Cheney, Gonzales indicted by Texas Grand Jury

Now that the Bush/Cheney administration is living its last days, its high ranking officials are “untouchable” no longer.  Reuters reports that a Grand Jury in South Texas has handed the US Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales indictments for “organized criminal activity” related to reports of alleged abuse of inmates in private prisons.

Apparently the indictment details a money trail which ties Cheney to ownership in prison-related enterprises such as Vanguard Group, which is involved in private Texas prisons.  Gonzales is accused of using his power to stop investigations into the alleged abuses.

Cheney’s office declined comment to Reuters inquiries, stating that they had not received any indictments yet.  I would love to have seen the look the face of the staffer on the other end of that phone line.  A judge has not yet looked over the indictments yet, so they may get tossed, but it says something that TEXAS indicted Cheney.  Good for you Texas, good for you!

The grand jury in Willacy County, in the Rio Grande Valley near the U.S.-Mexico border, said Cheney is “profiteering from depriving human beings of their liberty,” according to a copy of the indictment obtained by Reuters.

- Texas grand jury indicts Cheney, Gonzales of crime

Massachusetts Questions 2 & 3 Explained

Since the election, I have received quite a few inquiries about the two Massachusetts Ballot Questions which passed, so I have decided to throw a quick overview together here.

Question 2 - Possession of Marijuana

The passing of Question 2 has replaced criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties.  Basically, if you are caught with an ounce or less of marijuana, it will be confiscated and you will receive a citation (ticket) with a fine of $100.00.  Information regarding such a civil penalty will be excluded from the Massachusetts criminal record information system.  Individuals under the age of 18 will be required to participate in a drug awareness program within one year of if offense, however, if the individual is under the age of 17, possession of marijuana may be grounds for “delinquency proceedings.”  If the offender fails to file a certificate that the offender has completed the required drug awareness program with a Clerk of the appropriate Court, than a hearing will be held to determine if the fine should be increased from $100.00 to $1,000.00.

City and towns are not permitted to impose any form of penalty, sanction, or disqualification on an offender for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana.  Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana may not be used as an excuse to deny you student financial aid, public housing, or any form of public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, to deny the right to operate a motor vehicle, or to disqualify the offender from serving as a foster or adoptive parent.

It is important to note the definition of possession, so I shall quote directly from the text of Question 2:

“As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body.”

While possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is no longer a criminal offense, driving under the influence still is.  Selling, manufacturing, or trafficking marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) also remains within the realm of criminal offense.  While somewhat ambiguously written, I believe that employers are free to enforce “drug free” policies, so clarification of this point should be made before putting one’s employment at risk.  Unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana or THC such as Marinol is still a criminal offense.

Cities and towns WILL be able to enact ordinances which ban the public use of marijuana or THC, and additional penalties for violating such a ban if one exists.

The new law will go into effect 30 days after the Secretary of the Commonwealth certifies the election results with the Governor’s Council, which ordinarily meets in late November.  Happy New Year everyone!

Question 3 - Dog Racing

The passing of Question 3 imposes a ban on dog racing or racing meeting upon which betting or wagering occurs, and becomes effective on January 1, 2010.  The State Racing Commission will be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing.  Any person who violates the ban could be required to pay a civil penalty (fine) of no less than $20,000.00.  The fine could end up being higher.

Post Election : Massachusetts Ballot Questions 1, 2, and 3

Massachusetts voters made three very important decisions yesterday.  They have chosen to keep a statewide personal income tax, decriminalize marijuana, and ban dog racing in the Bay State.  I have to admit, two of the three outcomes surprised me.

Question 1 - State Personal Income Tax - Failed

The rejection of Question 1 surprised me most of all.  I had expected, especially with the current state of the economy, that Massachusetts voters would have eliminated the state personal income tax.  Elimination of the tax would not have been immediate, but rather be cut in half for 2009, and eliminated in 2010.  While it would have dramatically reduced the state’s overall revenue, I don’t know too many people who think that Massachusetts is financially efficient, and we could certainly use a heavy dose of bloat reduction.  But alas, Massachusetts loves spending lots and lots of money, which quite frankly, many of its taxpayers can’t really afford to give.

Question 1 Summary:

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

- written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Question 2 - Possession of Marijuana - Passed

This one surprised me more than the rejection of Question 1.  While I personally believe that possession of marijuana for personal use is not worth criminal prosecution, I was amazed to see 65% of the state felt the same way.  Any of the arguments presented for banning the use of marijuana can also be applied to banning the use of alcohol anyway, so I have always felt that cannabis prohibition was a bit hypocritical.

Question 2 Summary

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.  (…more)

- written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Question 3 - Dog Racing - Passed

I was not at all surprised that the ban on dog racing in Massachusetts passed.  I think that the public was shown how cruel and inhumane the sport can be, and the pro-dog racing lobbyists were unable to take that image back once it was out for public view.  While I certainly understand that many owners were responsible and loving owners of their dogs, many were not.  Being a business, cutting costs to improve the bottom line means care and treatment were expenses effecting profitability.  And in the grand scheme of the sport, dog racing is not very safe for the animals themselves.

Question 3 Summary

This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

- written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

See what others are saying about the 2008 Massachusetts ballot questions:

• JosephCrawford.com - Massachusetts Ballot Questions
• AllVoices.com - Massachusetts ballot questions results announced
• BillManzi.com - Massachusetts Ballot Questions: Question 1 defeated

OBAMA DECLARED WINNER

That’s right folks, Barack Obama has achieved enough electoral votes, 338 to be exact, to claim victory in this historic election.  Will Obama’s promised change give our Great Nation the new direction it so desperately deserves?  Let us hope so.

{smartads}

In a historic campaign dominated by economic concerns, Obama defeated Senator John McCain in key battleground states including New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia while holding on to Democratic-leaning states. And once the polls closed at 11 p.m. in California and other West Coast states, Obama reached the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, according to the Associated Press tally.

A giant crowd gathered to hear Obama in Chicago’s Grant Park, growing more animated as each state was called by television networks for their candidate. The audience erupted when he won Pennsylvania, and exploded not long after when the networks projected he would carry Ohio. Supporters waved giant American flags, rang cowbells, and pumped their fists in the air.

- By Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, Globe Staff, November 4, 2008 11:00 PM

The end of this election season has been a long time coming, and I am glad it is finally over.  Both campaigns have been divisive, and it will take some time to heal the rift between parties.  Things are definitely not going to be the same as they have been these 8 years past, so I hope you have your seatbelts buckled ladies and gentlemen.  We are in unknown territory now.

Massachusetts Question 3 : Mass. voters approve dog racing ban

Animal rights advocates and dog lovers across the state of Massachusetts scored a major victory today as Massachusetts voters passed the proposed ban on dog racing:

Massachusetts voters today embraced a ballot question to end greyhound racing in the state, rejecting track owners’ arguments that the ban would cost jobs at a time of economic hardship in favor of protecting dogs from harm.

The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury while opponents put the spotlight on the track employees who would be put out of work if the ballot question passed.

- By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff, November 4, 2008 10:18 PM

Massachusetts Question 2 : Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana

Massachusetts voters decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana with a surprising 65% to 35%  today, as reported by the Boston Globe:

Massachusetts voters today approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying as many as dozens of marijuana cigarettes will no longer be reported to the state’s criminal history board.

- By David Abel, Globe Staff, November 4, 2008 09:34 PM

While many citizens have expressed concern for a more widespread use of the drug, an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters have shown they believe the strain of “minor” drug charges on our criminal justice system to be far more dangerous.

Next Page »