i only super briefly read the amended proposition but based on Halbig's FOIA hearings that i did watch, the word "hearsay" is going to dismiss most of what they are claiming is evidence. The court doesn't accept newspaper accounts or tv shows as evidence/testimony.given them a recommendation
The "Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry" also has a signatures-collecting petition on their website: https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/grand-jury-petition-supporters/...
There might be potential confusion here around the word "petition". There's
1) A list of signatures of a group of people asking for something
2) A request, which can just come from an individual or organization, without a list of signatures.
The Prince petition is accompanied by a list of public signatures. The 9/11 Lawyers' petition seems just to be from them as a group.
As of Oct 1 2017 it said:That Fundraiser page originally stated a series of goals, beginning with $7,000 short term, but eventually of $800,000! Now, only the "$7,000" target is left
Ah ok thanks, I wrote from memory - I apparently misremembered the 700,000 as 800,000, but forgot (or never knew about) the additional "$325,000 through grassroots events and committed individuals" - for a total of $1 million in the first year!?!
So if I wrote a lot of things about, say, the Flat Earth conspiracy, and petitioned the New York US Attorney to ask a Grand Jury to fully review it, then do you think they should? What about the "no planes" theory? Or the "DEW" theory? Where do you draw the line?There is a large body of evidence and testimony presented that can't just be brushed aside and dismissed without having fully reviewed it.
Why is there a large body of evidence? Did you ever stop to think why there's so many different pieces of evidence? Surely all you need is one?There is a large body of evidence
This is a very disingenuous reply. How many criminal cases that led to court were solved by just 'one piece of evidence'? As I'm aware, we rely on witness testimony, forensic evidence - which can take various forms, motive etc. I don't know why you think one piece of evidence is good enough to convict anyone of anything when it's generally not the case.Why is there a large body of evidence? Did you ever stop to think why there's so many different pieces of evidence? Surely all you need is one?
There are lots of pieces of evidence because NONE of them stand up to scrutiny. This petition is a "Gish gallop". If they want to be taken seriously, they should discard things which are demonstrably wrong (like the iron microspheres, or anything referencing Newton), trim the speculation, address the existing rebuttals, and try to narrow it down into some actual good evidence.
They don't though. They prefer quantity over quality, and I think it's because there's really no quality evidence to be found.
Who exactly and how many are 'most professional people'?But you, and the well-meaning folk at AE911Truth and Lawyers for 9/11, miss the fact that most professional people see the 9/11 controlled demolition theory as being just as nonsensical as the Flat Earth and DEW theories. So it's very likely they will just brush it aside.
Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.Furthermore the only 'one piece of evidence' that I actually cited was that explosives were failed to have been tested for. If you follow the NFPA guide I linked, you will find that arson is routinely tested for in fires - yet that section of my comment has been deleted and flagged for being 'off topic' - ironically when it's the only 'one' I cited.
From the full petition report - Updated as of July 30th 2018.Where in the petition is this issue raised? Please quote it, and give page numbers.
See here first.In that case, maybe a new thread is required to discuss how these standards were not met in the investigation by NIST.
Flat Earth is a tough one to answer because it's not just pertinent to the USA, so it's difficult as to whether it would be in the Federal Grand Jury's jurisdiction to review it.So if I wrote a lot of things about, say, the Flat Earth conspiracy, and petitioned the New York US Attorney to ask a Grand Jury to fully review it, then do you think they should? What about the "no planes" theory? Or the "DEW" theory? Where do you draw the line?
But the question here is if the US Attorney alone can dismiss it. AE911 are saying he will submit it to the grand jury. But the DOJ (and lawyers I've talked to informally) say the US Attorney makes the call.Flat Earth is a tough one to answer because it's not just pertinent to the USA, so it's difficult as to whether it would be in the Federal Grand Jury's jurisdiction to review it.
With no planes or DEW (I have no idea what that is), yes they can try. If it's reviewed and dismissed then there's the answer.
Yes, let them hear it. That's the point of democracy. People make cases in court over their religion for exemptions from the law in certain cases. Not that there is any proof of the validity of their religion, yet it serves as a vital part of civil discourse and freedom of speech.But the question here is if the US Attorney alone can dismiss it. AE911 are saying he will submit it to the grand jury. But the DOJ (and lawyers I've talked to informally) say the US Attorney makes the call.
Do you think a Grand Jury should hear the case that no planes hit the World Trade Center? Why? I mean there's loads of "evidence", like the "nose out" and "video glitches" and the lack of black boxes, and the weird way the planes sank into the buildings in violation of some laws of physics. Lots of people have brought this up, including some with advanced degrees.
So you basically say that a Grand Jury should hear any argument, no matter how silly.Yes, let them hear it. That's the point of democracy. People make cases in court over their religion for exemptions from the law in certain cases. Not that there is any proof of the validity of their religion, yet it serves as a vital part of civil discourse and freedom of speech.
I'm not saying that. They're obligated by law to do so.So you basically say that a Grand Jury should hear any argument, no matter how silly.
But that's not how it works. And that's the point here, AE911 and the Lawyers are saying that they have got some big victory when all they actually have is an acknowledgment that the UU Attorney got their petition. They still have to wait to see if he thinks it's worth doing anything with.
I think he'll treat it in a similar way to how he would treat a "no planes" petition.
What you linked is an investigation as presented by a government agency to a US attorney.
Yes, but that does not mean the purpose of the US Attorney is simply to rubber stamp every complaint that comes his way and pass it on to the grand jury. You said "They're obligated by law to do so" even in regard to ridiculous "no plane" theories. But the DOJ says:
that kind of stuff has to do with their rights being infringed upon. the right to freedom of religion etc. or like with transgenders, their right to equality under the law.Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.
I'll admit that as a British citizen I'm not very familiar with US law, but surely such hearings, such as the Dover case, were not criminal prosecutions? So I'd be surprised if they involved a grand jury.I'm not saying that. They're obligated by law to do so.
All forms of silly religions are made, people literally exploit it.
Court has had to even hear from Christians as to why evolution shouldn't be taught in school - that's quite silly yet it's well within their rights to do so.
baed on your link they have to present the allegation, they have to present the name of AE Truthers and he needs to tell the jury how he acted on the information. It doesn't say he needs to give them hearsay evidence or "expert testimony" of people who don't qualify as experts.I thus think that the SDNY US Attorneys office would be obligated to present the alleged offenses described by AE911Truth to a grand jury
It's actually not clear what aspects of the alleged offenses the prosecutor would have to present to the grand jury. The closing paragraph of the ruling states "... [T]he statute does not specify in what way the United States Attorney should present information to the grand jury," and then goes on to note that the court could not specify in what way the United States Attorney general would have to present the information as doing so would violate prosecutorial discretion. The ruling does close by emphasizing, however, that "The statute requires that the information proffered by plaintiffs, and the identity of plaintiffs, be brought to the attention of the grand jury."baed on your link they have to present the allegation, they have to present the name of AE Truthers and he needs to tell the jury how he acted on the information. It doesn't say he needs to give them hearsay evidence or "expert testimony" of people who don't qualify as experts.
i m thinking of wasting the Grand Jurys time. Are they supposed to spend 2 hours staring at a 30 second video of WTC7 collapsing to try and figure out if it's free falling? (<thats an oversimplification obviously). I would think they'd have more important things to do with their time.. but maybe not.probably just boils down to which is least work -- slicing and dicing the AE911Truth filing to separate the allegations from the extraneous information or preparing comments and recommendations on the AE911Truth filing as a whole.
Interesting, as that was my initial reading of the law:Mick--without spending a ton of time and actual money researching the case law in depth, I believe the governing case here is In Re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). This ruling makes clear that, at least as a general matter, the intent of the last sentence of 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) is to effectively eliminate prosecutorial discretion with respect to whether a an alleged offense be presented to a grand jury if a third party requests it be presented. I suspect that a court would find that there are limits to this in some cases, such as in a case where the alleged offense is pure nonsense on its face, but such cases have not been tested in the courts as far as I could find.
My later reading about attorney discretion seems to be more around the attorney initiating a prosecution.All the attorney has to do is inform the grand jury of the allegation, and given them a recommendation (like: "recommend you investigate" or "recommend you take no action")
It hasn't though, and that's a very significant issue with the lawsuit. In fact, I'd say the lawsuit is not even the best representation of the best 9/11 "Truth" research, which itself isn't very good.Of all conspiracy theories, the issue of 9/11 has and always has been argued with severe scientific rigor from both sides.
What specifically would he or anyone else have to concede in that case? Even if a grand jury issued an indictment based on the AE911Truth filing (and I guaranty you that won't happen), grand juries can be wrong. If that weren't the case, criminal defendants would never be acquitted or otherwise exonerated. If there were an indictment, it would need to be discussed on the merits, not via generalities, which is really the point of this site and why it is such a useful repository of information. Further, it's worth noting that you don't even need any grand jury indictment to make a post on this site about any specific claim in the AE911Truth filing you believe is evidence of your preferred 9-11 theory. You should go ahead do so instead of writing vague criticisms of Mick that are not tethered to any specific claim.... if this Grand Jury session moves to real investigation, will you concede, or keep going out of pride for all work you've done to denounce a demolition?
There's no evidence that the Grand Jury has any interest. Nor the U.S. AttorneyThe petition to the grand jury is clearly aimed at the controlled demo scenario. I have yet to see any mentions of actual physical evidence of explosives to support this theory. This will border on frivolous if allowed to proceed.