« It came from the Blogosphere... | Main | The Battle for the World's Skyline »
June 10, 2008
Unpacking a fib in the ESDC's Supreme Court brief
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder calls deceptive wording in the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) legal brief to the US Supreme Court a "fib," which Webster defines as "a trivial or childish lie."
Just because it's subtle doesn't make it "trivial," especially when people's homes and the powers-of-eminent-domain clause of the Fifth Amendment are at stake.
Judge for yourself:
The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), in its brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should not hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain appeal, fibs about its history, using circular logic that suggests a court has defined the agency's job as encouraging projects like Atlantic Yards.
...
[T]here's no connection between the phrases; the encouragement of "maximum participation" by the private sector comes from a law passed in 1968, while the promotion of “large-scale real estate projects" comes from a 2006 decision from a New York State appeals court. The state court's decision simply adopted phrasing from the ESDC's own brief in that case.And where did the phrasing in that earlier brief come from? The ESDC's own mission statement.
As I pointed out in May 2007, it's a neat maneuver, with circular logic. First, the ESDC announces its mission on its web site. It describes its mission in legal papers. A New York State appellate court adopts that language. Now, in legal papers, the ESDC cites the definition as emanating from the court, not itself.
Click here to get the details of what the ESDC said, and when they said it.
Posted by lumi at June 10, 2008 5:01 AM