[00:00.000 --> 00:05.000]  This news brief brought to you by the International News Net.
[00:05.000 --> 00:11.000]  Dr. Don Lowe, microbiologist in chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto,
[00:11.000 --> 00:19.000]  says preliminary research suggests the seasonal flu shot may put people at greater risk for getting swine flu.
[00:19.000 --> 00:25.000]  A top White House official told Jewish leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday
[00:25.000 --> 00:31.000]  U.S. strategy was to bring a UN Human Rights Council report critical of Israel's war in Gaza
[00:31.000 --> 00:36.000]  to its natural conclusion and not allow it to go further.
[00:36.000 --> 00:40.000]  Federal researchers have discovered waters downstream of pharmaceutical plants
[00:40.000 --> 00:45.000]  are more heavily contaminated with drug residue than waters elsewhere.
[00:47.000 --> 00:52.000]  The Federal Reserve has told the Gold Antitrust Action Committee
[00:52.000 --> 00:57.000]  it has gold swap arrangements with foreign banks it doesn't want the public to know about.
[00:57.000 --> 01:04.000]  Gaza says the disclosure suggests the Fed is involved in surreptitious manipulation of the gold price.
[01:04.000 --> 01:09.000]  The Fed's disclosure came this week in a letter to Gaza's lawyer, William Olson,
[01:09.000 --> 01:17.000]  denying Gaza's administrative appeal of a freedom of information request to the Fed for information about gold swaps.
[01:17.000 --> 01:23.000]  Gold swaps are transactions where gold is temporarily exchanged between central banks.
[01:23.000 --> 01:28.000]  Gaza says the letter comes at a sensitive time in currency and gold markets.
[01:28.000 --> 01:34.000]  The U.S. dollar is showing unprecedented weakness and gold is showing unprecedented strength.
[01:34.000 --> 01:39.000]  European central banks appear to be withdrawing from gold sales and leasing
[01:39.000 --> 01:45.000]  and the International Monetary Fund is being pressed to take the lead in a gold price suppression scheme
[01:45.000 --> 01:50.000]  selling gold in the guise of providing financial support for poor nations.
[01:52.000 --> 02:00.000]  Spanish police have arrested Juan Alberto Poch, an Argentinian military pilot accused of taking part in death flights
[02:00.000 --> 02:06.000]  in which hundreds of opponents of Argentina's military junta were thrown from planes into the sea.
[02:06.000 --> 02:09.000]  Poch is wanted by court in Argentina.
[02:09.000 --> 02:14.000]  Prisoners on the death flights were told they were being moved from one jail to another
[02:14.000 --> 02:18.000]  and then drugged to make them drowsy before boarding the planes.
[02:18.000 --> 02:23.000]  Adolfo Schillingo, an Argentinian Navy captain who took part in the death flights,
[02:23.000 --> 02:29.000]  has stated prisoners were given a second drug to knock them out completely and then stripped.
[02:29.000 --> 02:34.000]  The planes were flown out to the Atlantic Ocean where the doors were opened.
[02:34.000 --> 02:39.000]  Up to a thousand prisoners who passed through the infamous detention center at the Naval Mechanical School
[02:39.000 --> 02:42.000]  are thought to have been murdered this way.
[02:42.000 --> 02:45.000]  It is almost certain pilots knew what was happening.
[02:45.000 --> 02:50.000]  Human rights groups say 30,000 people died or disappeared during the Dirty War,
[02:50.000 --> 03:13.000]  a crackdown on opponents of the military junta.
[03:20.000 --> 03:25.000]  All right, we're just searching for the truth, because so far we've been truthless.
[03:25.000 --> 03:28.000]  We don't mean to be ruthless.
[03:28.000 --> 03:29.000]  I do.
[03:29.000 --> 03:30.000]  It wasn't.
[03:30.000 --> 03:37.000]  Ten seconds freefall, that's what I thought, that's what you thought, that's what everybody thought.
[03:37.000 --> 03:44.000]  Ten seconds freefall, official stories don't make a little sense at all.
[03:44.000 --> 03:51.000]  Ten seconds freefall, official stories don't make a little sense at all.
[03:51.000 --> 04:02.000]  Ten seconds freefall, it was controlled demolition, concrete into fine dust, that's a hell of a transition.
[04:02.000 --> 04:11.000]  From controlled demolition, they believe in fairy tales and the 9-1-1 commission, but not controlled demolition.
[04:11.000 --> 04:14.000]  We'll have to just ignore that idiot.
[04:42.000 --> 04:44.000]  You can't change the laws of nature.
[04:44.000 --> 04:46.000]  You can't change the laws of physics.
[04:46.000 --> 04:50.000]  I don't need to be a rocket scientist.
[04:50.000 --> 04:56.000]  Professor Stephen Jones, he has a doctorate in physics, and he has now gotten samples,
[04:56.000 --> 05:00.000]  they've taken the samples, they've done scientific tests on them.
[05:00.000 --> 05:03.000]  Professor Jones just doesn't find evidence of thermite.
[05:03.000 --> 05:09.000]  They find the byproducts of thermate patented for specific use in cutting steel columns.
[05:09.000 --> 05:11.000]  The hair on the back of my neck standing up.
[05:11.000 --> 05:16.000]  Ten seconds freefall, that's what everybody thought.
[05:16.000 --> 05:18.000]  All right, it was a ten-second freefall.
[05:18.000 --> 05:25.000]  Ten seconds freefall, feels like my best friend sucker punched me right upside the jaw.
[05:25.000 --> 05:28.000]  Ten seconds freefall.
[05:28.000 --> 05:34.000]  This is, of course, the Three Shoes Posse you're listening to, my band.
[05:34.000 --> 05:40.000]  We wrote the song, Ten Second Freefall, in memorial of the World Trade Center collapse, 9-11,
[05:40.000 --> 05:45.000]  and we are very honored and blessed to have with us on our show tonight,
[05:45.000 --> 05:50.000]  attorney Dennis McMahon out of New York City.
[05:50.000 --> 06:03.000]  He is representing NYC CAN in their vigilant battle to get the issue on the ballot.
[06:03.000 --> 06:09.000]  The ballot in November, ballot initiative to create an independent commission to investigate 9-11
[06:09.000 --> 06:13.000]  with subpoena power, and this one we would be calling shots.
[06:13.000 --> 06:15.000]  Dennis, thank you for joining us tonight.
[06:15.000 --> 06:17.000]  Thank you so much for having me.
[06:17.000 --> 06:18.000]  This is just awesome.
[06:18.000 --> 06:22.000]  This is the reason that I got into radio to begin with.
[06:22.000 --> 06:29.000]  The reason I got into this whole fight to begin with was to get adjudicated the issue of 9-11 truth in the courts,
[06:29.000 --> 06:31.000]  and this is just fantastic.
[06:31.000 --> 06:40.000]  Dennis, if you could just briefly go over with us what the history is since around June when all these filings took place.
[06:40.000 --> 06:42.000]  There was a petition.
[06:42.000 --> 06:43.000]  There's names.
[06:43.000 --> 06:46.000]  You know, the city clerk rejected.
[06:46.000 --> 06:53.000]  There was some back and forth, and now apparently they've conceded the number of valid signatures,
[06:53.000 --> 06:55.000]  and now they're challenging some points.
[06:55.000 --> 06:57.000]  There's five main points of challenging.
[06:57.000 --> 07:02.000]  If you could just give us an overview, and then I'd like to get into these five points of interest.
[07:02.000 --> 07:03.000]  Sure.
[07:03.000 --> 07:08.000]  As you said, you know, that issue is a petition to place on the November 3rd ballot,
[07:08.000 --> 07:16.000]  a referendum asking New York City voters if they want to have a local commission with subpoena power investigate 9-11.
[07:16.000 --> 07:23.000]  And under New York law, you need 30,000 petition signatures and a legally valid petition
[07:23.000 --> 07:30.000]  for the city council to consider the measure and vote on it, or they can choose not to vote on it.
[07:30.000 --> 07:37.000]  Here, the city, we submitted the signatures, and the city clerk said we were 4,000 short.
[07:37.000 --> 07:42.000]  Out of 52,000, they found us to have only 26,000 signatures.
[07:42.000 --> 07:49.000]  So the petition was called in order to show cause was essentially a speeded-up motion,
[07:49.000 --> 07:55.000]  and what we asked for was to have a referee appointed to allow us to do a recount
[07:55.000 --> 08:00.000]  and prove that we had indeed met the 30,000 signature level.
[08:00.000 --> 08:02.000]  So we did that.
[08:02.000 --> 08:05.000]  We had the volunteers do that, and the referee was appointed.
[08:05.000 --> 08:06.000]  We won the order to show cause.
[08:06.000 --> 08:07.000]  The referee was appointed.
[08:07.000 --> 08:09.000]  The line-by-line was done.
[08:09.000 --> 08:14.000]  We submitted our papers with 7,000-plus signatures that we said were valid,
[08:14.000 --> 08:20.000]  and then the referee has to go in and himself go online on the Board of Elections office
[08:20.000 --> 08:24.000]  and do a line-by-line review.
[08:24.000 --> 08:28.000]  And on the day he was going to do that, the city conceded.
[08:28.000 --> 08:31.000]  We conceded you had the 30,000 valid signatures.
[08:31.000 --> 08:32.000]  It was like, whoa, I didn't know that.
[08:32.000 --> 08:34.000]  I didn't expect that.
[08:34.000 --> 08:36.000]  They gave up their first line of defense,
[08:36.000 --> 08:40.000]  and I think they were impressed with the work, the great work,
[08:40.000 --> 08:44.000]  that Ted and the volunteers did in collecting these signatures.
[08:44.000 --> 08:48.000]  They gave us a reason that they didn't want to waste city resources,
[08:48.000 --> 08:50.000]  but what were we doing all along, you know?
[08:50.000 --> 08:53.000]  So anyway, so we had the 30,000 limit.
[08:53.000 --> 08:59.000]  A 671-page bill of particulars that you all compiled to back up the 7,000 signatures.
[08:59.000 --> 09:00.000]  Right, that's correct.
[09:00.000 --> 09:01.000]  I'm sorry, go ahead.
[09:01.000 --> 09:03.000]  Yeah, the volunteers were indeed awesome.
[09:03.000 --> 09:06.000]  So under New York law now, to bypass the City Council,
[09:06.000 --> 09:10.000]  if you can submit another 15,000 valid signatures,
[09:10.000 --> 09:14.000]  you don't have to wait for the City Council to vote on your proposal,
[09:14.000 --> 09:17.000]  but you still need a legally valid petition.
[09:17.000 --> 09:23.000]  So we submitted another 28,000 approximately signatures,
[09:23.000 --> 09:26.000]  and the clerk was sitting on it all this time,
[09:26.000 --> 09:32.000]  and today we just learned that they're conceding essentially those 15,000 signatures as well.
[09:32.000 --> 09:36.000]  Again, you know, and this time we didn't even do any work,
[09:36.000 --> 09:38.000]  but they didn't want to do the work themselves.
[09:38.000 --> 09:42.000]  I guess they're too busy or something, but essentially they're conceding that.
[09:42.000 --> 09:47.000]  So it all comes down to do we have a legally valid petition?
[09:47.000 --> 09:56.000]  And what the City did was file a motion for summary judgment saying the petition is not valid for six reasons,
[09:56.000 --> 10:03.000]  and the six reasons have to do with jurisdiction, the financing plan,
[10:03.000 --> 10:09.000]  the public officer issue, and excessive power, not amendment to the city charter,
[10:09.000 --> 10:11.000]  and the whole severability clause issue.
[10:11.000 --> 10:20.000]  In the petition itself, we included a severability clause that says if any part of this petition is deemed to be invalid,
[10:20.000 --> 10:23.000]  that doesn't invalidate the rest of them, so you sever it out.
[10:23.000 --> 10:27.000]  So that's what's at issue now in the court.
[10:27.000 --> 10:29.000]  The legal papers have all been submitted,
[10:29.000 --> 10:33.000]  and the referee is scheduled to make a decision this coming Monday,
[10:33.000 --> 10:37.000]  and it's very tight because a military ballot has to go out.
[10:37.000 --> 10:43.000]  They have to be printed up, and that's going to happen, I think, September 30th or October 1st.
[10:43.000 --> 10:44.000]  It's a little bit unclear,
[10:44.000 --> 10:49.000]  but this is the number one priority case in the New York court system right now,
[10:49.000 --> 10:51.000]  so the referee will decide Monday.
[10:51.000 --> 10:55.000]  I'll probably have to go into court on Tuesday to go to the Supreme Court in New York City.
[10:55.000 --> 10:57.000]  The Supreme Court is the trial court level,
[10:57.000 --> 11:04.000]  and then appeals follow to the appellate division and possibly the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeal.
[11:04.000 --> 11:06.000]  Amazing.
[11:06.000 --> 11:07.000]  Go ahead, Randy.
[11:07.000 --> 11:13.000]  I'm considering that the clerk in the second instance stepped away
[11:13.000 --> 11:18.000]  and didn't raise an issue on the second set of signatures.
[11:18.000 --> 11:22.000]  It may well be that they're counting votes.
[11:22.000 --> 11:27.000]  When someone comes in and hands me 70,000 signatures,
[11:27.000 --> 11:32.000]  and I'm an elected official, you have got my attention.
[11:32.000 --> 11:38.000]  It may well be that this is moving the way we had anticipated it would all along,
[11:38.000 --> 11:43.000]  that if we just stayed the course and kept the pressure up,
[11:43.000 --> 11:49.000]  that eventually those people who were just in cognitive dissonance
[11:49.000 --> 11:54.000]  and unable to accept what was in front of them would begin to make the adjustment,
[11:54.000 --> 12:00.000]  and it seems to be happening that more and more people are beginning to realize that something's terribly wrong.
[12:00.000 --> 12:01.000]  Yes, indeed.
[12:01.000 --> 12:02.000]  I'm encouraged.
[12:02.000 --> 12:03.000]  I'm encouraged, too.
[12:03.000 --> 12:09.000]  I was reading over this legal memorandum that you submitted to the court,
[12:09.000 --> 12:11.000]  that you all submitted to the court,
[12:11.000 --> 12:22.000]  and I was reading some of the case law citations that the city clerk's office has presented in rebuttal to you guys' petition,
[12:22.000 --> 12:29.000]  and I'm thinking, man, these people didn't do their homework very well because these case laws are absolutely,
[12:29.000 --> 12:35.000]  they are completely non-applicable to the case at hand, and you pointed that out several times.
[12:35.000 --> 12:37.000]  Yes, we went into the cases.
[12:37.000 --> 12:38.000]  I mean, it took a lot of work.
[12:38.000 --> 12:41.000]  They would just come up with a proposition and cite seven cases,
[12:41.000 --> 12:46.000]  but not tell you what the facts of those cases were, what the holdings of those cases were,
[12:46.000 --> 12:51.000]  how those cases applied to the instant case, the case that we're deciding now.
[12:51.000 --> 12:54.000]  So, yes, I did attack them on that basis.
[12:54.000 --> 12:58.000]  That wasn't true throughout the entire memorandum that they submitted,
[12:58.000 --> 13:00.000]  but it was true in certain sections,
[13:00.000 --> 13:07.000]  and what I'm thinking is certain people did certain sections and certain people did better jobs than others.
[13:07.000 --> 13:08.000]  Right.
[13:08.000 --> 13:13.000]  Well, so now they've conceded that there are enough signatures.
[13:13.000 --> 13:23.000]  Now, you're saying that they've even conceded that the extra 15,000 necessary to basically overturn a vote down by the city council,
[13:23.000 --> 13:26.000]  they've conceded that there are enough signatures there as well?
[13:26.000 --> 13:27.000]  Right.
[13:27.000 --> 13:28.000]  It's not a vote down.
[13:28.000 --> 13:30.000]  It's just that the city council didn't vote at all.
[13:30.000 --> 13:31.000]  We can just bypass them.
[13:31.000 --> 13:34.000]  So, yes, that's correct, and that was today.
[13:34.000 --> 13:36.000]  That was another surprise out of nowhere,
[13:36.000 --> 13:41.000]  and they had this, I think, a week's time to do their review.
[13:41.000 --> 13:43.000]  I don't think they did the review.
[13:43.000 --> 13:48.000]  They may be short staffed, I don't know, but in any event, I'll take it.
[13:48.000 --> 13:50.000]  You're giving me a victory on that point.
[13:50.000 --> 13:51.000]  I'll take it.
[13:51.000 --> 13:52.000]  No complaints there.
[13:52.000 --> 13:54.000]  Let's get on to arguing about the legality of the petition.
[13:54.000 --> 13:56.000]  Absolutely.
[13:56.000 --> 13:57.000]  Wait a minute.
[13:57.000 --> 14:00.000]  Don't you have a mayor's election coming up?
[14:00.000 --> 14:03.000]  Yes, Mayor Bloomberg is running for a third term.
[14:03.000 --> 14:08.000]  In the history of New York, only one referendum of this has ever succeeded,
[14:08.000 --> 14:13.000]  and that was the term limits where they said you cannot serve more than two terms.
[14:13.000 --> 14:19.000]  At the behest of Mayor Bloomberg, the city council undid that,
[14:19.000 --> 14:21.000]  and so now he can run for a third term.
[14:21.000 --> 14:24.000]  Yes, it's a mayoral election this time around.
[14:24.000 --> 14:31.000]  Well, it seems I heard something about the selection of a candidate.
[14:31.000 --> 14:32.000]  Oh, I'm sorry.
[14:32.000 --> 14:33.000]  I'm not speaking to mayor.
[14:33.000 --> 14:36.000]  I'm speaking to governor of New York.
[14:36.000 --> 14:39.000]  No, no governor this time, just the mayor.
[14:39.000 --> 14:40.000]  Just the mayor, okay.
[14:40.000 --> 14:48.000]  I heard something about a governor's race, and I'm thinking this sounds political.
[14:48.000 --> 14:53.000]  Yeah, the governor's race is all crazy with the president telling this.
[14:53.000 --> 14:56.000]  You know, Spitzer got thrown out, the sex fiend, he got thrown out,
[14:56.000 --> 14:58.000]  and his lieutenant governor stepped in,
[14:58.000 --> 15:01.000]  and now the lieutenant governor is getting criticized by the president.
[15:01.000 --> 15:02.000]  That's going to hurt.
[15:02.000 --> 15:03.000]  You know, they're both black.
[15:03.000 --> 15:06.000]  It's kind of strange, and I don't know what's going on with that,
[15:06.000 --> 15:09.000]  but that's not really at issue this November 3rd.
[15:09.000 --> 15:13.000]  All right, well, let's get into the legality of the petition itself.
[15:13.000 --> 15:19.000]  The city clerk's office basically offered up six challenges.
[15:19.000 --> 15:21.000]  They're challenging six points here,
[15:21.000 --> 15:27.000]  and this memorandum of law that you submitted on this past Monday, the 21st,
[15:27.000 --> 15:32.000]  was in response to those six challenges of those six points.
[15:32.000 --> 15:35.000]  So can we just go over those six points?
[15:35.000 --> 15:38.000]  I mean, we don't have to belabor every point for hours or anything,
[15:38.000 --> 15:41.000]  but I would like to understand and like our listeners to understand,
[15:41.000 --> 15:44.000]  what are these six points that they're challenging,
[15:44.000 --> 15:48.000]  and what is your response to those so that we can understand here?
[15:48.000 --> 15:53.000]  Because our audience studies law, and so we want to know the whole scoop.
[15:53.000 --> 15:58.000]  Okay, well, the first point is that the proposed law is supposedly not
[15:58.000 --> 16:01.000]  within the jurisdiction of the city of New York.
[16:01.000 --> 16:05.000]  They make very broad claims about that, that this is a national issue,
[16:05.000 --> 16:09.000]  that the city's got no business investigating this, but they cite no authority.
[16:09.000 --> 16:14.000]  You know, and I kind of knocked that down in saying they really didn't cite
[16:14.000 --> 16:18.000]  any authority here, but I needed to come up with something affirmative for
[16:18.000 --> 16:23.000]  our side, and basically the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
[16:23.000 --> 16:28.000]  expressly provides that powers that are not delegated to the United States
[16:28.000 --> 16:33.000]  by the Constitution nor prohibited to it, nor prohibited by the states,
[16:33.000 --> 16:35.000]  are reserved to the states respectively.
[16:35.000 --> 16:41.000]  And this law that we're trying to come in under is the municipal home rule law
[16:41.000 --> 16:44.000]  that is a state delegation to the city.
[16:44.000 --> 16:47.000]  So we're saying that's how we get our jurisdiction.
[16:47.000 --> 16:51.000]  They had made a claim about, you know, this is a national matter,
[16:51.000 --> 16:55.000]  and in the past, you know, we had only national investigations,
[16:55.000 --> 17:00.000]  and one of the things they cited was the JFK assassination.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  But I pointed out in my memorandum that, I don't know if your listeners will
[17:06.000 --> 17:11.000]  remember this, but there was actually in New Orleans an investigation into
[17:11.000 --> 17:15.000]  a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
[17:15.000 --> 17:17.000]  That was Mr. Garrison.
[17:17.000 --> 17:19.000]  Jim Garrison brought that.
[17:19.000 --> 17:24.000]  He ended up being an appellate court judge where he stayed until he passed
[17:24.000 --> 17:30.000]  away, but it was a local action regarding a national matter.
[17:30.000 --> 17:33.000]  Now, True was a district attorney, and I would argue the district attorney
[17:33.000 --> 17:37.000]  in New York City has jurisdiction to investigate this, but he hasn't.
[17:37.000 --> 17:42.000]  There is another very important aspect of the Kennedy assassination.
[17:42.000 --> 17:47.000]  When Kennedy was assassinated, the feds came into Dallas County,
[17:47.000 --> 17:52.000]  and the sheriff of Dallas County told them to get out of my county.
[17:52.000 --> 17:54.000]  They said, well, the president was murdered.
[17:54.000 --> 17:59.000]  Yes, he was, and murder is not a federal crime.
[17:59.000 --> 18:00.000]  It's a state crime.
[18:00.000 --> 18:03.000]  I have subject matter, original jurisdiction.
[18:03.000 --> 18:04.000]  You have none.
[18:04.000 --> 18:05.000]  Get out.
[18:05.000 --> 18:10.000]  And because of that, they later passed a law that made it a federal crime to
[18:10.000 --> 18:16.000]  kill a president because murder otherwise was not of national interest.
[18:16.000 --> 18:17.000]  That was the initial reaction.
[18:17.000 --> 18:20.000]  As I recall, the Dallas officials backed off.
[18:20.000 --> 18:21.000]  Isn't that correct?
[18:21.000 --> 18:25.000]  Yes, and then the feds were messing everything up, and the sheriff came in
[18:25.000 --> 18:31.000]  and threw out the feds, and the feds had a fit, but they didn't have
[18:31.000 --> 18:36.000]  jurisdiction, so this is about murder in New York City.
[18:36.000 --> 18:37.000]  I agree.
[18:37.000 --> 18:41.000]  New York has jurisdiction over murder, not the feds, unless the president
[18:41.000 --> 18:44.000]  happened to have been in that building, but he apparently knew it was going
[18:44.000 --> 18:46.000]  to happen, so no way he'd be in the building.
[18:46.000 --> 18:50.000]  Yeah, and Dennis, I liked what you said in your memorandum, too, where you
[18:50.000 --> 18:54.000]  were also talking about, well, even if the feds do have jurisdiction in this
[18:54.000 --> 19:00.000]  matter, there's nothing that prohibits local jurisdiction as well.
[19:00.000 --> 19:04.000]  Right, it's not exclusive jurisdiction in the federal authority.
[19:04.000 --> 19:05.000]  That was my argument.
[19:05.000 --> 19:09.000]  And as Randy pointed out, there's a nexus here.
[19:09.000 --> 19:16.000]  The crime, mass murder of New York City workers, visitors was committed here
[19:16.000 --> 19:17.000]  in this city.
[19:17.000 --> 19:19.000]  I feel that gives us jurisdiction.
[19:19.000 --> 19:25.000]  So in your memorandum, basically, is that your main argument that you do
[19:25.000 --> 19:31.000]  have jurisdiction because the murders were committed in New York City?
[19:31.000 --> 19:35.000]  Well, let me backstep a little bit.
[19:35.000 --> 19:39.000]  We didn't have to claim any jurisdictional grounds to submit the petition.
[19:39.000 --> 19:42.000]  This is the city coming and saying, you have no jurisdiction.
[19:42.000 --> 19:45.000]  So to me, the burden is on them.
[19:45.000 --> 19:46.000]  Right.
[19:46.000 --> 19:48.000]  Show me that I have no jurisdiction.
[19:48.000 --> 19:50.000]  You know, you're alleging that.
[19:50.000 --> 19:54.000]  There's nothing in the Home Rule law that says I have to have jurisdiction
[19:54.000 --> 19:56.000]  in that sense.
[19:56.000 --> 20:00.000]  So mine was basically a comeback to them, but the Tenth Amendment
[20:00.000 --> 20:02.000]  law, I mean, I needed, I felt, something affirmative.
[20:02.000 --> 20:04.000]  And so I went with that.
[20:04.000 --> 20:08.000]  And then the Kennedy assassination analogy, I felt, was a good one because
[20:08.000 --> 20:13.000]  it shows that localities can investigate a so-called national crime.
[20:13.000 --> 20:16.000]  And you were also shooting down some of the case law that they cited too.
[20:16.000 --> 20:20.000]  Yeah, that was a section where a lot of the case law really didn't stand up
[20:20.000 --> 20:21.000]  to what they were saying.
[20:21.000 --> 20:23.000]  Excellent.
[20:23.000 --> 20:24.000]  All right.
[20:24.000 --> 20:27.000]  So Randy, did you have a comment here before we went on to point number two?
[20:27.000 --> 20:30.000]  Well, I was wondering about jurisdiction.
[20:30.000 --> 20:32.000]  You're doing an investigation here.
[20:32.000 --> 20:39.000]  Since you're not initiating any kind of a legal action against anyone,
[20:39.000 --> 20:44.000]  is jurisdiction even a relevant issue?
[20:44.000 --> 20:45.000]  That's a good point.
[20:45.000 --> 20:51.000]  I mean, to me it was not, but because the city raised it, I have to address it.
[20:51.000 --> 20:57.000]  Yes, very good point because they raise, it's a non-sequitur.
[20:57.000 --> 20:59.000]  Yeah, well, they agreed to follow that.
[20:59.000 --> 21:02.000]  Because you're investigating something, you need jurisdiction.
[21:02.000 --> 21:05.000]  But if the courts are out to rule against you,
[21:05.000 --> 21:07.000]  they will find something to rule against you for every day.
[21:07.000 --> 21:09.000]  Well, and then there's another issue.
[21:09.000 --> 21:12.000]  There's another issue about the jurisdiction as well.
[21:12.000 --> 21:15.000]  And this goes to the fact of whether or not the commissioners would be public
[21:15.000 --> 21:16.000]  officials or not.
[21:16.000 --> 21:20.000]  If they're not public officials, then jurisdiction doesn't apply in any case anyway.
[21:20.000 --> 21:22.000]  Yeah, that will come.
[21:22.000 --> 21:24.000]  Yeah, and so we're going to talk about that in a few minutes.
[21:24.000 --> 21:28.000]  Let's move on to point number two now, having to do with the funding.
[21:28.000 --> 21:31.000]  So why don't you explain this point?
[21:31.000 --> 21:37.000]  Yeah, the city is claiming that the petition does not have an adequate financing plan
[21:37.000 --> 21:42.000]  as required by Section 3711 of the municipal home rule law.
[21:42.000 --> 21:46.000]  And indeed, you must have an adequate financing plan.
[21:46.000 --> 21:52.000]  And what that's designed to address is the situation where we want to know where
[21:52.000 --> 21:54.000]  the tax dollars are going.
[21:54.000 --> 21:56.000]  Where are you going to get this money to carry out this?
[21:56.000 --> 22:03.000]  But this petition is very creative in that it has no tax dollars involved at all.
[22:03.000 --> 22:05.000]  This is going to be by private donations.
[22:05.000 --> 22:09.000]  And the theory is that if we don't get the private donations,
[22:09.000 --> 22:10.000]  we don't get the commission.
[22:10.000 --> 22:15.000]  But we feel that if we can get a New York City-based commission
[22:15.000 --> 22:18.000]  that the donations will be there and we'll be able to go forward with this.
[22:18.000 --> 22:23.000]  But the city makes a big deal out of the fact that that's not adequate.
[22:23.000 --> 22:25.000]  There is really no precedent on this.
[22:25.000 --> 22:30.000]  I don't think in the history of New York law there has ever been a financing plan
[22:30.000 --> 22:36.000]  proposed like this, not to drain the city tax resources.
[22:36.000 --> 22:38.000]  So that's going to be an open question.
[22:38.000 --> 22:40.000]  You know, we feel that it's adequate.
[22:40.000 --> 22:43.000]  And we feel that if we're wrong, what do you lose?
[22:43.000 --> 22:45.000]  We just don't have our commission.
[22:45.000 --> 22:47.000]  So why not let us give it a try?
[22:47.000 --> 22:51.000]  If you're predisposed to not giving us a try under any circumstances,
[22:51.000 --> 22:54.000]  you're going to say you don't have an adequate financing plan.
[22:54.000 --> 22:59.000]  But if you have an open mind and you're thinking bigger than courts have thought
[22:59.000 --> 23:03.000]  in the past, hopefully they will see it our way.
[23:03.000 --> 23:07.000]  And again, on this point as well, a lot of the case law that the city clerk's
[23:07.000 --> 23:11.000]  office responded with did not apply in this case.
[23:11.000 --> 23:13.000]  Right, because it's all geared to tax dollars.
[23:13.000 --> 23:16.000]  Yes, it all had to do with public funding.
[23:16.000 --> 23:22.000]  So I mean, yeah, it's like if there's not enough private funds that are raised,
[23:22.000 --> 23:25.000]  well, whose nose is it skin off anyway?
[23:25.000 --> 23:29.000]  I mean, maybe you all just won't be able to do as thorough a job or hire as many
[23:29.000 --> 23:31.000]  people as you want.
[23:31.000 --> 23:33.000]  But I mean, why should it matter to them?
[23:33.000 --> 23:35.000]  I mean, why shouldn't it matter to the taxpayers?
[23:35.000 --> 23:38.000]  That's for sure because it's not coming out of their pockets.
[23:38.000 --> 23:42.000]  Right, but one of the things you have to remember with their whole mindset,
[23:42.000 --> 23:47.000]  and they say this in the beginning, you know, that these situations rarely
[23:47.000 --> 23:51.000]  succeed in New York, they say almost proudly, it's a whole attitude of
[23:51.000 --> 23:53.000]  disempowerment to the people.
[23:53.000 --> 23:56.000]  How can we disempower the people even further?
[23:56.000 --> 24:00.000]  You know, don't let them have anything that the law might otherwise allow.
[24:00.000 --> 24:03.000]  We just want to keep them down where they were and we'll run things.
[24:03.000 --> 24:04.000]  Just stay out of the way.
[24:04.000 --> 24:06.000]  Especially in this case.
[24:06.000 --> 24:07.000]  Yes.
[24:07.000 --> 24:12.000]  Okay, well, all right, then do you have anything else on this point too?
[24:12.000 --> 24:17.000]  I mean, you guys did show them how you plan to fund this.
[24:17.000 --> 24:21.000]  It's a very clear plan, different types of fundraisers and concerts,
[24:21.000 --> 24:27.000]  and you've got affluent private donors who are willing to match other donors
[24:27.000 --> 24:28.000]  and things like this.
[24:28.000 --> 24:30.000]  I mean, all of these plans are laid out.
[24:30.000 --> 24:34.000]  It's not just willy-nilly, well, we're going to get some people to help us out
[24:34.000 --> 24:37.000]  here, you know.
[24:37.000 --> 24:41.000]  Right, but that's how the city is characterizing it, and so that's what we
[24:41.000 --> 24:42.000]  have to face.
[24:42.000 --> 24:46.000]  You know, and it really is going to be a lot of discretion in the referee's
[24:46.000 --> 24:48.000]  hand and in the judge's hand.
[24:48.000 --> 24:52.000]  They're just going to be able to say which side is correct, you know.
[24:52.000 --> 24:56.000]  It's such a unique situation that they'll be able to do that without really
[24:56.000 --> 24:59.000]  much legal reasoning, and that's what has me worried most.
[24:59.000 --> 25:03.000]  And will you be able to appeal the referee's decision if necessary?
[25:03.000 --> 25:05.000]  The referee actually doesn't make a decision.
[25:05.000 --> 25:07.000]  He makes a report and recommendation.
[25:07.000 --> 25:12.000]  That automatically goes to the Supreme Court judge, and then after that we can
[25:12.000 --> 25:15.000]  appeal to the Appellate Division and then the Court of Appeal.
[25:15.000 --> 25:19.000]  Okay, so the Supreme Court judge would make a decision based on the report of
[25:19.000 --> 25:20.000]  the referee.
[25:20.000 --> 25:25.000]  Right, he can either adopt it in part or adopt it in whole or reject it in
[25:25.000 --> 25:26.000]  whole.
[25:26.000 --> 25:27.000]  You know, he can do anything he wants.
[25:27.000 --> 25:29.000]  And when is that supposed to take place?
[25:29.000 --> 25:32.000]  Well, the referee's decision is Monday.
[25:32.000 --> 25:35.000]  I expect the judge to be on this on Tuesday.
[25:35.000 --> 25:36.000]  Oh, my goodness.
[25:36.000 --> 25:40.000]  Let me make a clarification for those folks not in New York.
[25:40.000 --> 25:47.000]  In most states, the Supreme Court is the highest court, but not so in New York.
[25:47.000 --> 25:49.000]  Will you explain that, Dennis?
[25:49.000 --> 25:51.000]  It's just the name of the court.
[25:51.000 --> 25:55.000]  Historically, I'm not sure why that is, but the Supreme Court of the state of
[25:55.000 --> 25:58.000]  New York is a trial-level court in New York.
[25:58.000 --> 26:05.000]  So it's kind of like in Texas, we have a county court for misdemeanor, a
[26:05.000 --> 26:10.000]  district court for felony, then appeals court, then Supreme Court.
[26:10.000 --> 26:13.000]  So it's kind of almost like the reverse.
[26:13.000 --> 26:15.000]  You started at the Supreme Court.
[26:15.000 --> 26:18.000]  Yeah, I don't have any insight into that.
[26:18.000 --> 26:20.000]  Those were the names when I got here, you know?
[26:20.000 --> 26:21.000]  Right.
[26:21.000 --> 26:22.000]  Okay.
[26:22.000 --> 26:25.000]  I just wanted the listener to understand that we're not going, they're not
[26:25.000 --> 26:27.000]  going directly to the highest court.
[26:27.000 --> 26:28.000]  Right.
[26:28.000 --> 26:30.000]  To the standard trial-level court.
[26:30.000 --> 26:31.000]  Okay.
[26:31.000 --> 26:33.000]  It's like a district court.
[26:33.000 --> 26:34.000]  Okay.
[26:34.000 --> 26:35.000]  Let's go to point three.
[26:35.000 --> 26:39.000]  This is what the city clerk's point of stance is.
[26:39.000 --> 26:43.000]  Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the commissioners must be classified
[26:43.000 --> 26:47.000]  as public officers, and thus his allegation that the petition violates the
[26:47.000 --> 26:49.000]  public officer's law is unfounded.
[26:49.000 --> 26:50.000]  Okay.
[26:50.000 --> 26:52.000]  That's you responding to the city clerk.
[26:52.000 --> 26:53.000]  That's me, right.
[26:53.000 --> 26:56.000]  They're saying that even though we don't claim the commissioners to be public
[26:56.000 --> 27:01.000]  officers, by the nature of the investigatory duties that they will undertake,
[27:01.000 --> 27:05.000]  they will in fact be public officers.
[27:05.000 --> 27:10.000]  And so they have to satisfy public officer's law, which the most basic one is
[27:10.000 --> 27:12.000]  you have to live in the city.
[27:12.000 --> 27:16.000]  And in this petition, it's not required that these named commissioners live in
[27:16.000 --> 27:17.000]  the city.
[27:17.000 --> 27:22.000]  So, you know, if they are public officers, there's something wrong with the
[27:22.000 --> 27:23.000]  petition.
[27:23.000 --> 27:27.000]  So that would then come down to a whole severability clause.
[27:27.000 --> 27:30.000]  Can we excise out the offensive language?
[27:30.000 --> 27:32.000]  And that's a whole other question.
[27:32.000 --> 27:36.000]  But my arguments here were first, we don't claim to be public officers.
[27:36.000 --> 27:38.000]  You're saying I'm a public officer.
[27:38.000 --> 27:40.000]  Now prove it to me you haven't proven it.
[27:40.000 --> 27:43.000]  Again, they go through the cases and they say this indicates this and this
[27:43.000 --> 27:44.000]  indicates that.
[27:44.000 --> 27:50.000]  And, you know, it's a bit dry, but I try to knock down each one of those cases
[27:50.000 --> 27:54.000]  for the proposition that these commissioners would be public officers.
[27:54.000 --> 27:59.000]  And then if they are considered public officers, okay, let's say these are the
[27:59.000 --> 28:03.000]  commissioners that will serve if they satisfy the public officer law.
[28:03.000 --> 28:07.000]  You know, I'm asking the judge basically in his discretion that if he finds
[28:07.000 --> 28:12.000]  that they are public officers, to allow us a chance to have these same
[28:12.000 --> 28:17.000]  commissioners if they are willing to comply with the public officer law.
[28:17.000 --> 28:21.000]  And, you know, again, it's a lot of judicial discretion you're asking here.
[28:21.000 --> 28:25.000]  We hope first that he doesn't find them to be public officers, but that if he
[28:25.000 --> 28:30.000]  does, he allows us to adapt the petition to public officer law.
[28:30.000 --> 28:35.000]  Well, it's going to be hard to show that they're public officers when their
[28:35.000 --> 28:38.000]  salaries are not being publicly funded.
[28:38.000 --> 28:40.000]  Well, that's the whole thing.
[28:40.000 --> 28:42.000]  Again, it's a brand new creation.
[28:42.000 --> 28:49.000]  You know, the city has not faced a petition like this ever before.
[28:49.000 --> 28:50.000]  It's wholly creative.
[28:50.000 --> 28:54.000]  You know, this is an outgrowth of the people, the city of New York feeling
[28:54.000 --> 28:56.000]  something has to be done.
[28:56.000 --> 28:57.000]  Let's do something.
[28:57.000 --> 29:01.000]  So they created this petition, and they did the best job that they can.
[29:01.000 --> 29:05.000]  And maybe they didn't dot every I across every T, but we're saying,
[29:05.000 --> 29:07.000]  look at the big picture.
[29:07.000 --> 29:08.000]  Let us have this.
[29:08.000 --> 29:09.000]  We can investigate this.
[29:09.000 --> 29:12.000]  We can do this, and we'll see what the court says.
[29:12.000 --> 29:16.000]  Yeah, yeah, the public funding thing and the public officers seems to be
[29:16.000 --> 29:21.000]  like that is highly likely to be directly related, because how could it be a
[29:21.000 --> 29:24.000]  public office if it's not being publicly funded?
[29:24.000 --> 29:28.000]  So, you know, and vice versa, if they're going to declare these as public
[29:28.000 --> 29:31.000]  offices, how could they be privately funded?
[29:31.000 --> 29:33.000]  That doesn't make sense either, so it can't be.
[29:33.000 --> 29:34.000]  Good point.
[29:34.000 --> 29:37.000]  Listen, Sir Dennis, we're coming to the bottom of the hour break.
[29:37.000 --> 29:39.000]  Can you hang on with us for just a few more minutes?
[29:39.000 --> 29:40.000]  Yeah, sure, I'd be glad to.
[29:40.000 --> 29:41.000]  Okay, excellent.
[29:41.000 --> 29:42.000]  All right.
[29:42.000 --> 29:46.000]  This is the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[29:46.000 --> 29:47.000]  We're taking it to the man.
[29:47.000 --> 29:51.000]  We're bringing back the rule of law here on the airwaves.
[29:51.000 --> 29:55.000]  We're with Attorney Dennis McMahon from representing NYC CAN,
[29:55.000 --> 30:01.000]  and we'll be right back.
[30:01.000 --> 30:04.000]  This is Lisa Marie Coppoletta, and I'm a Liberty Defender.
[30:04.000 --> 30:07.000]  I'm running for City Council Place 5 in San Marcos, Texas.
[30:07.000 --> 30:11.000]  The key issues guiding my campaign this year are smart growth,
[30:11.000 --> 30:14.000]  environmental stewardship, and balanced budgets.
[30:14.000 --> 30:18.000]  The patterns of growth that we choose to select here in San Marcos will not
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  only affect the integrity of the perception of our city, but also tangible
[30:22.000 --> 30:27.000]  results in our neighborhoods, resulting in housing, job opportunities,
[30:27.000 --> 30:30.000]  transportation, and currency circulation.
[30:30.000 --> 30:35.000]  Please join us this Saturday, September 26 at 730 at Wake the Dead Coffee House
[30:35.000 --> 30:36.000]  in San Marcos, Texas.
[30:36.000 --> 30:41.000]  We'll have our campaign celebration kick off, and we'll rock on through midnight.
[30:41.000 --> 30:45.000]  For further details on this and other events, please visit the website
[30:45.000 --> 30:56.000]  at www.lmc4sanmarcos.com.
[30:56.000 --> 31:01.000]  Thank you.
[31:26.000 --> 31:31.000]  Thank you.
[31:56.000 --> 32:15.000]  Okay, Mr. Officer, stop abusing your power.
[32:15.000 --> 32:19.000]  That's what we're all about here on Rule of Law Radio.
[32:19.000 --> 32:21.000]  We're here with Attorney Dennis McMahon.
[32:21.000 --> 32:26.000]  Dennis, thank you so much for granting us this interview from what I understand.
[32:26.000 --> 32:30.000]  This is your first media appearance for NYC Can.
[32:30.000 --> 32:33.000]  We really, really appreciate it because we want to get to the bottom of what
[32:33.000 --> 32:34.000]  these legal issues are.
[32:34.000 --> 32:39.000]  This is what I've been working on for years while we started this radio network,
[32:39.000 --> 32:44.000]  as a matter of fact, to get the word out about 9-11 Truth and do something about it.
[32:44.000 --> 32:47.000]  Okay, so we're going to move on now to point number four.
[32:47.000 --> 32:49.000]  Randy has some issues he's going to bring up in a few minutes.
[32:49.000 --> 32:54.000]  But point number four, this is your rebuttal to the city clerk's office.
[32:54.000 --> 32:57.000]  The petition does not report to grant the commission powers
[32:57.000 --> 33:01.000]  that exceed the authority of local government and does not conflict with state law.
[33:01.000 --> 33:05.000]  So apparently they're trying to say that the petition would grant authority
[33:05.000 --> 33:08.000]  that would exceed the local government and conflicts with state law.
[33:08.000 --> 33:10.000]  So can you address this?
[33:10.000 --> 33:11.000]  Right.
[33:11.000 --> 33:16.000]  This has to do with their own reading of the petition language.
[33:16.000 --> 33:21.000]  And again, they have a mindset to read it in a way that would invalidate it.
[33:21.000 --> 33:23.000]  So that's their gloss.
[33:23.000 --> 33:27.000]  So for instance, they would take language like that the commissioner has
[33:27.000 --> 33:33.000]  authority to seek indictments and work with existing prosecutorial agencies
[33:33.000 --> 33:39.000]  to mean that the commission is claiming for itself the grand jury right to indict.
[33:39.000 --> 33:42.000]  And we're saying it shouldn't be read that way.
[33:42.000 --> 33:44.000]  If it's read that way, obviously it's wrong.
[33:44.000 --> 33:47.000]  But I think they're reading it that way so they can make it wrong.
[33:47.000 --> 33:50.000]  So I have to go through a whole analysis of why it does not conflict
[33:50.000 --> 33:56.000]  with the various provisions of the Freedom of Information Act law
[33:56.000 --> 33:58.000]  or the Open Meetings law.
[33:58.000 --> 34:05.000]  And I basically get down to trying to argue how the language should be read.
[34:05.000 --> 34:09.000]  And they brought up a case, a Niagara case,
[34:09.000 --> 34:15.000]  and they were saying that when a statute is reviewed by a court,
[34:15.000 --> 34:18.000]  you try to read it to make it valid.
[34:18.000 --> 34:21.000]  You don't read into it things that are going to make it invalid.
[34:21.000 --> 34:25.000]  So my argument here is that we're going to comply with the laws.
[34:25.000 --> 34:27.000]  We want to comply with the laws.
[34:27.000 --> 34:31.000]  If there's anything in here that seems to imply, for instance,
[34:31.000 --> 34:35.000]  that this commission would itself be a grand jury,
[34:35.000 --> 34:37.000]  it shouldn't be interpreted that way.
[34:37.000 --> 34:39.000]  The language doesn't really say that.
[34:39.000 --> 34:41.000]  They're just interpreting that way.
[34:41.000 --> 34:44.000]  And we're trying to give them, in each instance,
[34:44.000 --> 34:47.000]  a different reading of the language.
[34:47.000 --> 34:52.000]  And, you know, again, it's all a matter of inference and implication
[34:52.000 --> 34:55.000]  and how you want to read it and how you're predisposed to read it.
[34:55.000 --> 34:57.000]  We never made these claims.
[34:57.000 --> 34:59.000]  They're saying the language does this.
[34:59.000 --> 35:00.000]  We're saying it doesn't.
[35:00.000 --> 35:03.000]  Under the law of New York, you interpret a statute here,
[35:03.000 --> 35:07.000]  a petition, in a way for it to comply with the law,
[35:07.000 --> 35:11.000]  and we ask the court to please read it that way.
[35:11.000 --> 35:16.000]  Well, I would, primarily what we do is due process
[35:16.000 --> 35:20.000]  and a primary issue we deal with are grand juries.
[35:20.000 --> 35:24.000]  In my looking at it, and when I was in New York,
[35:24.000 --> 35:26.000]  I looked at the grand juries in New York,
[35:26.000 --> 35:28.000]  and you have a great grand jury system.
[35:28.000 --> 35:33.000]  The commissioner doesn't need any authority to seek an indictment.
[35:33.000 --> 35:35.000]  I can seek an indictment.
[35:35.000 --> 35:36.000]  That's correct.
[35:36.000 --> 35:37.000]  Anyone can seek an indictment.
[35:37.000 --> 35:38.000]  Right.
[35:38.000 --> 35:39.000]  Yeah, that's right.
[35:39.000 --> 35:43.000]  And it's not, you're not trying to create an alternate grand jury here.
[35:43.000 --> 35:44.000]  Right.
[35:44.000 --> 35:48.000]  But they're saying the word to seek means that the commission is trying to do
[35:48.000 --> 35:51.000]  exactly that, that we're trying to create our own grand jury system,
[35:51.000 --> 35:54.000]  which is, to me, a word preposterous.
[35:54.000 --> 35:56.000]  But that's the argument they made.
[35:56.000 --> 36:01.000]  Well, yeah, like Randy says, we all are trying to seek some justice here.
[36:01.000 --> 36:06.000]  I mean, and which brings up the question regarding what the functions
[36:06.000 --> 36:10.000]  and the roles are of the commissioners according to the petition.
[36:10.000 --> 36:13.000]  What exactly are they asking for here?
[36:13.000 --> 36:17.000]  Okay, that would be in part five, essentially.
[36:17.000 --> 36:18.000]  There are some other things,
[36:18.000 --> 36:22.000]  but essentially the commission shall have the power to place witnesses on the
[36:22.000 --> 36:27.000]  oath, issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record testimony,
[36:27.000 --> 36:32.000]  and to apply, and to apply to the appropriate federal, state,
[36:32.000 --> 36:35.000]  out-of-state, and foreign courts for the issuance of subpoenas,
[36:35.000 --> 36:39.000]  letters of rogatory, or applications for mutual assistance,
[36:39.000 --> 36:43.000]  for service upon persons, corporations, agencies, or other entities beyond
[36:43.000 --> 36:45.000]  the subpoena power granted to the commission.
[36:45.000 --> 36:46.000]  So you're not asking that.
[36:46.000 --> 36:48.000]  You're just trying to bring people in to testify, essentially,
[36:48.000 --> 36:50.000]  and put them under oath.
[36:50.000 --> 36:54.000]  Okay, you're not asking that the commission be given subpoena power,
[36:54.000 --> 36:58.000]  but that they be able to apply for subpoena power?
[36:58.000 --> 37:02.000]  No, he's asking that the commissioners have subpoena power.
[37:02.000 --> 37:06.000]  Yeah, the commissioners that have the power to issue subpoenas,
[37:06.000 --> 37:08.000]  the documents and testimony.
[37:08.000 --> 37:09.000]  Okay.
[37:09.000 --> 37:11.000]  What do you mean only in the state?
[37:11.000 --> 37:16.000]  Well, I mean, the last part was you can petition for subpoenas from...
[37:16.000 --> 37:17.000]  Outside the state, right.
[37:17.000 --> 37:20.000]  We're not asking for anything outside the state. That's correct.
[37:20.000 --> 37:23.000]  Yeah, they wouldn't be able to ask for anything outside of the state.
[37:23.000 --> 37:26.000]  This is an amendment to the city charter.
[37:26.000 --> 37:31.000]  Well, that was the part where I sort of had a hiccup when I read the section
[37:31.000 --> 37:37.000]  on what are public officials as opposed to public employees,
[37:37.000 --> 37:43.000]  where the duties of a public official involve some exercise of sovereign power,
[37:43.000 --> 37:46.000]  while those of a public employee do not.
[37:46.000 --> 37:52.000]  The statutory designation of a position as an officer is some indication
[37:52.000 --> 37:57.000]  that the legislative body intended to treat its occupant as a public officer.
[37:57.000 --> 38:04.000]  This whole section here seems to indicate that if someone has discretion
[38:04.000 --> 38:14.000]  to exert official authority rather than acts in accordance with direction,
[38:14.000 --> 38:23.000]  that's where they seem to straddle that line between public official and public employee.
[38:23.000 --> 38:34.000]  But if they were public officials, I didn't understand how that would be a problem.
[38:34.000 --> 38:36.000]  Are you not allowed...
[38:36.000 --> 38:42.000]  Is this not within the scope of a charter amendment to create a...
[38:42.000 --> 38:44.000]  That's another point.
[38:44.000 --> 38:49.000]  That's their fifth point, actually, that it's not within the charter to allow this.
[38:49.000 --> 38:52.000]  And it does get technical and complicated.
[38:52.000 --> 38:58.000]  But my basic point is here, we're not trying to make them be public officers.
[38:58.000 --> 39:02.000]  But if you want us to comply with the public officer law, we will do that.
[39:02.000 --> 39:04.000]  Just tell us what we have to do.
[39:04.000 --> 39:06.000]  But we don't think we are going to be public officers.
[39:06.000 --> 39:11.000]  You haven't demonstrated to us that this commission acting with these powers is a public officer.
[39:11.000 --> 39:13.000]  I admit it's a gray area.
[39:13.000 --> 39:16.000]  It's going to be a tough area for both sides, I think.
[39:16.000 --> 39:17.000]  But we'll see what the judge says.
[39:17.000 --> 39:23.000]  And I think it was the fifth point where you addressed that.
[39:23.000 --> 39:30.000]  That pretty well seemed to cover it in that you addressed that there is precedent for this,
[39:30.000 --> 39:32.000]  that you're not creating something new.
[39:32.000 --> 39:38.000]  You're just adding to what's already in the law.
[39:38.000 --> 39:43.000]  That's when we're talking about adding to the city charter itself.
[39:43.000 --> 39:44.000]  Yes, that's correct.
[39:44.000 --> 39:49.000]  Now, one thing that I'm concerned about is that they're going to say,
[39:49.000 --> 39:54.000]  well, now wait a minute, you're wanting us to grant subpoena power to individuals
[39:54.000 --> 39:59.000]  who are not going to be public officers or public servants.
[39:59.000 --> 40:07.000]  And some people may take a little bit of exception to that because it's a lot of power to grant to individuals who are not public servants.
[40:07.000 --> 40:13.000]  Well, you know, I'm not really fond of the way the military operates nowadays,
[40:13.000 --> 40:21.000]  but you have essentially people delegated to act as soldiers on behalf of the United States,
[40:21.000 --> 40:24.000]  even though they technically are not soldiers.
[40:24.000 --> 40:28.000]  And you're talking about armed violence there.
[40:28.000 --> 40:29.000]  You know what I mean?
[40:29.000 --> 40:31.000]  So it's a bit of a stretch.
[40:31.000 --> 40:39.000]  But I think that in this day and age, we should have the ability to be able to delegate this type of authority,
[40:39.000 --> 40:41.000]  especially if the city itself doesn't want to undertake it.
[40:41.000 --> 40:43.000]  See, the city wants to have it both ways.
[40:43.000 --> 40:50.000]  On the one hand, what you're doing constitutes a public officer, but you can't be a public officer.
[40:50.000 --> 40:53.000]  So, you know, let us not be public officers and carry it out,
[40:53.000 --> 40:57.000]  or we'll become public officers and carry it out the way public officers would.
[40:57.000 --> 40:59.000]  That's my take on that.
[40:59.000 --> 41:05.000]  Yeah, when I read that, I was wondering, what difference does it make if they're public officers,
[41:05.000 --> 41:11.000]  there's precedent for public officers, there's precedent for public employees?
[41:11.000 --> 41:16.000]  What was the point even of them raising that issue?
[41:16.000 --> 41:21.000]  Well, I think the point for raising each of these issues is to knock this out, you know,
[41:21.000 --> 41:23.000]  and it's basically a shotgun approach.
[41:23.000 --> 41:28.000]  Just pull the trigger, send everything out that you can, and hopefully something will hit, you know.
[41:28.000 --> 41:35.000]  So I'm trying to defend against each one of those pellets, and hopefully we're able to do that.
[41:35.000 --> 41:39.000]  I have to admit, I kind of use that approach myself on most occasions.
[41:39.000 --> 41:41.000]  That's the nature of lawyers, I know.
[41:41.000 --> 41:43.000]  Okay, let's go to point five here.
[41:43.000 --> 41:47.000]  The petition subject matter is a proper amendment of the city charter.
[41:47.000 --> 41:50.000]  Basically, that's what we're talking about right now.
[41:50.000 --> 41:55.000]  Yeah, we touched on that a little bit before, and it's a highly technical matter.
[41:55.000 --> 42:02.000]  The city charter is kind of this, it's almost like the city way to operate,
[42:02.000 --> 42:06.000]  akin to a state constitution or a federal constitution.
[42:06.000 --> 42:12.000]  And we're saying that, you know, they wanted us to line it up exactly
[42:12.000 --> 42:18.000]  and point out exactly where this would fit in within the city charter.
[42:18.000 --> 42:23.000]  We're just saying that it belongs here or there, wherever you want to put it, you know.
[42:23.000 --> 42:27.000]  Don't force us to say something in this petition.
[42:27.000 --> 42:32.000]  I mean, people who are signing this petition aren't going to be able to understand that anyway.
[42:32.000 --> 42:34.000]  That's another one of those examples, in my opinion.
[42:34.000 --> 42:39.000]  You know, dotting your I's and closing your T's, it's really not that crucial.
[42:39.000 --> 42:43.000]  Let's get the commission going, and wherever you want to put it into the charter,
[42:43.000 --> 42:47.000]  and we pointed out a few places where we thought it could fit, it could go right there.
[42:47.000 --> 42:52.000]  Well, it seems to me like the burden of proof is on them to show that it does not fit into the charter.
[42:52.000 --> 42:53.000]  Right?
[42:53.000 --> 42:56.000]  I think that's true because they have raised that issue.
[42:56.000 --> 42:58.000]  There's no requirement for me to come along and say.
[42:58.000 --> 43:05.000]  But in the law, however, you do have to amend a part of the city charter.
[43:05.000 --> 43:12.000]  So we gave them a few points where we thought it would be effectively amending the city charter.
[43:12.000 --> 43:16.000]  It will be up to the judge to say if that's sufficient or not.
[43:16.000 --> 43:18.000]  Indeed.
[43:18.000 --> 43:20.000]  All right.
[43:20.000 --> 43:23.000]  Well, we're about to come up to another break here.
[43:23.000 --> 43:26.000]  I wanted to finish up with these points, and then Randy had a couple of questions.
[43:26.000 --> 43:28.000]  Can you hang with us for a few more minutes, Dennis?
[43:28.000 --> 43:29.000]  Sure.
[43:29.000 --> 43:30.000]  Okay, excellent.
[43:30.000 --> 43:31.000]  Wonderful.
[43:31.000 --> 43:32.000]  All right.
[43:32.000 --> 43:35.000]  Folks, this is a very rare interview here.
[43:35.000 --> 43:39.000]  We've got an interview with Attorney Dennis McMahon, attorney for NYC-CAN.
[43:39.000 --> 43:44.000]  Go please visit nyccan.org and learn more about it.
[43:44.000 --> 43:46.000]  There's a big march this Sunday.
[43:46.000 --> 43:48.000]  You can learn more about that at that website as well.
[43:48.000 --> 43:50.000]  We'll be right back with Attorney Dennis McMahon.
[43:50.000 --> 43:53.000]  And then at the top of the hour, we'll be bringing on Richard Reeves.
[43:53.000 --> 44:00.000]  We'll be right back.
[44:00.000 --> 44:08.000]  Attention, an important product from hempusa.org, microplant powder, will change your life by removing all types of positive toxins,
[44:08.000 --> 44:16.000]  such as heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungus from the digestive tract and stomach walls so you can absorb nutrients.
[44:16.000 --> 44:25.000]  Microplant powder is 89% silica and packed with a negative charge that attracts positive toxins from the blood, organ, spine, and brain.
[44:25.000 --> 44:31.000]  This product has the ability to rebuild cartilage and bone, which allows synovial fluid to return to the joints.
[44:31.000 --> 44:37.000]  Silica is a precursor to calcium, meaning the body turns silica into calcium and is great for the heart.
[44:37.000 --> 44:43.000]  There is no better time than now to have microplant powder on your shelf or in your storage shelter.
[44:43.000 --> 44:46.000]  And with an unlimited shelf life, you can store it anywhere.
[44:46.000 --> 44:51.000]  Call 908-691-2608 or visit hempusa.org.
[44:51.000 --> 44:53.000]  It's a great way to change your life.
[44:53.000 --> 45:14.000]  So call 908-691-2608 or visit us at hempusa.org today.
[45:14.000 --> 45:25.000]  If you did not have any problems, where are you going to look for one? If you could not reach any battle, would your purpose test be done?
[45:25.000 --> 45:48.000]  Such a gentleman, a soldier, a warrior of love, scuffling the keys to the keys. All they're taking is a misunderstanding. Somebody calls the police.
[45:48.000 --> 46:01.000]  They're watching the sparks fly. They're watching the sparks fly.
[46:01.000 --> 46:23.000]  Depression is an addiction. The hard work can leave you homeless, nailed. It bends hard to the teeth to a tranquility. A heavy load of faith and unscathed. The time is coming and with a conscience, you find out after a while. It's not your moral standard. It's your patience that's on trial.
[46:23.000 --> 46:40.000]  They're watching the sparks fly.
[46:40.000 --> 46:59.000]  All right. Watching the sparks fly here on the rule of law, rule of law radio. We're here with attorney Dennis McMahon and he is discussing this memorandum of law that has been submitted by NYC-CAN and he's the attorney representing NYC-CAN.
[46:59.000 --> 47:03.000]  And we appreciate so very much your work, Dennis, by the way. We really do.
[47:03.000 --> 47:04.000]  Thank you.
[47:04.000 --> 47:18.000]  We really do. Okay. We're going to go on now to point six. We've got the Petition Severability Clause is sufficient to save the proposed law from any infirmities if the court finds that infirmities actually do exist.
[47:18.000 --> 47:21.000]  Okay. Please address this and tell us what it means.
[47:21.000 --> 47:42.000]  Okay. In the petition itself, at item 20, there is a severability clause which provides that in our court at this time. If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provision shall in no manner be affected thereby but shall remain in full force in effect.
[47:42.000 --> 47:51.000]  So in other words, if you find point one to be offensive for some reason, if the court does, we say take out point one and let the rest of the petition stand.
[47:51.000 --> 48:12.000]  So what the city is claiming and you mentioned you had someone who called before was a whiner. You know, the city was really, I think, whining about this. No, we can't fix it. We can't do anything about it. You know, this part is wrong so the whole thing must fail. They basically say it's not possible to implement the Petition Severability Clause.
[48:12.000 --> 48:21.000]  So I went through point by point and addressed each issue that if it's turned against us, how the severability clause would work.
[48:21.000 --> 48:31.000]  Now there are certain provisions where the severability clause won't work. It won't work on jurisdiction. You're going to have to decide that jurisdiction issue outside of the petition. So it's not for that.
[48:31.000 --> 48:42.000]  But for certain points, for instance, on the point of whether or not the, as we were talking about before the break, whether or not the commissioners will be public officers.
[48:42.000 --> 48:53.000]  My point is this, that if the petition language is inconsistent with the public officer law, for instance, the language regarding you don't have to live in New York City, take that out.
[48:53.000 --> 49:04.000]  Or at the discretion of the court, you could even insert they must be public officers. Put that in. So that's a discretion we're asking the judge to please try and do.
[49:04.000 --> 49:18.000]  Again, when there is some conflict with the Freedom of Information Act law and the Open Meetings law as discussed at point four, I believe it was, if the court agrees with the city,
[49:18.000 --> 49:27.000]  the offending language could be excised. And you could take out the language about secret meetings and just say this does not exist.
[49:27.000 --> 49:39.000]  Alternatively, you can say something like add must be applied subject to existing law, for example, the Freedom of Information Act law and the Open Meetings law, that kind of thing.
[49:39.000 --> 49:55.000]  That's what we're saying with the severability clause. We feel that in this case, the people who signed this petition most urgently want a local investigation into 9-11, an investigation with subpoena power so we could get at the truth.
[49:55.000 --> 50:04.000]  That's the crux of this. You know, we intend to comply with every law that exists. We're not going to create ourselves as a grand jury.
[50:04.000 --> 50:13.000]  We're going to go to the grand jury and say, hey, we think these people should be indicted. We're going to comply with the open information laws.
[50:13.000 --> 50:24.000]  We're not going to be closing doors when it's illegal to do that. But the city, again, at every instance, tries to make the language read that we're going to be above the law and therefore we should be disqualified.
[50:24.000 --> 50:32.000]  We hope the judge will be able to see that we're trying to comply with the law. And there's a bigger law here, the murder, the mass murder of New York people.
[50:32.000 --> 50:34.000]  We've got to do something about that.
[50:34.000 --> 50:36.000]  We have to do something about it.
[50:36.000 --> 51:00.000]  And reading that section on open meetings, if I were a judge reading that, I would really be concerned about what the city is proposing because in every investigatory situation of this type, you have situations where information absolutely must be disclosed.
[51:00.000 --> 51:13.000]  You would hate to have a police officer brought into this situation and have his private address revealed on the stand. That's forbidden by statute.
[51:13.000 --> 51:21.000]  And they're saying, why, these guys are being secretive. Well, if I was a court reading that, I would think these guys are out of their minds.
[51:21.000 --> 51:23.000]  At times they seem to be.
[51:23.000 --> 51:31.000]  They're asking for something that if, overall, there's this whole idea of jurisdiction.
[51:31.000 --> 51:43.000]  If the courts ruled that New York City doesn't have the jurisdiction to investigate crimes in New York City.
[51:43.000 --> 51:44.000]  Yeah, that's pretty.
[51:44.000 --> 51:45.000]  This guy's brain dead?
[51:45.000 --> 51:54.000]  Yeah, I know. It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Don't we have the right authority to investigate crimes that have occurred on our own turf?
[51:54.000 --> 52:12.000]  I mean, come on. I mean, I know that the land that the World Trade Center is owned by the New York Port Authority, which is like a tri-state entity, but still there was so much damage and crime and murder and mayhem that went down in the city of New York itself.
[52:12.000 --> 52:24.000]  I mean, it's still in New York City, even if it's on this, even if the towers were owned by the land, sorry, were owned by the New York Port Authority.
[52:24.000 --> 52:29.000]  It doesn't matter who owned it. That doesn't give them diversity to jurisdiction.
[52:29.000 --> 52:37.000]  Well, even if it gives them diversity and jurisdiction, it doesn't take away the jurisdiction of the city of New York in the first place.
[52:37.000 --> 52:42.000]  And these are common law crimes. They absolutely go to the police.
[52:42.000 --> 52:44.000]  These guys are dead meat. I'm sick of it.
[52:44.000 --> 52:52.000]  I think I've seen these guys a thank you letter because they might have actually come up with some really good arguments.
[52:52.000 --> 52:58.000]  And they've conceded twice already. They've conceded twice already. Right, Dennis?
[52:58.000 --> 53:04.000]  On the number of votes, yes. They conceded on the 30,000 signatures initially, and just today they conceded on the 15,000.
[53:04.000 --> 53:10.000]  It sounds like you may be getting some political purchase because in the end everything is political.
[53:10.000 --> 53:14.000]  Well, Dennis, where do you – okay, so what's the next step?
[53:14.000 --> 53:24.000]  Okay, you've submitted on the 21st. Okay, so you prevented the summary judgment, which is ridiculous, that they should have summary judgment in a situation like this.
[53:24.000 --> 53:27.000]  So you stopped that, and the rest –
[53:27.000 --> 53:29.000]  No, no, that is actually what is pending.
[53:29.000 --> 53:30.000]  That's what's coming up.
[53:30.000 --> 53:31.000]  Oh, that's what's coming up.
[53:31.000 --> 53:37.000]  Yes. That's what's coming up. All the paperwork is in, so the referee will make his decision on Monday.
[53:37.000 --> 53:42.000]  Then it will go to the judge maybe that same day. Maybe he'll call us in for oral argument on Tuesday.
[53:42.000 --> 53:52.000]  We don't really know. The judge can decide to just decide this on the papers, adopt the referees, report recommendations, or reject it, or adopt it in part, and issue part of it himself.
[53:52.000 --> 53:56.000]  We just don't know what's going to happen there. It's a wild card situation.
[53:56.000 --> 54:06.000]  What are the possibilities? Okay, they can decide not to award summary judgment to the city clerk's office, and what would happen then? What would be the possible options at that point?
[54:06.000 --> 54:17.000]  Well, if – well, there would be appeals. Most certainly, no matter who wins on Monday and or Tuesday, there will be appeals to the appellate division and likely the court of appeals as well.
[54:17.000 --> 54:24.000]  So whatever is decided won't be final until the appeals process has run.
[54:24.000 --> 54:29.000]  So if they don't get awarded summary judgment, does that mean that your petition is valid?
[54:29.000 --> 54:34.000]  That would be the decision at that point. That would be the decision the city appeals.
[54:34.000 --> 54:35.000]  Okay.
[54:35.000 --> 54:39.000]  But nothing would go into effect until it's run through the court.
[54:39.000 --> 54:43.000]  Do you have time to walk this through those appeals?
[54:43.000 --> 54:45.000]  That's what I was going to ask.
[54:45.000 --> 54:56.000]  You know, we don't – I mean, the city has represented this all had to be done by the 30th, and the referee set a schedule for his opinion to be issued on Monday, which is, what, the 28th?
[54:56.000 --> 54:57.000]  Yes.
[54:57.000 --> 55:06.000]  So, I mean, you're going to have four sets of judiciary look at this in three days. I hope that can be done.
[55:06.000 --> 55:15.000]  If it's not done, then the – I would assume, and I have to look into this, that the highest decision will stand.
[55:15.000 --> 55:23.000]  Can you ask for – can you demand for more time from the city and say, look, the 30th is too soon?
[55:23.000 --> 55:32.000]  It's key to the military ballots that have to go out. So to me, it's key to the printer's schedule.
[55:32.000 --> 55:37.000]  I think the printer's schedule should be amended to wait until this runs through the court.
[55:37.000 --> 55:42.000]  That's what I was asking, if you guys could ask for the printer's schedule to wait, because this is too important.
[55:42.000 --> 55:43.000]  Right.
[55:43.000 --> 55:47.000]  If you get a positive decision tomorrow –
[55:47.000 --> 55:48.000]  Maybe Monday.
[55:48.000 --> 55:49.000]  Monday.
[55:49.000 --> 55:55.000]  I'm sorry, Monday. Does the printer's schedule – do they start printing the ballots?
[55:55.000 --> 56:11.000]  No, it would have to run through the court system. I think I will have to present this issue to the referee and make sure that the whole entire judicial process can be run before these ballots are printed.
[56:11.000 --> 56:19.000]  Yeah, you guys should ask for more time, you know, and say, look, the printers are just going to have to wait. I mean, they're just going to have to wait.
[56:19.000 --> 56:29.000]  I do have a draft of that email, but I didn't want to submit it just yet. The city had a chance to reply to my memorandum. They did. They had a summer reply in nine pages.
[56:29.000 --> 56:40.000]  So now that all of that work is in, I can ask the referee about the scheduling. I know it's going to come perhaps as a surprise to him, because he is programmed in all this time until Monday.
[56:40.000 --> 56:44.000]  But you are absolutely correct. This has to be raised, and I will raise it tomorrow.
[56:44.000 --> 56:46.000]  I'm so glad to hear that. Thank you, Dennis.
[56:46.000 --> 56:47.000]  Thank you.
[56:47.000 --> 56:58.000]  So I take it that the referee has, does he have any authority to delay the printing schedule?
[56:58.000 --> 57:06.000]  I don't know if he himself has that, but he can certainly request that the city do that, and we'll see what comes back.
[57:06.000 --> 57:10.000]  You could file a temporary injunction, a petition for a temporary injunction.
[57:10.000 --> 57:11.000]  That's true.
[57:11.000 --> 57:15.000]  To stop, to say, look, we need more time here.
[57:15.000 --> 57:20.000]  I would think it would just be an administrative matter that somebody just says, hold the presses, you know?
[57:20.000 --> 57:21.000]  Yeah.
[57:21.000 --> 57:23.000]  Stop the presses for two days.
[57:23.000 --> 57:28.000]  Yeah, and if the administrative route didn't work, then you could always ask for an injunction.
[57:28.000 --> 57:29.000]  Yes.
[57:29.000 --> 57:33.000]  Because we've got to get the job done here, man. No time for playing games with these guys.
[57:33.000 --> 57:47.000]  And looking over this document, it appears that at least the objection by the clerk to the number of signatures was frivolous and for the purpose of delay.
[57:47.000 --> 57:53.000]  And because the clerk, by tacit admission, delayed you for frivolous purposes.
[57:53.000 --> 58:00.000]  No kidding. No kidding. They obviously delayed you guys. Good point, Randy, to bring it up.
[58:00.000 --> 58:10.000]  I'll just be devil's advocate for him. I appreciate you sticking up for me that way, but that really wasn't the case because all of this was proceeding while the votes were being counted.
[58:10.000 --> 58:16.000]  It was simultaneous. It wasn't like we had to wait for that. Everything went forward all at once.
[58:16.000 --> 58:18.000]  All right. Well, we tried, Dennis. You know we're in there.
[58:18.000 --> 58:22.000]  Thank you. I appreciate it. Good ideas you're giving me tonight. Thank you so much.
[58:22.000 --> 58:25.000]  All right. Well, listen, Dennis, we really appreciate having you on so much.
[58:25.000 --> 58:27.000]  I appreciate you having me. Thank you.
[58:27.000 --> 58:35.000]  I would like for you to come back again sometime when you have time. I know you're a very busy man. You gave us a lot more time than was scheduled. We really do appreciate it.
[58:35.000 --> 58:37.000]  My pleasure. Thank you for having me. All the work you're doing.
[58:37.000 --> 58:43.000]  We'll keep our door open for you. Absolutely. Thank you so much. We'll keep the light on. Cup of hot tea, Brun.
[58:43.000 --> 58:49.000]  All right. We are going into hour number two now of the rule of law. We're bringing up a good friend, Richard Reeves.
[58:49.000 --> 59:00.000]  He's been doing some good work as well. So stick around. We'll be right back here on the rule of law, ruleoflawradio.com.
[59:00.000 --> 59:06.000]  Hello, Austin. My name is Harlan Dietrich, owner of Brave New Books, a local independent bookstore here in town.
[59:06.000 --> 59:10.000]  Many of you are familiar with the bookstore and have attended some of our events.
[59:10.000 --> 59:19.000]  We've been proud to host speakers like Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jim Mars, Katherine Albert, Webster Carpley, G. Edward Griffin, and many other heroic figures in the patriot movement.
[59:19.000 --> 59:30.000]  But now Brave New Books needs your help. In order to continue to provide a space for these events and be an outlet for hard-to-find materials, we're going to need you, Austin, to help spread the word about the bookstore.
[59:30.000 --> 59:38.000]  Please tell your friends and family about the wide variety of materials we offer. We also have DVD duplication capabilities for all you activists.
[59:38.000 --> 59:42.000]  Also, if you haven't visited us yet, please come down and show your support.
[59:42.000 --> 59:49.000]  It is so easy to support the big corporate chain stores that do nothing to further our message. Remember, you vote with your dollars.
[59:49.000 --> 01:00:12.000]  We're counting on you, Austin. If you need any information, please call 512-480-2503 or visit us at 1904 Guadalupe Street. Thank you, everyone.