The Details Behind NY's Denial of 9-11 Initiative 
By Mark Anderson
NEW
YORK, N.Y. – This AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter’s September assignment to
Manhattan for 9-11 coverage yielded a considerable array of information –
including the 9-11 ballot initiative which has the goal of asking city voters
to decide if they want a new investigation into the tragic 9-11-01 events;
however, the proposal was seen by the city clerk’s office, the City Law
Department and a state judge as having too many legal shortcomings to place it
on the Nov. 3, 2009 ballot.
The
activist group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, or NYC CAN, that
is behind the current ballot proposal initially gathered 26,003 valid
signatures, almost 4,000 short of what was needed, according to a July 24
letter from City Clerk Michael McSweeney. That letter also contained some legal
objections, including the claim: “First, the federal government has
jurisdiction,” regarding a 9-11 investigation. He added: “Establishing a local
commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and
purpose of the petition process of the MHRL (Municipal Home Rule Law).”
 |
 NYC CAN
then gathered considerably more than the required minimum of 30,000 signatures
of registered city voters on petitions for amending the Municipal Home Rule Law
to create what NYC CAN and the city both refer to as an “independent”
commission to issue indictments and subpoena witnesses in a new investigation
that many city activists and others in New York and across the nation strongly
desire.
But
Deputy Communications Director Connie Pankratz of the city’s Law Department
told AFP that the validity of the signatures was not the central issue. There
are several other problems, she noted.
Asked about the “independent” commission that would be created if this
9-11 ballot question was put before voters and approved—specifically, whether
the commission could actually subpoena witnesses and issue indictments—she
replied: “If an independent body wanted to achieve these powers, as a matter of
law, the members would have to be public officers (i.e., someone who is either
elected or appointed to the office). NYC CAN’s proposal violates the
constitutional requirements for the selection of public officers.”
She
then added: “We did not contest the validity of the signa- tures because we did not believe that it was the most
efficient use of limited court resources to conduct a line-by-line review of
the signatures given that the legal deficiencies in the petition
were of such magnitude that it would render the petition null,”
as she noted in an exclusive AFP interview.
An NYC
CAN online news bulletin, referring to the letter mentioned above, notes: “In
an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24 … the City had claimed only
26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite 30,000. The City’s
[subsequent] 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.”
NYC
CAN’s arguments were put forth in legal papers, with support from a 631-page
“bill of particulars.” But it appeared as of Oct. 14 that such detailed
arguments were not enough to convince public officials to approve the ballot
proposal.
Asked whether this ballot initiative is dead or not, Pankratz
replied on Oct. 13: “Not necessarily. NYC CAN can appeal this decision.
As a matter of law, it would receive expedited review.”
[Writer’s
update: Right after this story went to press in AFP hard-copy edition No. 43 of
2009, NYC CAN decided not to appeal the matter and is instead strongly
considering a public relations campaign to influence a greater cross section of
the public on the organization’s 9-11 views. Read more about it in the
follow-up piece to this article.]
Moreover, a decision by a “referee” for the court –
recommending denial of the ballot proposal—was upheld in an Oct. 8 ruling by
State Supreme Court Judge Edward Lehner.
In Lehner’s brief ruling obtained by AFP, he concluded: “Upon review of the papers submitted, the
court finds that the well researched and reasoned report of the Referee should
be confirmed as it correctly shows the legal infirmities in the Petition. While
petitioners’ counsel argues that the severability provision of paragraph 20 of
the Petition allows the court to strike any provisions thereof that are
unconstitutional or invalid, the extent of the impropriety of the proposal, as
correctly set forth by the Referee, would result in a substantial evisceration
of the Petition and, even if legally permissible, would be inappropriate as
inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories to the Petition.
Accordingly, the motion of respondents to confirm the report of the Referee is
granted and this proceeding is dismissed.”
In
other words, “The judge is saying that
if the invalid provisions were stripped, what remains would be vastly different
from the main argument in the original proposal (i.e., he’s referring
to the strength, or lack thereof, of the proposal and not the commission),”
Pankratz explained to AFP.
A new
9-11 probe has been sought in light of many activists’ long-held consensus that
the original 9-11 Commission that was reluctantly created by the Bush
Administration was designed to fail. And, beyond that Commission’s official
report, a new book written by top Commission members Lee Hamilton and Thomas
Kean (a pair of Council on Foreign Relations’ “bookends”) that claims the 9-11
Commission was stonewalled, does not resonate well with many 9-11 truth
activists who believe that this “confessional” by the CFR boys is really just a
cover up for their own stonewalling.
NYC CAN
responded to the judge’s ruling in an Oct. 9 news release: “Justice Edward
Lehner … rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision
to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not
be put before the voters on November 3rd. After showing interest in weighing
both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no
indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’
memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation,
which the City of New York
callously dismissed as ‘irrelevant.’ On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic
call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors
has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.”
MARK ANDERSON is AFP's corresponding editor.
Subscribe
to American Free Press. Online
subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus
you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael
Piper.
Print
subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year
plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website
or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .
Sign up for our
free e-newsletter here
- get a free gift just for signing up! (Issue # 32,
August 10, 2009) | 
