I Support NYCCAN
Jon Gold
7/31/2009
This is my endorsement of the NYCCAN initiative. It's obvious that I endorse the initiative from the amount of NYCCAN posts I've made but this is a different kind of endorsement.
Today, an "anti-truther/debunker" site posted the letter (thanks to Loose Nuke for this version) written by the City Clerk that explains why they didn't allow the petition on the ballot.
The reasons given were:
First, the federal government has jurisdiction over an investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11 as well as the causes of those attacks. Establishing a local commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and purpose of the petition process of the MHRL. Second, the petition fails to provide an adequate financing plan for the Commission as required by section 37 of the MHRL. Third, the petition's method of designating Commissioners conflicts with state laws relating to the election or appointment of public officers and the residency of public officers. Fourth, the petition overrearches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission. Fifth, the subject of this proposed amendment to the Charter does not relate to an existing Charter provision as is required by section 37.
Like most things I read on those sites, it made me angry. It didn't make me angry because of the usual inaccuracies, name calling, selective memories, slander, and other bullshit we usually see. I was more angry at those who wrote the petition. I would have thought that those responsible would have made every effort to make sure the petition was legally sound.
After I had a little time to cool off, I heard from John Albanese who said, "I endorsed this initiative because I already consider it a symbolic success. This initiative has succeeded in demonstrating that 70,000 New Yorkers, over 100 victim’s families & first responders, countless volunteers on the street, and supporters from all over this nation, still care about this issue – and will never stop organizing to demand answers."
He was basically looking for the positive in a sea of negative. Something I admire, and something I tried to do for the "Week of Truth."
With regards to the petition not being legally sound, I can't comment on the law. I'm not a lawyer. However, the "federal government" has FAILED MISERABLY with ITS "investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11." THAT MUCH I can guarantee you. If the "federal government" can't be trusted to investigate the attacks, then it falls to the people to do so. The reason I have always endorsed the idea of a new investigation being put onto the ballot is because if we rely on the "powers that be" to have a REAL investigation into the attacks, it will most likely never happen. However, if you leave the decision up to the people, it will most assuredly happen. A real investigation that leaves no stone unturned, that gets to the truth, that holds people accountable, and FINALLY brings justice for the horrible atrocity that took place on that day. That is what we are trying to do isn't it? That is why I endorse it.
As we learned today from the latest NYCCAN release, "the City Clerk maintains the Petition fell short in several areas but it should be emphasized that this is the legal opinion of the Corporation Counsel, the City of New York’s top lawyer, and will be challenged in court by lawyers for the five plaintiffs."
I don't know much about New York politics. What I do know is that the City of New York has treated the 9/11 First Responders horribly over the years. If that is any indication, then in my opinion, the City of New York's lawyer can't be trusted.
A long time ago, I promised that I would never turn my back on the 9/11 Families. They have been through UNSPEAKABLE horrors. If they want to fight this, then that is what I endorse. I endorse the fight. Just as I always have.
Do it for the families. Do it for your families. Do it for your friends' families. Truth and justice must be served.
- Jon Gold's blog
- Login to post comments
I think some self-reflection is in order
Yes, I really really did tell you so. And as I've said, the importance of that is not any benefit to my ego. This is yet another sad day for all of us.
But we can't let the lesson pass us by. I have known this was coming for nearly two years. Many of the reasons stated above for rejection of the initiative exactly mirror concerns expressed by myself and others.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/871?replies=99
Our concerns were valid. Consider that every time we seemed like we were being unsupportive, we were in fact fighting for what we felt was best for the movement. And I really think we were right about what was best. AND...it's not the first time.
This is a learning opportunity. I'm not shaking my fist and anyone all that vigorously. That wouldn't help anyone reflect on the how this all played out. But in the future I plan on holding people accountable to the implications of this lesson. Next time skeptical and committed activists cry wolf, I really want more people to think that just maybe there might be a wolf.
Um Jules...
We're not done yet. And in all of your critiques, I don't see any mention of "MHRL" so "I told you so" really doesn't apply in my opinion. As tasteless as it is.
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?
You can do better than that.
Jon, as much as I try to speak generally, you appear intent on taking everything I say personally. And you also appear invested in just making my comment look bad and acting like my point isn't worth considering.
Well I object to your curt response. And a good majority of your other curt responses on this topic.
The urgency in my critique has always been about preventing waste. I don't want you or any activist to waste their time. I don't want any of us to waste our credibility. I don't want the movement wasting the very little money we have.
How is that about me? I've spent days of my time writing responses to all this because I REALLY thought that was best for the movement. Just as you thought that NYCCAN was best for the movement. Well, I think I was right and you were wrong. That's not a detail we should just skip past because one of us has to be the wrong one.
This also isn't really about you Jon. I wish I could have saved you a bit of time. But the concerns myself and others have expressed were meant to benefit many people.
And now that we see more clearly what happened, I think it would benefit the movement to take from it a lesson about skepticism and the role of committed skeptic. I am not the enemy. My critique is as much of a commitment as your support.
Then Jules...
How do we hold people accountable, find the truth, bring justice to the families, and end the "Post-9/11 World?" And the reason I said it was tasteless was because several family members have endorsed this effort. Would you say to any of them "I told you so?" They do read this site.
Incidentally, has it ever occurred to you that the longer we fight this, the chances that we might get "coverage" grows?
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?
Dissent is patriotic
(How do we hold people accountable, find the truth, bring justice to the families, and end the "Post-9/11 World?")
By proceeding in the most thoughtful, strategic, skeptical way we can. By paying more attention than we do to those in the movement most focused and experienced with disruption, distraction, and disinformation. By never letting Les Jamieson near anything important ever again.
I'm taking the question seriously even though you meant, yet again, to imply that the skeptic has to have all the answers, which doesn't really respect my point.
(And the reason I said it was tasteless was because several family members have endorsed this effort. Would you say to any of them "I told you so?")
I don't place ANYONE in this movement above learning from their mistakes. And yet I'd say that a good majority of those involved in this process never read the initiative and didn't know much about how it was being organized. So, I'm not sure that any of the family members involved would be likely to have run into the skeptical views expressed here and elsewhere.
The 'I told you so' goes out to all those who have insinuated that our skepticism represented any less of a commitment to this movement than support. I've taken a lot of crap for my view on this. And I feel VERY strongly that there are many in this movement that need to have more of an appreciation for the role of the committed skeptic.
In other words, if our warnings are going to continue to be valid, maybe it's time for people to stop ignoring them.
I have expressed my support...
For the ballot initiative, just as I did when Vermont did it. I believe it is a viable option. What do YOU suggest we do? One of the reasons people have a problem with your critiques is that you don't offer any solutions.
In my opinion, "proceeding in the most thoughtful, strategic, skeptical way we can" is great, but how do we accomplish our overall goal? If the Supreme Court denies the petition, and says that the Corporation Counsel's judgement is correct, then what do we do?
Aside from "never letting Les Jamieson near anything important ever again?"
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?
Message to City Council
Message to City Council Attorney:
*"First, the federal government has jurisdiction over an investigation into the attacks that took place on September 11 as well as the causes of those attacks." - This is untrue.
(First, there is no jurisdiction preventing citizens from petitioning our government. As well, State's Rights are legitimate, the Federal government is overreaching on the matter. It's already established that the federal government has looked into the attacks, the 911 Commission, and have stated "we were set up to fail;" add to that, the official Family Steering Committee established a solid list of concerns surrounding the murder of their loved ones and only about thirty percent of the questions were answered, after the Commission agreed to use the list as a guide to the investigation. Also consider that the FBI still fails to list Osama Bin Laden as responsible for the attacks, and it's public record that Kalik Sheik Mouhammed's confession came from torture along with confessing to blowing up buildings that don't exist, and add to that the new evidence of nano thermite, and it's abundantly clear that a new investigation is warranted and a a large portion of the public are on the path to getting it. It is not only a Citizen's Right but it is a Citizen's responsibility to investigate and assist in the pursuit of justice.)
*"Establishing a local commission to conduct such an investigation far exceeds the proper scope and purpose of the petition process of the MHRL."
(There are no limitations to the concerns of citizens as to what should be placed on a ballot initiative; just show us the law the states "the proper scope and purpose of the petition process," until then, please do not attempt to obstruct the pursuit of justice.)
*"Second, the petition fails to provide an adequate financing plan for the Commission as required by section 37 of the MHRL."
(Any requirement with regards to an acceptable finance plan can be met diligently.)
"Third, the petition's method of designating Commissioners conflicts with state laws relating to the election or appointment of public officers and the residency of public officers."
(The right to petition the government is the freedom of individuals and groups to petition their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same. Although often overlooked in favour of other more famous freedoms and sometimes taken for granted, civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right, making it a fundamental right in our Constitutional Republic. The large group driving the Ballot Initiative have explained thoroughly the Commissioners selection process to over 70,000 residents of NYC and this large segment of the population judged the selection process is bona fide. The Ballot Initiative is simply the platform to see if the rest of NYC residents feel the same way and vote yes to a new investigation. The voters decide if the selection process is good enough, not the City Council.
Fourth, the petition overrearches in its attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission.
(The Ballot Initiative is not an "attempt to confer a range of law enforcement and prosecutorial powers on the Commission," it is a move to reopen an investigation. A prosecution will only occur upon discovery. The City Council position is moot.)
the moment of truth
i agree
i just read the petition and it does have an adequate financing plan - whether or not it meets with the cited regulation is the issue
it sure looks like the clerk and city lawyers are trying to obstruct justice
it will be interesting to see what happens monday
did we need another reminder that we've emerged into open tyranny, with the fig leaf of a phony democratic process?
per Kyle Hence, "tomorrow's court date is procedural
per Kyle Hence, "tomorrow's court date is procedural and will set a date for an actual hearing of the case."
This is how it works in the court system. I hope the date is soon.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Well
They're not trying to obstruct justice, it's much worse in my opinion: they're obstructing democracy. Without some sort of democratic freedom, there is no justice to begin with.
But that should be no surprise. All freedom was immediately lost in the 2000 elections. Since then, even though even that freedom was severely lacking, it has not returned.
BTW, excellent comment greenback, thanks
The Rules of Disinformation, #14
"I'm taking the question seriously even though you meant, yet again, to imply that the skeptic has to have all the answers, which doesn't really respect my point."
From: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation, #14 - http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1253
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
Please...
Clarify your post. The way it reads is that you are implying I am someone who peddles disinformation. Thank you.
Edit: It has been several hours since you posted that, and you have not clarified your post. You're totally out of line.
Edit: Just so everyone knows, Michael, someone I respect, and I, are in the middle of personal disagreement.
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 find his point rather clear.
Are you really confused, or just being evasive?
That post in no way implies that you are peddling disinformation. It points out accurately that you were using false logic to counter my point. You've been doing that quite a bit with my comments, as I have also been pointing out.
You seem to be doing more
than just "making observations".
Is all this really necessary?
Edit:
This was not a response to Jules, but to a post which has now been removed.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings.
Everything...
Was deleted at my request. In my opinion, our personal disagreement didn't belong in a public setting. Think of me what you will.
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?
» The Rules of Disinformation, #15
yes.. make les jamieson the scapegoat..
rather than finding fault where it is deserved..
les founded this initiative in nyc and personally led the effort to collect over 30,000 petitioners.. and then handed it over to stop the scape goating.. and asked ted walter to be the director with a board of family-survivors-responders proving where les jamieson was coming from in spearheading this project..
if we work together rather than fight a strategic initiative to demand a new investigation.. no matter what the authorities decide.. the people will hold an investigation and report.. it has taken 8 years to get this far.. and NYC CAN is definitely the best national campaign for 9/11 truth we have..
thanks jon.. for posting your support..
and those with more complaints than solutions.. you become consciously or unconsciously an agent of disinfo..
jonathan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ www.FlybyNews.com ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ted Walters should hand this over & work
with whomever Daniel Sunjata thinks is capable enough to get us thru all the roadblocks. I don't know Mr.Walters, but he obviously has gone as far as he can go. I'm picking Sunjata out, because he seems like a really sharp, honorable guy & seems pretty invested, in this.. He has to know creative, capable lawyers, producers, etc in NYC. That get shit DONE.
FWIW, when I went to a NY Can event over a year ago, there was at least 5 German volunteers with heavy accents. Maybe it's absouletly nothing, but my friend & I considered that really strange & like I said before, we didn't think it would go anywhere with the leadership @ the time.
Daniel if you're reading this, can you give us you're input?
I think Ted...
Is doing a good job. He has answered my questions, and been responsive.
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?
That's good, Jon.
Do you think he needs some more professional's to get thru the various roadblocks?
They're getting lawyers...
From what I understand.
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?
These problems are not Ted Walters creation.
I get the sense from 3,000 miles away that he and the rest of NYC CAN are doing the best they can with what they have.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
The problem rests with the original petition and the decision to not re-write it and start over when they had the chance.
As others have pointed out, some more gracefully than others, there are real problems with the legal document itself, which cannot be fixed now. Anyone who has had any experience with the legal system knows that you have to do due diligence and dot all the i's and cross all the t's, then check it again three times twice.
That said, I happen to agree with Jon Gold and John Albanese on this. Let's support this as best we can and see where it goes, with our eyes wide open, making constructive criticism along the way and learning as much from this process as possible.
The struggle makes us stronger.
We do have to decide how much more money we want to pour into this, though, this is a real concern for me as we our making NYC CAN one of the main beneficiaries of our 5th annual 9/11 film festival. The film festival is our major annual fund raiser and provides the working capital for the next year of projects and activism, although this may change as our group reorganizes this fall.
I happen to like lemonade, so let's drink it, smile and make the best of it, we owe it to everyone involved, especially the family members, and ourselves.
All you have to do is choose to look at the glass as half full and get on with it.
The truth movement grows larger and stronger every day, brothers and sisters, keep up the great work!
John W. Wright
Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Promote the Fight!
"The longer we fight this, the chances that we might get coverage grows." Absolutely-- we win by getting media over the court battle and should thus, promote the fight. I don't know how long this could potentially drag out, but if it's still being fought in September we should rally behind NYC CAN for the anniversary. Solidarity!
We win by getting media for the fight even if we lose the ballot drive. And it further promotes NYC CAN to publish its findings in the future regardless of what happens.
EXACTLY!
there are 70,000 new yorkers and over 100 victim's families and first responders and ex-FBI agents, etc etc all uniting and demanding their voices be heard.
hello? MacFly?
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitutional battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
That...
Is part of the reasoning behind this blog. "I endorse the fight."
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?
depends on how you look at it.
i am really not sure how this is a failure. after 8 years of witnessing multi-billion-dollar media machines attempting to BURY 9/11 Truth as a viable movement - 70,000 people, over 100 victim's families and first responders are going to court to demand answers to 9/11.
this is historic.
you guys should be working to PROMOTE this FACT.
what else do we have to promote Jules? our blogs? our astute observations about EACH OTHER and our endless in-fighting? CIT's absurd theories?
for ONCE we have a PR tool we can leverage!
will we win in court? of COURSE not. but it does not matter. please get that. it does not matter. 9/11 Truth - as a valid grassroots movement - LIVES. it may have been pie-in-the-sky dreams to believe that this IDEA would survive the legal process in NYC. But that is SECONDARY to the fact that victim's families are GOING TO COURT to demonstrate to the world that 9/11 still remains unresolved.
I agree with your appraisal of Les Jamieson and the very CONCEPT of this initiative. did anyone REALLY think that Ed Asner was going to question Dick Cheney under oath? LOL!! it DOES indeed appear to be designed to fail. But - HA HA - the joke is on them because 70,000 new yorkers have already cast their votes. people still want answers. people are still working to get them. This is better than any abstract zogby poll. these are real people heading to court to plea their case in front of a judge.
i suggest that a more PRODUCTIVE avenue of discussion would be to discuss how to get ATTENTION for this. forget the endgame. yes Jules - we always agreed that this initiative was ill-conceived and appeared DESIGNED to fail. but - that does not mean we all need to throw ourselves on our swords.
use it. FIGHT!
"We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans - and return to our roots. 9/11 Truth is no less than a constitution battle to ensure our rights as citizens to demand full and honest answers from our appointed representatives in Washington." JA
Fight for what? Seriously.
I don't agree that we should fight. It sounds like the city clerk invalidated the initiative for valid reasons. Our bad. So then what do we fight for?
Sure play up the number of signatures and try to use the coalition built around the initiative to get some press. But I really don't think we should be out there badmouthing the city when the problem was our mistake.
OUR MISTAKE!
Leave it up to JREF.
The problem I have with the self described "truther skeptics" such as you Jules or Arabesque is two fold.
1. We already have the entire corporate media against us, trashing us on 100s of channels, 24 hours a day, all day every day, 365 days a year, to the whole world. We have the entire government stone walling us and trying to paint us as terrorists, we have JREF and dozens of other organized cointelpro type operations lying about us and spreading mountains of disinformation all over the net on a daily basis, not to mention all the covert stuff the CIA, FBI, and NSA are doing to attack us. We have agent provacateurs trying to set us up. Finally we have the uninformed population parroting the official party line and ridiculing us out of pure ignorance of how badly they have been lied to by all of the above. There are enough "skeptics" out there already without adding in truther skeptics on top of it all. Enough is enough man just knock it off already.
2. We have all sorts of investigating yet to be done on many facets of 9/11. For example a "truther skeptic" such as yourself could investigate any of the hundreds of false claims made in the NIST report that the scholars for truth and justice have not had time to deal with yet. You could spend your time as a skeptic investigating and disproving lies told by the media about 9/11. In short you could spend your time and effort investigating the real perps who did 9/11 or the perps currently covering it up instead of going on crusades against the likes of CIT or Rob Balsamo who in the final analysis may NOT be the disinfo agents you suggest they are. It is a question of priorities Jules, who are you really "investigating" here the perps or well meaning but imperfect people trying their best with the tools they have to expose the truth about 9/11?
Personally I am sick of hearing all the negative crap about other truthers from people who claim to be truthers it makes me wonder about you because you spend all your time criticising efforts like NYC CAN and those of CIT and Pilots For Truth etc instead of uncovering more about the 9/11 perps. Also I don't like your skepticism of truthers because contained within it is an assumption that I and other truthers can't figure these credibility issues out for ourselves. I am capable of deciding for myself if CIT is disinformation or not just based on their presentations and I wonder why I should spend any of my limited time reading lengthy critiques of other truthers instead of finishing David Ray Griffins latest book or investigating other aspects of the 9/11 cover-up etc?
My priority list has griping about the short commings of NYC CAN and criticising CIT and PFT way down at the very bottom. I am concerned about disinformation and infiltration/corruption of the 9/11 truth movement but until you have proof of something I don't want to hear about it. I have more pressing issues to deal with and how do I know Jules that you are not the cointelpro operative? I don't. Besides the best way to defeat the disinfo operatives in the first place is to expose more facts about 9/11. If you disagree with CIT or some other truthers just say your piece and have enough respect for the rest of us to decide for ourselves if your points are solid or not but know this ahead of time I would rather spend my time reading about the new information you have uncovered about 9/11 not your suspicions about other truthers. I think this whole image of yourself as the lone truther uncovering the disinfo operatives who is unappreciated by the rest of us dupes who are falling prey to their evil plans is disrespectful to us. It is also not a very effective tactic to criticise NYC CAN because it is just bad for moral and we already know what the short commings are and the forces arrayed against us. You want to tell me something negative? Tell me something new about the perps or the cover-up otherwise I just don't want to hear it. The truth movement is devided enough already.
Promote CIT much?
This is so transparently an extension of your frustration with my position on CIT or P4T. In other words, you are biased against me and this has little to do with my position on the ballot initiative. I can't believe that you just spent so much time trying to talk me down.
Your call for a big tent is more damaging to this movement than any criticism I could ever offer.
Disinfo much?
Jules,
Please point out in my previous post where I promote CIT or PFT. Better still find any post where I promote them or their theories.
You sir are using disinfo tactics, namely #4 and #7 of the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
The fact is Jules you ignored the entire substance of what I said in my previous post. Please don't put words in my mouth and then twist them to suit your agenda. Also quit kicking the NYC CAN people while they are down. Not cool.
You don't get to pick and choose when you are skeptical
"The problem I have with the self described "truther skeptics"
Sorry, you lost me after that. All 9/11 truthers are "skeptics". You don't get to pick and choose when you are skeptical and when you are not. But that seems to be the position you are implying. Bringing up CIT after that doesn't help you look more "unbiased" either. If you can believe that stuff, you are the ultimate non-skeptic.
Anyone who makes the claim that criticizing the 9/11 truth movement is harming it is completely out to lunch. If you believe this, then you probably also believe that the scientific peer review method is a complete "distraction". Promoting the BEST case for 9/11 and the BEST case for getting justice is ALWAYS helping the 9/11 truth movement and claiming otherwise just reveals a clear lack of critical judgment and bias.
Telling people to "not" criticize is like saying: "don't criticize the official story of 9/11". There is no difference in fact. You and no one else determines or decides what is "off" the table when it comes to criticism. Critique is how science moves forward and how we develop better technology, LEARN from our mistakes (something the 9/11 truth movement has difficulty doing). Silencing critique has the effect of repeating mistakes, not advancing, and going backwards.
For example, to claim that people who point out "problems" in the ballot campaign are "hurting" the truth movement, then you probably believe that it is better for something to fail that it is for something to succeed.
Your point of view is on reflection, completely absurd, biased, and out of touch with reality. It also seems hypocritical to call for "non-criticism" when you are in fact unfairly criticizing members of the 9/11 truth movement. But I guess your whole point was that you get to determine when members of the 9/11 truth movement can criticize and when they can't.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog