Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

October 9, 2009

Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court 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.

Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.

Thinkers think and talkers talk. Patriots ACT.


As someone who donated money to this

I would say a big F U is in order to Judge Lehner, and indeed this is a dark day for democracy.

That being said, I've always believed the only hope for a real investigation would be a truly international one. A purely domestic one will be thwarted at every turn, as we are seeing, and if it were approved, it would be so prone to infiltration and corruption as to be severely compromised.

I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Lets be careful with what

Lets be careful with what language we use around Judge Lerner. Generally speaking, we've learned over time that through education and enlightenment, people can step out of the "box of how they were told to think" and take the leap of faith to thinking a new way.
Those who don't side with the Truth Movement often still require that extra education and enlightenment to realize and admit to themselves that "the emperor has no clothes". I can't speak for Judge Lerner's justification or awareness of the evidence, but hurling negative language doesn't help the cause in any fashion.

Well, I didn't actually mean

to his face, or calling his office and saying it to his staff... just a message board vent. ;-)

But you're right.

I don't think

we will ever get a real investigation at least not here in the States. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE INTERNATIONAL!!!

An idea...

Since the 9-11 investigation seems to be undermined at every official level and we have no guarantee that we will ever get to the bottom of it this way, I have an idea for another grass-roots effort (I don't know if this has been proposed before):

Let's begin assembling notarized affidavits with "penalty of perjury" clause (which would give more weight to the statements) of all relevant people who gave testimony before the 9-11 Commission, such as Siebel Edmonds, William Rodriguez, etc. -- anybody who is willing to come forward and who testified in front of 9-11 commission about facts and circumstances that should not have been omitted from its report or blatantly contradict it. They would basically lay it out, word for word, as good as they are able to remember, exactly what they told the 9-11 Commission. Let everybody in the world see what the Commission decided to keep under wraps.

Of course, I don't know anything about legal ramifications, some counseling is in order, but if it is safe for the people to come forwad this way, that would be great. Those affidavits shoud then be put up on some website (911truth.org, for example) for everyone to see. I think this would make it clearer than anything that 9-11 Commission was a deliberate cover-up, as well as help any independent researcher to piece together what really happened that day.

I may be...

Participating in this. It all depends on whether or not I decide to give up my job, my apt, etc... If you don't care about those things, then I recommend you participate.

Edit: I would just like to say thank you to everyone that helped with this effort.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


I can't participate in this effort, but have begun to wear a solid black armband - no words or symbols.

Black, simple, powerful - invoking an earlier age, an earlier struggle.

There were huge lessons to be learned from VietNam anti-war strategies. We can clearly see that, long-term, none of it did any good.
However, short-term, it finally helped end the war.

As then, wearing simple black armbands in support of ending the current war(s) allows everyday people to participate in publicly showing our support.

The beauty is in the shorthand. Many/most people already know what the plain black armbands mean. Unlike in the 60's when it took awhile for people to understand.

Despite, unbelievable consequences for the participants (http://www.open.salon.com/blog/myriad/2009/10/06/suffer_the_suffragettes), long-term 24/7 White House picketing was undertaken by a relatively small number of Suffragists in 1917. Utimately, it became a successful action.

I respect and admire your even considering doing this. Should that not prove possible, perhaps you'd consider donning a plain black armband with me.



Some liar...

Somewhere is acting like I'm going to commit suicide. Sorry, no.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I am sad to say

......i think the decision was made even before it went to the judge. This should prove how bad the corruption is.

Yes, decision already made

The Referee first stalled moving ahead by his phony initial roadblock saying the right number of signatures weren't valid, when anyone who worked on the petitions knew that the City clerks made many obvious errors - even on the math of the title pages of volumes that the Referee most surely saw. So I'm sure he was given his marching orders. Then Judge Lerner already gave his argument in Court about not altering the petition even though those signing already agreed to a modification - and the petition wouldn't be eviscerated - so it seems Lerner could have done more if he had wanted, to rule for the petition.

WOW The Dishonorable Edward

WOW The Dishonorable Edward Lehner has a set of balls. By suppressing justice and the will of the people he placed himself on top of the list of those suspected of cover up in the mass murder of 9/11. I wouldn't want to be in his position when Justice eventually makes its way to the forefront of the restoration of the USA and the rule of law. I wonder if these low lives think escaping to Paraguay will save them. The hunt for these treasonous bastards will be unprecedented and successful. Poor old Judge Lehner. I pity him. Poor old Judge Lehner will likely see some dark days.

I'd Be Interested to Know

exactly WHO made contact with Justice Lehner these past 10 days and what sort of pressure there might have been.

He seemed to be open-minded about making a fair decision. Either he was pressured, or there is a real legal problem with the whole private vs. public nature of this petition. Could an appeal resolve this?

How would the judge have modified the petition...

...to make it "legally permissible"?

Which of the provisions would need to be modified in the judge's opinion. one? More than one? Did he say?

Your not beaten yet !!!

Herblay France

in France our French president wants to privatise our post offices and on the whole the population does not want this.

The trade unions and left political parties asked pour a referendum which was refused so a groupement of citizens did one themselves nationaly the 3rd October 2009and it was a great succes in the sense that the opposition to the privatisation was visible.

This action was illegal but they still did it !

Why not conduct the referendum yourselves on the street next election date at the exists of the polling stations as they did here for the post ?



Survey of NYC election candidates needed

Good point, John. As it happens, this story has been written up on the Australian web site candobetter.org, which I contribute to. The article is "French organise national resistance to Privatisation of Post Office" of 5 Oct 09.

This may be very late in the day, but I also suggest that NYC CAN conduct surveys of all candidates standing for office and ask which would vote for the establishment of an Independent Inquriy into 9/11. Publish the survery results --- "yes", "no", "don't know", "no response" --- on the web and recommend votes for and against different candidates, based upon the responses.[1]

An example of a survey that could be used can be found here.

It was put together very late by me in the Queensland state elections in March this year and ignored by the newsmedia, but I think the underlying principle is still sound.


1. I appreciate that the undemocratic 'first past the post' voting system, in widespread use in the US, is problemetic. The obvious example is that, in 2000, votes for Ralph Nader, whom I think was a far better canididate than Al Gore were, in effect, votes that could have been used to defeat George Bush that were lost. In Australia we have preferential voting, or what I understand is referred to as 'instant run-off' in the US. If preferential had been used, primary votes that went to Nader could still have been counted as votes against Bush and even the rigging of the Miami ballot would not have made it possible for Bush to have won. A potential problem with 'first past the post' in NYC is that a vote for a 9/11 Truth candidate could result in a truly bad George-W-Bush-style candidate being able to defeat a not-so-bad candidate. That is a factor that the 9/11 Truth Movement would have have to weigh up.


Thanks for exemple http://candobetter.org/QldElections/survey

Thanks very much for the exemple.

I did the same sort of questionning in 1995 ( on reducing the working week to four days ( 4x8=32 hr working week) financed by a cotisation on the Robots, Ordinteurs and Systèmes Experts( ROSE)) during the French présidential élections and I printed all their replies (from the extreme left to the extreme right) in the mouv4x8 newspaper and put it up on the internet years later
at the moment neuf has bought up club-internet.fr and the web site links do no work any more !
The French appreciated the way I did it and I am convinced that we should pursue an action in that direction as you show at

Yours John

PS Tonight we will have the honour to welcome Cynthia McKinney, Giulietto Chiesa, Annie Machon et Franco Fracassi , etc at the French conference "towards the truth" "Vers la verité".
and tomorrow a truth action
Rendez-vous place de la République métro "République" Promenade jusqu'à la Place de la Bastille at 11hr00

Suggested survey questions to put to candidates

Thank you, mouv4x8.

The questions I would put to all the candidates would be:

1. Would you vote at the earliest possible occasion for the establishment by the New York City Council of an independent commission of inquiry into 9/11 with subpoena powers?

2. Would you vote at the earliest possible occasion to put to the electors of New York City that the New York City Council set up an independent commission of inquiry into 9/11 with subpoena powers?

I think few candidates would find it easy to justify answering 'no' to the second question.

The list of candidates in a pdf document are to be found here linked to from here.

Just maybe making the responses known might result in a few candidates sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement winning. If not, it could at least help strengthen the hand of the 9/11 Truth Movement in subsequent state and national elections and at the next NYC City election.

The reasons why this commonsense approach have been so rarely used in Australia is somewhat a mystery.

It would almost instantly raise the appeal of minor party and independent candidates whose policies are far more in accord with the views of the electors than those of the major parties. In Queensland, the obvious example is the state Government's planned fire sale of of AU$15billion of publicly owned assets -- ports, toll roads, railways, a coal loader and forests -- on top of airports, the state lottery agency, (so far) one power station and the retail arm of the state power utilities that have already been sold in recent years.

Although privatisation has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public for years and is now opposed consistently by 84%-86% of the Queensland public, I was the only candidate to stand on that issue. I didn't want to be, but, astonishingly, that is how it turned out. Even the Greens refused to raise this issue, in spite of being opposed to privatisation on paper, which was most unfortunate. Had they done so, it would not have been possible for Labor Premier Anna Bligh to have avoided putting this policy to the Queensland public. Had she honestly stated her intentions, then she would have lost the elections. Had the Liberal National Party Party Opposition also stated support for privatisation, then many voters would have voted for the Greens and Independents and a Parliament without a clear majority of either of the two major parties would have been a likely outcome.



'In Queensland, the obvious example is the state Government's planned fire sale of of AU$15billion of publicly owned assets -- ports, toll roads, railways, a coal loader and forests -- on top of airports, the state lottery agency, (so far) one power station and the retail arm of the state power utilities that have already been sold in recent years.
'Although privatisation has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public for years and is now opposed consistently by 84%-86% of the Queensland public, I was the only candidate to stand on that issue. '

Sorry to hear that. Do you mind my asking what your party affiliation was when you ran? Or did you run as an independent?

'Heads we win; tails you lose'

'...the undemocratic "first past the post" voting system, in widespread use in the US,'

Yes, the 'first past the post system' is unrepresentative and undemocratic; but let's not mince our words and treat it as some kind of impersonal phenomenon by simply referring to it as 'in widespread use' in the US. Restricted ballot access and 'first past the post' systems do not just 'happen.' They are outcomes willed AND IMPOSED on the voters by both the Republican and Democratic parties (electoral laws passed by their members in legistlative bodies) and the interests who own them. Just as with corporate domination of the news media, the whole point of such electoral systems is to restrict choice and make it easier to manage the public's consciousness and the political agenda.

And, unfortunately, they continue to have that desired effect....

The advance of corporatist fascism in the US would have been unthinkable in the absence of the collusion of the two US corporate parties. I don't understand how some people seem to think we can reverse course by continuing to play their game--opting for the 'not-so-bad' oppressor party over the 'bad' oppressor party. Yet a vast portion of those who still bother to vote in this country do just that--continue to play their game, then mope about feeling 'betrayed' afterwards.

Not that I mean to go off on a rant here. I'm glad that Australians have better options.

You have 2 main logical flaws

1) you're assuming that parties can't be taken over, from below
2) you're assuming that new third parties won't be corrupted (even though their desirability as targets of corruption increases commensurately with any growth in power)

You're right about Dems and Repubs finagling to restrict choice. They've managed to make fusion voting illegal in some (many?) states where it was formerly legal. Fusion voting gives more power to 3rd parties.... Check out the non-trivial effect that the Working Family Party has had on NY politics, where fusion voting is legal.

Taking over the Democratic Party from below is being spearheaded by the Progressive Democrats of America (and, I think, Howard Dean's Democracy for America). I'm not so familiar with what's going on in the Republican Party, but I think Ron Paul followers are giving a good account of themselves, as least with regards to libertarian-ish Republicans.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, other than Ron Paul libertarian types, and some constitutionalists here and there, there seems to be no serious, honest reform movement within the Republican Party which is populist, but not predicated on 'Big Lies'. Libertarianism simply won't work for many rank-and-file Republicans who are disgusted with their party's leadership (as exemplified by Congress critters.) I hope I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing analogous to the PDA amongst Republicans.


Keeping false hope alive--the Dems' specialty

Unlike you, I don't think fusion empowers political alternatives--to the contrary (at least as I've seen it practiced in New York state), it helps to defuse discontent by giving voters the impression that they are going outside the corporate-party system when very often, they simply wind up voting for those same politicians under a different label. This is how the Populist movement was severely weakened at the turn of the last century, when William Jennings Bryan managed to herd what was an independent movement into the Democratic Pary under the banner of 'fusion.' By the time Populists and Progressives began running their own campaigns again, ballot access laws had been made more restrictive than they had previously been in many states.

I am well familiar with the role that the Working Families Party has played in New York in keeping voters penned in on the Democratic Party plantation, giving their line to the Democrats' candidate time and again, giving voters the impression that by voting for their candidates in this way, they thereby won't go on being taken for granted by the Democrats--when they will be, as before. It's the old trick of co-opting to defuse any potential pressure from emerging to the left of the Democrats. (I also remember well how, in the fall of 2006, the Working Families Party circulated a mailer which falsely claimed that anti-war activists such as Cindy Sheehan had endorsed their--that is to say the Democrats'--candidate, when in fact Sheehan had endorsed the truly independent and antiwar Green Party candidates. That's how the WFP operates.)

Funny how the only people I ever seem to come across who are enthusiastic about the Working Families Party are...Democrats.

As for taking over corporate parties from below--are you aware of how effective the machinery of the Democratic Party has shown itself to be, repeatedly, in quashing would-be insurgent movements within their ranks? Anything that would threaten the national organization's ability to go on raising piles of money from corporate donors is a threat to their power. And of course, this dependence on corporate money is the essence of the corruption of the entire system. Those who believe in working within the Democratic Party see this as a sign of its being broken, and in need of 'fixing.' but those who actually have power in the party, and who are not about to be moved, see things as working quite well. Oh, sure, they'll permit efforts like PDA or Howard Dean's group to emerge, even grow--until such time as actual demands are made, then things will come to a head--and reform activists will be left with the same old choice of accepting the party as it is (talk reform, but don't expect any actual changes) or be blamed for 'helping to elect Republicans' if you don't go out and work for the Democrats' candidates regardless.

Which brings us back once again to the electoral systems enforced by the donkey-and-elephant duopoly.



Choice, even between two poor alternatives, can be important

I think rm and metamars have both raised interesting points.

I wasn't aware that the Republican and Democratic parties had deliberately imposed 'first past the post' voting. I had naively assumed that it had been retained through inertia.

Some ostensibly progressive left-wing types also defend this ridiculous system. They point to examples of Social Democratic parties having won office on a few past occasions, for example in the UK or Canada, as a result of 'first past the post' voting, where they would otherwise have lost, but ignore the vastly greater number of occasions where it has worked against the left as well as against democracy.


I think the choice between a bad candidate like Al Gore and an even worse candidate like George Bush is still and important one to make. The same was true of the 2007 Federal elections in Australia.

In spite of the poor record of the Rudd Labor Government since 2007, to conclude that to vote out the anti-democratic, anti-environmental, war-mongering and generally reactionary Government of John Howard was a mistake would be a wrong conclusion to draw.

Voting for the alternative of Labor in 2007, as unsatisfactory as it has turned out to be, was a necessary condition for progress, but obviously not, in itself, a sufficient condition. The same would appear to be true of the contest between Obama and McCain in 2008.

Yes, metamars is correct. Even third parties can be corrupted.

How else can the ongoing ineffectiveness of the Australian Greens be explained afte all these decades?

How we can ever hope to create a political party that is capable of standing up for the interests of ordinary people against the diaboligarchies of our respective countries is not clear, but I would not entirely preclude it coming from within either of the major parties (although I would rule out it coming from within the pro-big-business right wing Liberal Party of Australia, if not the US Republican Party). I would not entirely preclude parties like the Australian Greens from becoming such a party. Or it could come from an entirely new party outside all the established parties.

I think the important thing is that people working towards a better future pull in the same direction wherever they find themselves.



It's too bad this report is so limited.

Screwloosechange -- and no, I don't approve of them or support them -- provides the pdf of the actual document. The relevant paragraph are these --

"The essence of what petitioners seek is to create by City law a private
investigative and prosecutorial body with broad subpoena power to look into all
aspects of the events leading up to and succeeding 9/11. Petitioners’ counsel
acknowledged that no private body with subpoena power has ever been created by City
law (tr. pp. 49, 70)
. Although paragraph 10 of the Petition states that the Commission
shall be a “law-enforcement agency,” with power to indict in courts “in the City of
New York or elsewhere,” and shall have “the same immunities, privileges and
prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors” (¶ 14), petitioners’
counsel acknowledged that the law enforcement language “is inappropriate” (tr. p. 75).

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."


This suggests that there are elements in the details of the Petition that are legally not something he can enact, and may or may not have to do with whether or not the attacks should be investigated or investigated by the city, but rather, may be about more mundane issues, like whether commissioners need to be NYC residents, or other oddities that were included in the petition that have already been pointed out.

What parts exactly were relevant? The "private" aspect as opposed to a public commission? This is highly meaningful as it could set a terrible precedent if not well thought out. It would be good to know the details, to review, and to ask why those aspects were included in the first place. But so far, it doesn't appear that the people involved in the petition are interested in being that transparent. Which is why I had to go to a debunker site just to see the actual decision.

This page on NYCCAN could have included the pdf, but did not. Why?

Show "Because..." by Jon Gold

I don't think she's implying any such thing

Certainly not "all," or even a majority are agents. Likely only a tiny minority are. But by the same token it would be naive to think that an effort of/for/by the People of this magnitude would not have infil-traitors assigned to infiltrate this project on some level.

They are putting it up.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

not sinister, but disappointing and frustrating

>>by those who LOVE to make accusations?

Jon, I would never suggest that people involved in the petition are "agents" or only in it for the money, etc.

Being as hopeful as you were, I can see why you might see my comment as sinister.

But my concern is that they have never been transparent enough as a group, and although I can understand that -- given that any such effort is constantly attacked and has to be very careful about what is revealed -- I cannot understand not providing full info that is already public, and responding to concerns which are shared by not just one or two people, but many, and being publicly posted on blogs like this.

William Pepper posted one post on here to basically say that "we'll never all agree on everything" in response to very genuine and valid concerns about things like a UFOlogist being a commissioner. I don't see that kind of response as helpful in anyway and it was disconcerting that leadership on this would be that dismissive.

I don't see it all as black and white.

The JREfers and SLCers are to be ignored.

But activists within the movement should not be ignored. Any good effort like this requires solid leadership that can be responsive and sees the inclusion of the movement's shared knowledge as a benefit, not a problem. Things like including Rense as a citation in a public court document showed that something is really amiss in terms of the knowledge of those putting together the documents or overseeing them. This *must* be critiqued, or it happens over and over.

Does it take a huge amount of effort and knowledge and network ability to do what they did? Of course. They did a lot and should be congratulated.

But critique is necessary if you want to ever get to where this kind of effort needs to go. I'm sorry if people are upset and the timing is difficult. Good leaders will engage those who are critiquing and help them to own a part of the effort by listening and negotiating. That's how things move forward.

Judge Lehner- "Upon review

Judge Lehner- "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."

It's true that severing any of the points outlined by the Clerk would substantially change the petition. It's unfortunate Lerner didn't go into more detail, but it seems as if he accepted all 5 of the Clerk's objections. I read the the NYCCAN filing, but I've yet to see the Clerk's full filing. However, we already know what his 5 areas of objection were. The idea that NYC can't do it's own investigation of events and crimes in its jurisdiction is preposterous. EDIT- however, Lehner didn't say that- he objected to this being a private investigation with law enforcement powers.

Certainly, this decision can be appealed, but I suggest it would be better to draft a petition that can't be rejected on the other grounds- or any other grounds- getting the signatures (it might be as simple as contacting the people who already signed it), and taking that one to the Supreme Court, if it gets blocked again.

This effort really needs some independent legal advice.

Les Jamieson, Carl Person and William Pepper drafted the petition. Jamieson was already notorious for his involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement, but somehow got himself involved with the first petition- he was cut out of the 2nd petition effort, but it was the same petition. And, based on how the language in this petition worked out, trusting Carl Person and William Pepper in the future would be a mistake- the objections should've been foreseeable.

And next time- no Edgar Mitchells.


I concur with your entire post loose nuke, especially...

"And next time- no Edgar Mitchells."

I'd like to add, "And next time- no Catholic Bishop."

Having a Catholic Bishop on the Commission was just a bizarre move in my view. There are so many people to choose from who are not part of controversial organizations (including NASA and the Catholic Church).

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

There were differences

'...based on how the language in this petition worked out, trusting Carl Person and William Pepper in the future would be a mistake- the objections should've been foreseeable.'

I don't think it's fair or accurate to generalize in this way about those involved in drafting the petition, as if there were no differences among them. Carl Person did endeavor to anticipate objections, and included provisions to have the investigation placed under the charge of a newly created public office. And it was Pepper who later wanted to remove those provisions, and Les went along with him. Those provisions were removed from the language of the petition, and Carl Person had no further involvement.

Discussed here:


Lehner ... objected to this being a private investigation

That's the whole lesson. It's ashaming that you have to create a pedition and collect signatures to even hind the idea that a local state does its own investigation. As they don't want one, shown by rejecting the counting of signatures and hiring of lawyers instead, how could you get public servants on the commission? A open and fair state would have torn down this pedition at first place and instead respect the will of the voters by creating a proper investigation without fighting such legal issues.

Voters' will denied again and again, in many areas

This may only be tangentially related to this specific case (I don't have a head for legal stuff, don't know how the judge got his job, etc.), but if you want to get a handle on why the public's will is so often not done, you can do worse than by reading a fascinating blog diary called "Indispensable Enemies", about a book by the same title. I've often lamented the political naivete of many 911 Truthers (even thought I'm mostly a political ignoramus, myself). Indispensable Enemies promises to shed light about what activists of all stripes are up against. And it underscores the need to not only get better people elected to office (which has been painfully obvious to me, for years), but to circumvent the power of relatively invisible middlemen (which is less obvious). That means, as Thom Hartmann has called for, honest, public-minded citizens taking over the Democratic Party (and as he hasn't called for, honest, public-minded citizens taking over the Republican Party). Politics is too important to be trusted to the bozos who tend slither into it's crevasses.


Indispensable Enemies is a wild ride, and very few will want to stay on all the way to the end. Karp has no respect for either of the major parties, and his low opinion extends to such Democratic heroes as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and even McGovern. He was politically unaffiliated, but identified with the Progressive and Populist traditions, and nowadays he seems to be admired mostly by paleocons and right-libertarians. But his insights into the two-party system can help dissidents of any stripe understand what's wrong with our political process, and more specifically, what's wrong with the Democratic Party.

The basic idea of the book is that when you're trying to understand American politics, you don't want to start with the candidates and elected officials, or with the voters and public opinion, or even with the lobbyists or with the media, but with the political parties. Karp overstates his case considerably, but there are few who could read his book without learning something from it.

The parties and the pros work for themselves first, last and always, and a party's ruling group would always rather maintain control of a losing party than win and lose control. Parties do not depend on elected officials for funding. Quite the opposite: elected officials who don't have their own organizations and who can't self-finance are pretty much dependent on the party. (This is especially true of low-seniority members of the House, who are little more than but peons.) The party gets its funding from donors, and donors give money as often to prevent action as they do to get action: sometimes all they want is nothing.

(emphasis mine)


So when's the next opportunity to try again?

Clearly there is overwhelming fatigue on the part of everyone who poured so much energy into this ballot movement. So retreat for the weekend into your escape of choice and let's come out swinging next week. Much was learned right? How to better craft the legal document; how to organize to gather 80,000 sigs. Come on, this is groundbreaking legal work. Also don't forget that there must be thousands more newly awakened truth seekers now, people who like us can never turn back to sleep; new energized leaders will emerge from this effort. It was not for nothing. NYC CAN will come back stronger.

Thank You for Your Positive Outlook Criskin.

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?

NYC CAN Doesnt Need to Go Anywhere

They should proceed with their investigation and start compiling sworn statements, affidavits, and evidence to be published.

They have the endorsement of 80,000 New Yorkers, the FSC, and have received a fair bit of media. They would be crazy to just disband. This was always meant to be a private commission funded with private money. It was never going to be a public commission funded and controlled by the City. (Which would be likely thwarted).

Take the mandate expressed by polls and by the signers of the petition and do whatever is possible without subpoena power. Then publish the findings in a book and at the National Press Club, talk shows, everywhere.

Thank You

I had some heroes before, and now I have more. I'm not going to be a lazy coward any more but step up to help in any way that I can. I'm just one person stepping up. I've seen so many people starting to step up.

Thank you NYCCAN. Never give up.

Aspiring truther - I'm working hard to start a Truth Rock movement. What would the 60's have been without music? Help me make Truth Rock mainstream.

I don't know about you guys

but this is the worst frakkin' news I've heard all year round.

I am so sad and so tired. :(

Good opportunity

to either appeal, or to regroup, tighten up the petition and hit the streets again. Earlier in the campaign, I was in a position to volunteer, but when I tried to contact CAN (it wasn't called CAN then), could not get a response. I think communication has improved since then, and there will be a better chance to absorb volunteers into the effort. Lobbying of the city council might also be a fruitful approach for a second go-around. My sense is that the Partnership for New York City holds great sway over what happens in the city. It's good to know who your opponents are.

how can those outside New York back NYCCAN?

For the majority of us outside NYC, how do we back NYCCAN outside of NYC other than financial?

There must be a long list of options, and a way to prioritize them. I want NYCCAN to become the rallying point for the whole movement. I'm telling all my people to fight for it - we need clear actionable objectives.

Aspiring truther - I'm working hard to start a Truth Rock movement. What would the 60's have been without music? Help me make Truth Rock mainstream.

This 'judgment' is a joke.

Hardly any legal reasoning in it whatsoever (which in itself constitutes a breach of due process / fair trial standards under both American and international law). My guess is that Judge Lehner may have been put under severe external pressure to rule in favour of the City. This would also explain the weird delay of this kindergarten-style 'judgment'.

(international lawyer,
Amsterdam, Netherlands)

I think amongs the other war

I think amongs the other war crimes that Spain is going to be investigating on the Bush gang, this is one more piece that should be thrown into the mix. This Bush crime family, has been the most filthy stain upon this country, and its democracy ever. I'm deeply saddened by this also.

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."



Though my gut wants to say "may they rot in hell", my higher instincts say, wait, it's not over. The legal team, I believe has another strategy.

its a learning experience

And an important one in that. Certain mistakes might have been made but at least you reached out to 80,000 individuals in the process.

80,000 who are now aware of these attempts.

Spread this news!

Spread this news far and wide. Draw attention to NYC Can's efforts. Alert people to the fact that the will of 80,000 New Yorker's has been denied. Turn this negative into a positive by giving NYC Can more and more exposure.

This ruling was not unexpected?

When I first heard about the NYC CAN petition and the roadblocks it surmounted to get before a Judge, I somehow knew its objective would be rejected.

Coming from the UK, it is clear that the American legal system is far from "fair and true". The OJ Simpson case showed this most clearly. I am not saying the British legal system is any better just look at how the Queen halted a case with an ex-royal butler.


Money, elite interests and political necessity all pervert the cause of justice with impunity.

Obama has made it clear he will not punish nor investigate crimes of the previous administration. He has also stated as fact that Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

Barack Obama, Egypt, Cairo, June 4th 2009
"I am aware that there are still some that question or even justify the offense of 9/11 but let us be clear, Al Qaeda killed nearly 3000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, woman and children from America and many other nations, who had done nothing to harm anybody and yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with."

Obama has said he wants to focus on the future rather than litigate the past. Concerning torture perpetrated under the auspices of the previous administration he said it is a "time for reflection, not retribution."

Meanwhile, America bombs fall on Pakistan, more die in Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama gets the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.



I think

It's a good time to start a phone, fax and email campaign...If they're nice and tied up I think they might reconsider. This is past ridiculous. Again even the people participating in the 9/11 Commission fraud are aware how publicly evident what they did was a a HUGE farce. They write books on the subject.
And the city knowing the people in washington are worse and more criminal than they are feign lack of jurisdiction, seems under the circumstances there should be some leeway on that issue.


higher courts?

We have to know...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

This clip...

...is on my front page.


(No subject)


this is inspiring and moving. Do you know when he gave this speech?

Aspiring truther - I'm working hard to start a Truth Rock movement. What would the 60's have been without music? Help me make Truth Rock mainstream.

Enough of the Farrakhan already

Nearly every post on blogger is being spammed by Douglas Hilton

Farrakhan as far as I'm concerned is a charismatic leader, his information is culled from many sources including far right racists, personally I don't need charismatic leaders and I'll do my own research, we are our own leaders, this kind of worship is what we, the human race, should be moving away from in our (r)evolution.

Ok Doug you've made your point (too many times IMO) it's getting boring.

come on a technicality?

Legally permissible? What about murder? What about truth? What about justice? What about your ethical obligations? What about the rights of the people? You make me sick Lehner! Did NYC ever get a chance to investigate this? No way cause our corrupt leaders covered it up and shipped out the evidence. And now you're part of that cover-up Lehner. Don't cut this guy any slack, only a compromised person could act this way. I say we should draw attention to this ruling every chance we get and the Lehner name. It should be shouted from the roof tops. Come on Amy Goodman what's wrong with this story? It's news isn't it? 80,000 people signed the petition. Cover the story ! Well no matter what you say Lehner we are not going away and we will not forget your name and your shame!

Well, having a video clip of

Well, having a video clip of Farrakkan (I'm sure I misspelled that) on our blog is just the fodder needed, for the PDB (Powers that Be) to drag us in and call us "terrorists". With idiots like Glenn Beck scaring people, of being (gasp) a conspiracy theorists, like Van Jones, thus having your reputation tainted with....what?....objectivity? You'll have to live in shame forever after, if all you are is 100% ego. Of course, if actual character and honor take front seat in your interaction with the world, those Glenn Becks out there will be seen for what they are, puppets, in the land of OZ! This is Oz.. It ceased being a democracy in 2000, when counting the votes was dismissed, a subversion of justice, and all else imaginable, and not, then followed, to this day, democracy has been ousted right before our eyes. And most of the country still doesn't even know it.

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

Without the active, fair, support of the media. . .


...all these suits, petitions, appeals, and protests will be of no use or effect.

The primary target for anyone interested in a new investigation MUST be press and/media. No media, no change. Period.

I'm surprised anyone expected any different result from Judge Lehner.