't want to admit the obvious; like grmcdorman said, they're skipping the signatures and going directly to the legal smackdown.

The more we can show them to be resisting the will of the people the bigger the stick we will have to beat them with. So it's all good really whatever happens.

[SpitfireIX]

I'm not sure whether they genuinely believed they could pull this off, or whether they knew they couldn't succeed, but hoped to gain publicity and then score a few points by claiming that TPTB are afraid to allow the people to express their desire for a new investigation. "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" :rolleyes:


The more we can show them to be resisting the will of the people the bigger the stick we will have to beat them with. So it's all good really whatever happens.


Well, that answers that question.

Serious question, Bill. Do you honestly believe that the courts should simply ignore the law and allow this clearly illegal and unconstitutional initiative to be placed on the ballot, just because you and your cohorts so desperately want a new investigation?

[bill smith]

Well, that answers that question.

Serious question, Bill. Do you honestly believe that the courts should simply ignore the law and allow this clearly illegal and unconstitutional initiative to be placed on the ballot, just because you and your cohorts so desperately want a new investigation?

I expect the courts to follow the law. i think a ballot of the people is entirely constitutional and legal. We are going to get our new enquiry either way.

[jhunter1163]

I expect the courts to follow the law. i think a ballot of the people is entirely constitutional and legal. We are gong to get our new enquiry either way.

Not with this petition, you're not. Good luck in 2010.

[SpitfireIX]

I expect the courts to follow the law. i think a ballot of the people is entirely constitutional and legal. We are going to get our new enquiry either way.


Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that any initiative should be allowed? Even one that would decriminalize infanticide, or prohibit the practice of Islam?

[bill smith]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that any initiative should be allowed? Even one that would decriminalize infanticide, or prohibit the practice of Islam?

It's an interesting queston. Who decides what can be ivestigated in a democracy ?

[beachnut]

We are going to get our new enquiry either way.
Enquiry? Is this some investigation for the dumbed down? An enquiry?

The few fringe nut case conspiracy theorists in 911 truth will not understand a new investigation; they failed to comprehend the hundreds of investigations already completed. The nut case conspiracy theorists don't have the brains to figure out 911 now, they will not have the brains in the future. The nut case conspiracy theorist are losers who can't think for themselves. Constantly posting the idiotic lies the nut case conspiracy theorist is sad; they can't do math, physics, or engineering to save their failed ideas. They have no evidence.

The funny part of the petition is has no specified method to pay for a new investigation and the tax dollars will not be wasted trying to do the impossible! Educate nut case conspiracy theorists on something the Passengers on Flight 93 figured out in minutes. The nut case conspiracy theorists can't get 911 right given the answers. Who is dumb enough to support a bunch of idiots spewing lies? 8 years of stupid ideas from 911 truth, the best source of lies on 911 - 911Truth, one stop shopping for moronic delusions.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg

It's an interesting queston. Who decides what can be ivestigated in a democracy ?
You can ask your queston and ask for something to be ivestigated. No wonder the truth movement is stuck deep in the pit of ignorance.

[Thunder]

In New York City, it is against the law to forward a petition that bestows upon the City Council powers that it does not already have. Hence, the 9-11 truth petition is illegal.

Sorry Truthers, you failed again.

[SpitfireIX]

It's an interesting queston. Who decides what can be ivestigated in a democracy ?


The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. But that doesn't really relate to the question.

[Thunder]

The people of New York City do not have the right to order the District Attorney or the City Council to investigate whether or not Elvis is still alive.

Nor do they have the right to order them to re-investigate 9-11. This is a Federal matter.

Hell, the NY City Council CANNOT investigate anything. Only the New York State District Attorney can do that...and the NYPD takes their orders from him.

The people of NYC can demand that D.A. Morgenthau investigate 9-11 if we want to, but its unlikely to happen.

[Thunder]

I think we are ALL very aware how this is gonna end...and its not gonna be good for the Truthers. Their referendum will not be put on the ballot. Sorry guys.

[Quad4_72]

This is just gonna be another fail by the fantasists. Add to the LONG list of fails.

[DGM]

So the City has moved for summary judgment, apparently. They didn't want the signature thing to cloud the legal issues, so they stopped fighting that and moved to the other stuff.
Bingo! Pass it down the line and let them hang themselves. Do I really need to state this?

[bill smith]

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government. But that doesn't really relate to the question.

Yeah.....you kind of think- ' one man-one vote ' like that gives you some hind of personal power. But all it really means is that you have the power to vote a bigger entity into power on your behalf.

So the bigger entities get together and carve up the pie.

The way of the World.

PS. ( I had a puff on one of those crumpled cigarettes you see around )

[triforcharity]

It's an interesting queston. Who decides what can be ivestigated in a democracy ?

Its not if it CAN be investigated, it is WHO can LEGALLY investigate it with the city's blessing.

The supoena powers is where I think their BIGGEST flaw is. Just anyone cannot go around serving supoenas. Especially the likes of the TRUTH* movement.








* They are liars really.

[SpitfireIX]

Yeah.....you kind of think- ' one man-one vote ' like that gives you some hind of personal power. But all it really means is that you have the power to vote a bigger entity into power on your behalf.


“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

--Winston Churchill

So the bigger entities get together and carve up the pie.


Then vote them out at the next election. If you think the opposition is just as bad, either run yourself or recruit someone whom you think would do a better job. That's the way democracy is supposed to work.

The way of the World.


If everyone is so hopelessly corrupt, as you seem to imply, then why bother trying to expose the "truth"? How can you possibly hope to succeed?

[Scott Sommers]

This conversation with our Truth friend Bill raises many points. It almost seems that Bill is advocating an entirely different legal system. It's not clear to me what that would be, but clearly the idea is that someone could petition a city government for an investigation and that would give them the power to violate the rights of anyone in the nation.

But the second point is much more significant. Why aren't Truthers running candidates? Really. Why don't Gage and SJ run for something. If there's as much support as they keep telling us, there must be some office they can get in and begin a real shake up of things.

We all know my answer to this. Maybe one of our Truther friends can fill us in on the real answer.

[BigAl]

This conversation with our Truth friend Bill raises many points. It almost seems that Bill is advocating an entirely different legal system. It's not clear to me what that would be, but clearly the idea is that someone could petition a city government for an investigation and that would give them the power to violate the rights of anyone in the nation.

But the second point is much more significant. Why aren't Truthers running candidates? Really. Why don't Gage and SJ run for something. If there's as much support as they keep telling us, there must be some office they can get in and begin a real shake up of things.

We all know my answer to this. Maybe one of our Truther friends can fill us in on the real answer.

Cynthia Ann McKinney ran for President. I dunno how many votes she got but it can't be many. This is an example of the "if I can't have it all, doing nothing is a good second plan". Instead of building up a real mass following, they shoot for an impossible goal. That's what they did for the ballot initiative, too.

At least she got out and did something. She beats 99% of the twoofers, people like Bill that just gripe on the Internets and call page hits a measure of progress.

I won't run for office but I've worked for several friends of mine who have run for offices up to and including Congressman. One is on the ballot this Tuesday. With any luck, she will be on the City Council and get whining twoofer calls. I'll get a staffer job as liaison to the Truther community.

Look at the 100s of thousands of TeaBaggers in Washington. This movement is only months old.

Twooferz is the lazziest people.

[Matthew Cline]

The supoena powers is where I think their BIGGEST flaw is. Just anyone cannot go around serving supoenas.

And even if just anyone could do so, they could only subpoena people who live in NY City, business based there, and the city government. Subpoenaing people outside of NY and/or federal agencies would be a no-go. (IANAL, but this is the impression I get from LashL's comments on the issue)

[jhunter1163]

And even if just anyone could do so, they could only subpoena people who live in NY City, business based there, and the city government. Subpoenaing people outside of NY and/or federal agencies would be a no-go. (IANAL, but this is the impression I get from LashL's comments on the issue)

You're right about that. Also, the "commissioners" would have to live in the city, which most of the proposed commissioners don't; the funding plan is nebulous at best; and there are other issues as well.

I eagerly await the legaltainment this petition will provide.

[Brainster]

I've been praying all along that this gets on the ballot. And passes. And then the Troofers have to confront the fact that they've gotta come up with real money ($10 million a year for FIVE years according to the ridiculous budget). And so it ends with a couple "commissioners" sitting in St. Marks' church basement trying to look official while they interview Steven Jones and come to the conclusion that it must have been TV fakery instead based on a last-minute video mashup posted by Nico Haupt.

[Comsat Angel]

IIRC, McKinney got 160,000 votes but was put forward as the nominee of the Green Party rather than being presented as a Twoofer (that's from @230,000,000 eligible voters = less than 0.001%)

I think the NYCCAN leaders know they're going to fail, but if they can prolong the process then they prolong the paychecks - and if they can spin getting 30,000 signatures then they can claim that The Powers That Be are responsible for blocking The Will Of The People. If you recall, they were blaming the City Clerk, personally, for thwarting the will of 70,000 petition signatories.

[Orphia Nay]

Given their, um, unique abilities to ... interpret ... the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the Court said something like "We do not need to contest these signatures since the petition itself is inadmissible" - and they only chose to hear the first part as "we accept the signatures."

IANAL, of course.

Of course NYCCAN'T is spinning this as a win. They either don't see or don't want to admit the obvious; like grmcdorman said, they're skipping the signatures and going directly to the legal smackdown.

Exactly. The Court don't want to waste any more time on the issue of validating the signatures, when they know they've got the (il)legalities of the petition itself coming up.

[Mr.D]

And even if just anyone could do so, they could only subpoena people who live in NY City, business based there, and the city government. Subpoenaing people outside of NY and/or federal agencies would be a no-go. (IANAL, but this is the impression I get from LashL's comments on the issue)

And then, even if they were somehow granted such subpoena power, what would they do if someone simply said "I decline to testify by invoking my right against self-incrimination?"

At this point, I'm more interested in where all the money they've collected has gone than anything else.

[Alt+F4]

And then, even if they were somehow granted such subpoena power, what would they do if someone simply said "I decline to testify by invoking my right against self-incrimination?"

They would throw you into a truther jail?