• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

BigAl

Philosopher
BigAl
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
5,397
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
We Failed! Plese send us more money so we can retain..uhh....someone

R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol
 
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.....
 
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!!

=)
 
A W Smith said:
Maybe it's a swindle to collect 50K in the guise of a 9/11 petition?
Click to expand...

The thought had crossed my mind, but no, I don't think so. When they do that, like in the TruthBurn 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
s640x480vt0.jpg
 
Drudgewire said:
So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.
Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
1400 signatures?

Are they kidding?

Unbelievable.

Pack it up losers.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not too sure about that. They did collect signatures from all 5 boroughs and not just NYC so those signatures are invalid.
 
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.
 
Drudgewire said:
So as I read it, there were 26,000 signatures total. And of those, more than 24,500 were invalid.

Craptacular effort, twoofers. :newlol
Click to expand...

Cl1mh4224rd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even look like they managed to afford Lionel Hutz.
 
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.
 
deep44 said:
Notice that BigAl didn't even know the letter was a matter of public record until someone pointed it out:
Click to expand...


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?
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
deep44 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
orphia nay said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

orphia nay said:
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.
Click to expand...

deep44 said:
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.
​
Click to expand...

Maybe. It could also be subpoena power too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom