(sub nom Burke et al v. McSweeney)

----------------------------------------------------

There is a group of conspiracy theorists who call themselves "Truthers" and who

believe that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not carried out by

terrorist extremists but, rather, were the work of the U.S. government.

 

The group is splintered and fractured, and exists primarily on the Internet.  None of

the various splinter groups have any coherent theory as to how the "inside job" was

conducted, who was involved, how it was "covered up", and these people cannot

even agree on what occurred.  Mostly, they "just ask questions" and ignore the

rational, logical, evidence-based answers.

 

One of the splinter groups is a group calling itself NYC CAN.  It claims to be acting

on behalf of "the families" but in reality, it has only a few family members of victims

of the attacks among its membership.  The vast majority of the family members

have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the conspiracy theorists or their groups

and, like the rest of the population, think that the conspiracy theorists are

disrespectful and exploitative of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.

 

NYC CAN started a ballot initiative a few years ago, with the ostensible goal of

having New York City sanction it to form an "independent commission" (comprised

solely of conspiracy fantasists) to "investigate" the events of 9/11.   The proposed

commission seeks wide-ranging law enforcement, judicial and prosecutorial powers,

many of which encroach upon state and federal jurisdictions, and there are

numerous problems with the petition, which, in my view, was destined to fail

spectacularly from the outset.

 

After the City Clerk denied the petition at first instance - on the basis that it did not

have a sufficient number of qualified signatories and it was legally invalid for several

reasons - five applicants  (petitioners) applied to the New York City court for a

review of the City Clerk's decision.

 

Here are the most relevant documents filed in the application.    Note:  I am

referring to the petitioners as applicants to avoid confusion between the application

(petition) for review of the City Clerk's decision and the NYC CAN petition itself.

 

Petition Denied     July 24, 2009     

Show Cause Affidavit
     July 29, 2009

Application for Review     July 30, 2009

 Interim Order     August 7, 2009

 Interim Order     August 14, 2009

 Interim Order     August 24, 2009

 

The Respondent, Michael McSweeney, City Clerk of the City of New York, brought a

motion to dismiss the petition.

 

Memorandum of Law of Respondent, Michael McSweeney

September 8, 2009

Applicants' Memorandum of Law in response

September 21, 2009

Reply Memorandum of Law of Respondent

September 24, 2009

Special Referee Report and Recommendation

September 25, 2009

                           

                            Applicants' Motion to Reject Report

 September 28, 2009


Referee's Report and Recommendation Upheld; Application Dismissed
October 9, 2009
 Not surprisingly, this was a colossal failure by the "truthers".