A new investigation for 9/11. Why?

[BigAl]

NYCCAN received verbal confirmation from the city clerk that the old signatures could be used. They also consulted an election lawyer, who agreed.

Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the original petition to confirm what, if anything, has been changed. Either way - doesn't sound like it's a problem.

Call me skeptical. "Verbal" counts for squat a year from now when you bring in this year's petitions.

 

[Mr.D]

Yes, you've mentioned City Council's willingness to "grant" certain powers, or "delegate" authority. When would City Council evaluate the petition and make that decision? Are you suggesting that their decision to reject the petition cannot be overridden with additional signatures?

Like I said, I've researched this and cannot find anything to suggest that City Council has the absolute authority to reject a petition, since their decision can be overridden. If they are overridden, and the referendum passes, the underlined text in the petition is added to the City Charter.

Which begs the question; If all it takes is enough signatures to force a referendum which is binding, why not just skip the investigation and petition the Council for a referendum on Bush and Cheney's guilt? Get enough signatures then get enough votes and BAM - off they go to jail!

I mean heck - someone tell the 'birthers!' Write a petition - get signatures - force a referendum and BAM! NYC City Charter says Obama's not the President!

 

[deep]

Which begs the question; If all it takes is enough signatures to force a referendum which is binding, why not just skip the investigation and petition the Council for a referendum on Bush and Cheney's guilt? Get enough signatures then get enough votes and BAM - off they go to jail!

I mean heck - someone tell the 'birthers!' Write a petition - get signatures - force a referendum and BAM! NYC City Charter says Obama's not the President!

Both of your examples would be outside the scope of local NYC law & blatantly unconstitutional.

In the message you responded to, I was referring specifically to the City Council's ability to reject a petition based on their own opinions or perceptions.

 

[deep]

Call me skeptical. "Verbal" counts for squat a year from now when you bring in this year's petitions.

I would agree. Either way - we'll find out for sure by August 24th, which is the deadline for City Council's response.

 

[Mr.D]

Both of your examples would be outside the scope of local NYC law & blatantly unconstitutional.

In the message you responded to, I was referring specifically to the City Council's ability to reject a petition based on their own opinions or perceptions.

And if it's the Council's legal opinion that the petition or referendum requests something that it is not within their power to grant?

Answer that and then go back to LashL's post #177.

 

[deep]

And if it's the Council's legal opinion that the petition or referendum requests something that it is not within their power to grant?

Answer that and then go back to LashL's post #177.

I don't see where the City Council is "granting" any power - the entire point of a ballot initiative is to bypass the local government, assuming there is enough support from registered voters (in the form of signatures). City Council does get to vote, once, but their decision can be overridden with additional signatures.

Now, if the petition contains provisions that are outside the scope of local law, that's obviously a problem; however, I've seen nothing to indicate that City Council has the power to reject the petition on those grounds (without challenging it in court and letting a judge decide).

Regarding post #177 - I've already read it & responded.

 

[deep]

Call me skeptical. "Verbal" counts for squat a year from now when you bring in this year's petitions.

I just noticed this in the NYC City Charter (section 40; Amendment of Charter):

"A signature made earlier than one hundred twenty days before the filing of the petition shall not be counted."​

http://24.97.137.100/nyc/charter/Charter_Chapter2Section 40.asp

Compare that with the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (section 37), which doesn't specify a limit at all.

I'm not sure which one takes precedence, but either way, this certainly casts doubt on the validity of those older petitions.

 

[~enigma~]

The balloon bursts to be soon followed by wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I just noticed this in the NYC City Charter (section 40; Amendment of Charter):

"A signature made earlier than one hundred twenty days before the filing of the petition shall not be counted."​

http://24.97.137.100/nyc/charter/Charter_Chapter2Section 40.asp

Compare that with the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (section 37), which doesn't specify a limit at all.

I'm not sure which one takes precedence, but either way, this certainly casts doubt on the validity of those older petitions.

 

[Mr.D]

I just noticed this in the NYC City Charter (section 40; Amendment of Charter):

"A signature made earlier than one hundred twenty days before the filing of the petition shall not be counted."​

Ooops.

Better start a petition to change that.

 

[triforcharity]

I think the NYC code suspercedes anything else as far as the city is concerned. Now, STATE of NY?? It overrides NYC codes, and so on.

 

[jhunter1163]

Hope they didn't pay that election lawyer who told them they could use the old signatures.

 

[deep]

Hope they didn't pay that election lawyer who told them they could use the old signatures.

It's possible that they will be able to use the older signatures - like I said, this just leaves some room for doubt.

 

[~enigma~]

It's possible that they will be able to use the older signatures - like I said, this just leaves some room for doubt.

Rationalize in your puny head all you want but you already posted the truth that they cant use the old signatures. Wallow in self pity knowing you wasted the last 8 years of your life that you will never get back.

 

[deep]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_9-11_probe.html

This is old, but it does explain why the 120 day rule does not apply.

 

[TruthersLie]

I don't see where the City Council is "granting" any power - the entire point of a ballot initiative is to bypass the local government, assuming there is enough support from registered voters (in the form of signatures). City Council does get to vote, once, but their decision can be overridden with additional signatures.

Now, if the petition contains provisions that are outside the scope of local law, that's obviously a problem; however, I've seen nothing to indicate that City Council has the power to reject the petition on those grounds (without challenging it in court and letting a judge decide).

Regarding post #177 - I've already read it & responded.

You seem to be missing the point of LashL's post 177 and the part about the ability of the NYC council to grant powers THEY DON'T HAVE.

now think about this for a second. Why would the NYC allow a petition to create a commission to investigate something with powers the NYC city council CANNOT even grant? That is rather idiotic don't you think?

it is like the mice all agreeing that the cat MUST wear a bell. Do they have the power to enforce that? Can they even do that? Of course not.

same principle

 

[~enigma~]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_9-11_probe.html

This is old, but it does explain why the 120 day rule does not apply.

A nazi trashrag says the 120 day restriction doesn't apply cause they don't want it to apply and you and your bowel movement brothers believe it?

Wallow in self pity realizing that you have wasted the last 8 years of your life that you will never get back and because of those 8 years you will amount to nothing whatsoever in life. Hope your happy.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Deep44,
There are so many things wrong here...
The American Free Press?
An article from 2007?
Citing only their own guesswork, no official responses?
They intend to apply NYS law to a ballot initiative in NYC?
And they intend to run that by the NyC City Council?

 

[~enigma~]

Deep44,
There are so many things wrong here...
The American Free Press?
An article from 2007?
Citing only their own guesswork, no official responses?
They intend to apply NYS law to a ballot initiative in NYC?
And they intend to run that by the NyC City Council?

Can't you see? Deep44 saw himself that NYCCAN is not going to get their ballot passed and they have been lying to everybody about how they will. He is now flailing with his head barely above water as he desperately tries to find anything that will "reverse" his findings. Also, he is slowly coming to the realization that he has wasted the last 8 years of his life and that he will never get them back and more than likely will never amount to anything more than a carnival huckster during the rest of his adult life.

 

[BigAl]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_9-11_probe.html

This is old, but it does explain why the 120 day rule does not apply.

It states that the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't "explain" anything.

The lawyer quoted, Carl Person, is also known as

"Your Telephone Lawyer $6/Minute"
http://yourtelephonelawyer.com/​

Not that I have any reason to know that he isn't a fine lawyer, but I hope for the sake of all the people that think they are signing a useful petition that someone paid more than $6 for that "legal opinion".

 

[deep]

It states that the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't "explain" anything.

Well, it explains that "the matter is now being pursued under New York state statute instead of the original idea of proceeding under city charter provisions" (from the article).

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the 120 day limit is only present in the City Charter provision, and not in the NY Municipal Home Rule Law.

Additionally - the City Charter provision requires 50,000 signatures, as opposed to 30,000. It's very clear that NYCCAN is pursuing this under the state statute (NY Municipal Home Rule Law).