Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
September 30, 2009 at 15:22:20

Must Read 3   Well Said 2   Supported 2   View Ratings | Rate It

City Calls Arguments for New 9/11 Probe "Irrelevant"-- Admits City Did No Investigation

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg
Tell A Friend

By Press Release (about the author)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Press Release - Writer

New York State Supreme Court Decision On Petition's Legality Expected
By End of Week

CONTACT:
Ted Walter, 917-627-8467
tedwalter@nyccan.org


New York City -- Court Justice Edward Lehner has begun consideration of NYC CAN's motion to reject Referee's Louis Crespo's recommendation that the NYC CAN 9/11 petition not be submitted to the voters on November 3. The petition would ask whether or not there should be an independent New York City investigation into 9/11.


Responding to a motion brought by NYC CAN attorney Dennis McMahon, a hearing was held Tuesday September 29 at the New York State Supreme Court, and concluded with the understanding that the Court will likely render a decision on the petition's legality by Friday, October 2.

The City's previously assumed deadline of September 30-spurred by the printing deadline for military absentee ballots-was brushed away by Judge Lehner as he suggested the printing of absentee ballots would likely not be ordered on Wednesday, September 30. Runoff elections were held while the Court was in session. Even if the ballots were ordered on Wednesday, Lehner indicated, this should not prevent the referendum from being put before the vast majority of the electorate who would be voting in New York City.

Judge Lehner's postponement of the supposed deadline came after McMahon had requested that the Judge carefully consider both sides' arguments, rather than render a rush decision and fail to adequately contemplate NYC CAN's legal arguments, as the Referee had done.

Initially there was a question as to whether oral arguments would go forward as a clerical mishap resulted in the Judge not being presented with the papers on time. As a result of the snafu, the procedure for the Court to hear arguments was inverted, whereby oral arguments were heard first and served to orient the Judge.

Over the next few days the Judge will go through both sides' legal memos, as well as the applicable statutes and case law.

Surprisingly, the file forwarded from the Referee to the Judge did not contain NYC CAN's legal memo, which McMahon told the Court seemed apropos, since the referee had barely considered the Petitioners' memorandum of law.

The Judge proceeded to invite discourse on why an investigation was needed. When McMahon raised as an example the 9/11 Commission's omission of the collapse of Building 7 from its final report, the Judge replied in puzzlement, "Building what?"

When asked by the Judge whether or not there has been an investigation into 9/11 by New York City authorities, Steve Kitzinger, the City's lawyer, replied, "It's irrelevant", to which the packed courtroom was loudly disdainful, some openly laughing in disbelief. At which point Mr. Kitzinger prevailed upon Judge Lehner to quiet the crowd, which the Judge did.

With order restored, the Judge again asked Kitzinger if the City had done anything to investigate 9/11. Kitzinger flatly responded, "No."

"The City never did anything?" retorted the Judge in disbelief. "Nothing, Kitzinger admitted.

As part of his unrelenting attack on the NYC CAN petition, Kitzinger repeatedly alluded to the proposed commission's intention to investigate national security matters beyond its jurisdiction such as "intelligence failures". A simple reading of the petition shows such assertions to be completely unfounded.

Later, Judge Lehner seemed unimpressed by Kitzinger's argument pertaining to the limited jurisdiction of New York City to investigate 9/11, on the grounds of inherent limits to a municipality's subpoena power. "You can investigate anything, can't you?" the Judge asked rhetorically. "Because somebody may have jurisdiction over certain witnesses doesn't mean you can't have a commission."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "911 Commission"
9/11 Commission Report
by 911 Commission

$24.95
Lowest New Price $17.79

Number of pages:
Publisher: Pocket University

False Flag 911: How Bush, Cheney and the Saudis Created the Post-911 World
by Philip Marshall

$14.99

Number of pages: 152
Publisher: BookSurge Publishing

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the

$7.98

Number of pages: 568
Publisher: W W Norton

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

So far, this is very encouraging by Nick van Nes on Wednesday, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:47:39 PM
building 7? by remo on Thursday, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:28:03 PM
A hysterical precedent by Dave Kisor on Friday, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:05:21 AM
court case by Linda Schreiber on Thursday, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:50:41 PM
Thermite rules! by Dave Kisor on Friday, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:12:01 AM
Even the 9/11 Commissions Counsel says it was a cover up! by Richard Lee on Thursday, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:52:19 PM
9/11 Nukes - Radiation-induced cancers by David Howard on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:30:55 PM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum