A new investigation for 9/11. Why?

[~enigma~]

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).

You enjoy drowning? Care to take a stab at why the signatures are supposed to be from the 5 boroughs when this is supposed to be a NY state matter or would answering that be like going under for the third time?

 

[deep]

They intend to apply NYS law to a ballot initiative in NYC?

Yes, it's a NY state law that any city can have a ballot initiative. You can review the state law in the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (section 37).

 

[~enigma~]

Yes, it's a NY state law that any city can have a ballot initiative. You can review the state law in the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (section 37).

Your talking but all I can hear is blurp, blurp, help me I'm drowning, blurp, blurp.

 

[tsig]

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).

So they're gonna take signatures that were signed for one purpose and use them for another?

 

[Brainster]

Well, it turns out NYCCAN'T:

SEVENTY THOUSAND New Yorkers signed the NYC CAN petition, raising their voices in support of NYC CAN’s demand for accountability. They have chosen to place the decision to create a new 9/11 investigation – a REAL 9/11 investigation – 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 – and not the other way around – have been GAGGED by ONE so-called “PUBLIC SERVANT” – The New York City Clerk – who denied the petition and the voice of the people.

Jon Gold doesn't spell out the problem, but in the comments section there is a lot of discussion that a random sample of the ballots turned up far too many invalid signatures; I'm guessing that D. Duck and M. Mouse did not turn out to be registered voters in the city of New York. Lots of brave talk about how they're going to get a lawyer to force the city to put the measure on the ballot, but that seems mostly to further the aim of requesting more donations.

It's a shame, really. I was hoping that this would pass and get approved by the voters, so that the failure could come at the "And then we'll raise $50 million from private donors," phase.

 

[deep]

Jon Gold doesn't spell out the problem, but in the comments section there is a lot of discussion that a random sample of the ballots turned up far too many invalid signatures; I'm guessing that D. Duck and M. Mouse did not turn out to be registered voters in the city of New York. Lots of brave talk about how they're going to get a lawyer to force the city to put the measure on the ballot, but that seems mostly to further the aim of requesting more donations.

This makes me wonder if the petition really did change - why else would they believe it's worth challenging in court?

Invalid signatures are invalid signatures - how is a judge going to help?

 

[BigAl]

Well, it turns out NYCCAN'T:

Jon Gold doesn't spell out the problem, but in the comments section there is a lot of discussion that a random sample of the ballots turned up far too many invalid signatures; I'm guessing that D. Duck and M. Mouse did not turn out to be registered voters in the city of New York. Lots of brave talk about how they're going to get a lawyer to force the city to put the measure on the ballot, but that seems mostly to further the aim of requesting more donations.

Most authors would name the person that they call "the most experienced election lawyer in New York". I know a few NYC election lawyers and I'd love to pass the name of this great person by them for an opinion. It would just cost me a beer.

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 – your ONE chance – 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.

 

[Mr.D]

This makes me wonder if the petition really did change - why else would they believe it's worth challenging in court?

Invalid signatures are invalid signatures - how is a judge going to help?

The comment writers don't even know what the reason for the rejection is, so whatever their beliefs are on the efficacy of a court challenge are pretty much moot.

ETA: But don't forget to send in your money! It'll help with the ... lawyer fees, yeah that's it. "Lawyer Fees." (They won't tell you what the city's claims are, but they will certainly not be shy about asking for money to challenge them!)

 

[deep]

The comment writers don't even know what the reason for the rejection is, so whatever their beliefs are on the efficacy of a court challenge are pretty much moot.

This is a very telling comment (from 911blogger.com; bolding mine):

"They are saying a smaller percentage than needed is valid, and apparently, they aren't counting signatures that they should."
​

Sounds to me like one of the following:

1. signatures over 120 days old are not counted.
2. the petition changed at some point.​

I would say they have a legitimate gripe in the event of #1; not so much for #2.

 

[BigAl]

This is a very telling comment (from 911blogger.com; bolding mine):

"They are saying a smaller percentage than needed is valid, and apparently, they aren't counting signatures that they should."
​

Sounds to me like one of the following:

1. signatures over 120 days old are not counted.
2. the petition changed at some point.​

I would say they have a legitimate gripe in the event of #1; not so much for #2.

I know NYCCAN got a letter explaining what is wrong.

Why don't they post it?

 

[Brainster]

I know NYCCAN got a letter explaining what is wrong.

Why don't they post it?

First guess is that it's too embarrassing; either it notes that many of the signatures are too old, or that too many of them do not match the voter registration rolls.

 

[jhunter1163]

First guess is that it's too embarrassing; either it notes that many of the signatures are too old, or that too many of them do not match the voter registration rolls.

C. All of the above.

 

[deep]

First guess is that it's too embarrassing; either it notes that many of the signatures are too old, or that too many of them do not match the voter registration rolls.

I believe that the rejection certificate (or letter) is a matter of public record, so keeping it a secret won't do them much good.

 

[Josarhus]

I believe that the rejection certificate (or letter) is a matter of public record, so keeping it a secret won't do them much good.

What is the chance that the truthers will actually try to find out any thing by themselves?!

A lot of the things that they claim can easily be explained by a simple Google search, but they don’t seem to bother.

 

[BigAl]

I believe that the rejection certificate (or letter) is a matter of public record, so keeping it a secret won't do them much good.

Maybe, maybe not. It may still be correspondence with whoever is representing NYCCAN and it's not for the City Clerk to make public. Just guessing.

In any case, NYCCAN can make it public, why don't they?

What is the name of the NYCCAN lawyer? Who is getting your hard earned pennies?

If I were predisposed to give them any money, I wouldn't give them a nickle until I saw the official reason for the rejection and who is representing NYCCAN.

 

[carlitos]

OMG, I thought that you were kidding!

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".

I can just see them dialing up the $6 lawyer and then quoting him in press releases. These guys are serious.

 

[deep]

Maybe, maybe not. It may still be correspondence with whoever is representing NYCCAN and it's not for the City Clerk to make public. Just guessing.

From the NY Municipal Home Rule Law (section 37; bolding mine):

If he shall certify that there is an insufficient number of valid signatures, he shall make available to the legislative body a statement as to the number of signatures found to be invalid and the reasons for such invalidity, and shall make the same information available to the person by whom the petition was filed and make it, together with the petition and his notations of rulings thereon or relative thereto, a matter of public record in his office.​

In any case, NYCCAN can make it public, why don't they?

What is the name of their lawyer? Who is getting your hard earned pennies?

If I were predisposed to give them any money, I wouldn't give them a nickle until I saw the official reason for the rejection and who was representing NYCCAN.

I agree, they need to release all the details.. before someone else does.

 

[Gravy]

This makes me wonder if the petition really did change - why else would they believe it's worth challenging in court?

Gravy raises hand, waves frantically.

"Yes, Gravy?"

"Because they're idiots?"

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Most authors would name the person that they call "the most experienced election lawyer in New York".

Hokey Smokes! You mean the twoofers actually managed to retain Matt Murdock -- ?!?

 

[dudalb]

dp