RIOC Real Estate Committee Meeting Today For Update On Roosevelt Island Cornell NYC Tech Project - In Executive Session Closed To The Public
Image Of Goldwater Hospital Campus Future Home Of Cornell NYC Tech From Google Maps
According to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corp (RIOC)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a meeting of the Real Estate Development Advisory Committee of the RIOC Board of Directors will be held on Friday, October 4, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. at the RIOC administrative office, 591 Main Street, Roosevelt Island, New York.More on Cornell RIOC negotiations at this earlier post.
Agenda:
1. Chair's Motion for Executive Session for Update on Current Negotiations Regarding Cornell NYC;
2. Any Other Committee Business That May be Brought Before the Committee
When will RIOC update the Roosevelt Island community on negotiations with Cornell?
5 comments :
Yes or no answer only if you wish to answer.
Question: Do we have video proof of the deli workers prior to the video arrest?
Question#2: Is it POSSIBLE that the deli workers interfered prior tothe video area?.
Just as easy it is to lambast psd and say the workers were not involved, it would be the same to say they were involved.
That's my point.
Now please just answer Q1 and Q2 in YES or NO.
NotMyKid, my points were based upon *PSD officers'
testimony* (not subjects' testimony): in essence the purported interference
started after the arrest of the first subject, i.e., the video we see contradicts the PSD officers' testimony.
The
Deli Videos and PSD officers' fabricated testimony are the Gift That Keeps On Giving,
and PSD officer promotions were based upon arrests and summonses (think RIOC
Operations Advisory Committee executive session last fall). So the picture is clear: yes, the abuse
happened and, yes, there is reasoning why a culture of abuse is possible in
RIOC/PSD. RIOC is aware of the litigation
value the videos have for plaintiffs, which might or might not have an index
number. The deli staff and others might
be witnesses, and RIOC shouldn't be intimidating those witnesses. Considering that the deli told me the forced
closings had something to do with the videos, not only do you have the possibility
of intimidation, you have the reporting of intimidation.
So essentially you are saying we really simply have no clue that if psd attempted to arrest the subject in front ofvthe store or out of camera, we just don't know for sure the deli workers did not actually interfering with the initial perp contact.
It is very easy to argue that psd had an initial contact with the perp that ran into the stote.. somewhere. They were not playing street tag.
So how do you know the deli employees did not interfere with the initial contact psd had with the perp?
YOU DONT.
Deli workers flew right over and blasted a car with their laser vision, but when PSD tried to get away, they were picked up with mind powers and shaken like dolls. That's how ridiculous you sound (with apologies to Monsters, Inc.).
PSD officers' testimony is: the only attempt to arrest the first subject was in the deli, as we see on the video. In their testimony, there was no prior attempt outside, or before. There is no prior interference from the deli workers before the first subject was being arrested (02:13:19).
Since the purported interference happened after the arrest started (02:13:39), and would have to be completed before the deli worker and the bystander themselves were in custody (02:14:39), then that gives 60 seconds where this purported interference happened, and that period is on the video: the first deli worker was not pulling the officer off of the first subject (who was on the floor), and the first deli worker was not putting himself in between the subject and the PSD officer during that arrest (in fact, the deli worker was protecting PSD). Ditto for bystander.
And to use your point: if PSD officers are buying all these sandwiches in the store, why would deli workers pull an officer off a subject who was being arrested? Of course not, it didn't happen, the PSD officers fabricated the testimony.
PSD officers fabricate testimony to raise the bar during arraignment: it makes it harder for the defendant to defend (especially considering the fabricated PSD testimony sounds so damning), which means that it will be more likely that a defendant will plea to a lesser charge, which leaves a criminal conviction, and then eviction proceedings start against the Section 8 family in Eastwood. The PSD arrests were largely against Eastwood Section 8 tenants, not 2-4 River Road Section 8 tenants, which would allow UA to evict the Section 8 tenant and replace them with a market rate tenant. I've seen the eviction notices, they make clear that the building is market rate (i.e., their financial interest in getting rid of Section 8 tenants).
Essentially, that same tactic (bogus complaints) is being made against the deli.
NotMyKid, the problem is: you blindly defend PSD officers, regardless of the reality (the rest of us can see). You're just a law enforcement bigot.
So basically.. out of that whole post.. all I got was, you have no clue.if you are so sure there was no prior deli interference, where is your proof?. All you have is a 2minute video showing the only angle available to view. How can you br absolutely certain tgere was no prior obstruction from deli workers?I
Post a Comment