U.S. attorney opens probe of Malloy’s 2014 campaign fundraising

November 14, 2016 by

Posted: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:00 pm by the http://www.JournalInquirer.com .  

By Keith Phaneuf and Mark Pazniokas, www.CTMirror.org

A federal grand jury with the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony is trying to do what state elections regulators could not: Resolve whether the Connecticut Democratic Party and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy broke the law in soliciting contributions from state contractors for his re-election in 2014.

The federal investigation is a major political complication for Malloy at time when he is in the spotlight as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association and a campaign surrogate for Hillary Clinton. She will become the first woman to win a major-party nomination for president next week at the Democratic National Convention, where Malloy is expected to speak.

It comes after a thinly veiled public appeal by Charles Urso, a retired elections investigator and FBI agent, for a deeper look at how Malloy accepted $6.5 million in public financing, which required him to sign an affidavit promising to abide by spending restrictions and contribution of no more than $100, and also benefited from state contractor contributions of up to $10,000 to the state party.

Citing unnamed sources, The Hartford Courant first reported the existence of the criminal investigation Friday and the issuance of subpoenas. Thomas Carson, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, declined to comment, but the state Democratic Party acknowledged the investigation and pledged cooperation.

“In regard to recent action by federal authorities, we have advised authorities of our intent to cooperate and will continue to do so in order to bring this to a close and continue to do the work of our party to elect Democrats on all levels,” said Leigh Appleby, a party spokesman.

“I think it is absolutely laughable that the Democrats are claiming they followed the law,” said J.R. Romano, the GOP state chairman. “They were fined for not following the law. The Democrats believe they are in a political class where the rules don’t apply.”

The Connecticut Democrats agreed in mid-June to pay a record $325,000 over 27 months to resolve a State Elections Enforcement Commission investigation of a complaint filed in 2014 by Romano’s predecessor, Jerry Labriola.

Michael J. Brandi, SEEC’s general counsel and executive director, called the payment “a significant penalty,” but the party admitted no wrongdoing and the settlement characterized the $325,000 as “a voluntary payment,” one roughly equivalent to the value of a disputed mailing paid for out of the party’s federal campaign account and promoting Malloy.

His office had no comment, other than to say it would cooperate with the federal investigation. At the time of the settlement, the commission and the Democrats were fighting in Superior Court over a motion by the attorney general’s office to compel the party to produce documents that would have shed light on campaign solicitations.

In a commentary piece published by CT Mirror’s opinion page, CT Viewpoints, Urso called the settlement a “mockery and a sham.”

“The settlement was made without allowing SEEC the ability to conduct a reasonable investigation. Despite public pronouncements of cooperation, they made a mockery of the investigation,” Urso wrote. “In response to SEEC requests, they only provided 300 pages of evidence before they refused to cooperate including ability to interview witnesses. The last time I investigated a Governor, I reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents.”

Urso played a lead role as an FBI agent in a bid-rigging investigation that contributed to Republican Gov. John G. Rowland’s resignation in 2004 and passage in 2005 of a ban on state contractor contributions to state elections and the creation of the voluntary system of public financing of campaigns.

Rowland pleaded guilty to corruption and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison.

Appleby said Friday that party officials have “fully complied with both state and federal laws throughout the 2014 cycle and continue to do so.”

We believe this agreement provides a sound framework for dealing with the conflict between state and federal campaign finance laws, and also strengthened a campaign finance system in which both parties operate,” he said.

Malloy spokesman Devon Puglia could not be reached for comment early Friday afternoon. Puglia had not commented when the settlement with SEEC was reached in mid-June, calling it “a party matter.”

A central issue raised in the complaint was the conflict between state and federal campaign finance law: Connecticut bars state contractors from donating to state campaigns, while federal law dictates the rules for raising and spending money that is used for get-out-the-vote efforts in federal election years, when state elections are also held. Contractors can give to federal races and to the party’s federal account.

Labriola complained that Malloy and the Democratic Party were subverting the voluntary public financing program, which requires participants to abide by limits on spending and accept contributions of no more than $100.

Essentially, candidates, campaigns and political parties operate under two sets of contradictory campaign financing rules: one provides public financing to candidates who agree to accept donations of no more than $100 and abide by spending limits that vary by office; the other allows state parties to accept maximum donations of $10,000 a year and spend unlimited amounts supporting their candidates.

Malloy benefited from both systems. The governor  and party officials have declined to talk about how they targeted companies who do business with the state for campaign contributions.

Malloy was Connecticut’s first governor to use public financing. He defeated self-funded opponents who outspent him in the Democratic primary and general election in 2010. He was re-elected in 2014 with $6.5 million in public financing – and the support of a party that financed a sophisticated get-out-the-vote machine with funds Malloy helped attract, beginning with more than $1.5 million in 2013. That was triple what the Democratic Party had collected four years earlier in the run-up to the 2010 election, when it did not control the governor’s office.

The Democrats claimed that not only did federal law permit the use of the federal account to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts that benefited Malloy, but that the federal law required it.

The Democrats were fighting an investigative subpoena issued by the commission for emails, bank records and other documents, arguing that federal campaign law pre-empts the investigation. At the time of the proposed settlement, a Superior Court judge was poised to rule on the commission’s motion to compel the party to abide by the demand for documents.

The dispute began over an obscure mailing late in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign, but it quickly escalated into a legal battle with potentially dire consequences for Malloy, the state party and the authority of the commission. While the mailers initiated the complaint, the case also was believed to involve larger expenditures on staff as well.

 

(Copied in verbatim)

http://www.VernonGop.com,   http://www.CtMirror.org/2016/07/22/grand-jury-to-probe-democrats-fundraising-for-malloys-re-election/

Updated 14 Nov 2016 – (36,671)

Advertisements

Trumps wins November 8, 2016

November 8, 2016 by

Trump wins the electoral college: 290 (Donald Trump) vs. 228 (Hilary Clinton)

Soure: www.Google.com

 

 

 

 

US Congressman Joe Courtney oppose the 17% shutdown

October 14, 2013 by

October 14, 2013

Courtney Signs Petition to Re-Open Federal Government” on the Vernon Patch today.

My Response:

One can find the original issue leading back to April 2009 when the last US Federal budget expired. THe last US Fed budget being passed by President Bush.  The Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which they approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. Perhaps if Mr Courtney spoke up in 2010, 2011 & 2012 the 2013- “17% government shutdown” would not have occur. BUT because Mr. Larson, Mr Bluementhal, Mr Himes, Mrs DeLauro, Mr Murhphy are all acting like they are “Made Men” they are obligated as cronies. Since Mr Obama wants no limitations on the debt ceiling this lack of a budget is his way of getting unlimited access. Push up the debt ceiling, ask for more limits & then increase taxes on the masses.
Carl Slicer.

(34412)

“U.S. Rep. Joseph Courtney on Saturday announced that he has joined some members of Congress to sign a petition to re-open the government. 

The 2nd District Democrat lives in Vernon. 

The special congressional procedure, known as a “discharge petition,” allows a majority of members to force an up or down vote on a bill to reopen the government Courtney said. 

“Since House Republicans forced the shutdown of the federal government on October 1, 2013, Republican leaders have intractably refused requests from Democrats and some Republicans to pass a compromise funding resolution without controversial provisions and reopen the federal government,” Courtney said. “Speaker Boehner’s refusal to confront his most recalcitrant members and his forfeiture of his responsibility to the American people has left me no other choice than to join with my colleagues on a discharge petition to allow a vote on a bill to reopen the government,” said Representative Courtney. The dysfunction and paralysis of the House Republican Conference has now leaked out of their ranks to poison our entire government. I urge a handful of Republican colleagues to stand up to this pointless shutdown and threat to our economy by signing onto the discharge petition and ending this crisis.”

Courtney estimated that the government shutdown is costing taxpayers $300 million a day.   

“The shutdown has stalled much-needed housing loans for American families, arrested critical loans to small businesses, and slowed the processing of veterans disability claims. It has prevented the National Institutes of Health from accepting new patients and has suspended life-saving medical research,” he said. 

The discharge petition for H. Res. 372 would allow an up or down vote on a clean continuing resolution, providing funding through Nov. 15 at a compromise level requested by Speaker Boehner. This discharge petition needs only a majority of House Members to sign on requires no further action from the Republican leadership, Courtney said.

Previous discharge petitions have successfully forced the consideration of legislation before the full House, Courtney said. Citing the Congressional Research Service, seven discharge petitions have received 218 signatures over the past 30 years and in all seven cases, the majority party agreed to bring the measure to the House floor, he said. 

Courtney said 12 measures were allowed to be brought to the House floor even before the discharge petition reached the full 218 signatures. 

Courtney said members of Congress who have signed onto the discharge petition can be tracked in real time by visiting the House Clerk’s office: “

http://clerk.house.gov/113/lrc/pd/petitions/DisPet0005.xml

###

Federal Judge Finds In Favor of Rowland, Against SEBAC

July 1, 2011 by

July 1, 2011 – 

Federal Judge Finds In Favor of  John Rowland, Against SEBAC.

 

Here are the case names, including the Unions & their that sued John Rowland and the State of Connecticut in US Federal Court (New Haven) Febraury 2003.

 

U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03-cv-00221-AVC

State Emp Coalition, et al v. Rowland, et al
Assigned to: Judge Alfred V. Covello
Demand: $0
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 02/03/2003
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff  
State Emp Bargaining Agent Coalition
Ind & o/b/o all of its members

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter/PH, LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
860-241-2627
Fax: 860-522-2796
Email: dklau@mdmc-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
Silver, Golub & Teitell
184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
Stamford, CT 06904
203-325-4491
Fax: 203-325-3769
Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
Silver, Golub & Teitell
184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
Stamford, CT 06904
203-325-4491
Fax: 203-325-3769
Email: jlevine@sgtlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
Silver, Golub & Teitell
184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389
Stamford, CT 06904
203-325-4491
Fax: 203-325-3769
Email: mramos@sgtlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Amer Federation of School Admin, Local 61, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
CT Assn of Prosecutors

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Protective Svc Coalition, IAFF, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Judicial Marshals, Intl Brotherhood of Police Ofcrs

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
National Assn of Govt Emp, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Connecticut State Police Union

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Congress of CT Community Colleges, SEIU, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Connecticut State University American Assoc. of University Professors

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Univ of CT, Amer Assn of Univ Prof
TERMINATED: 03/12/2003

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 03/12/2003
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
     
Plaintiff    
CT State Emp Assn, SEIU, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
CT Emp Union Independent, SEIU, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
CT Federation of Ed & Prof Emp AFT, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
District 1199, New England Health Care Employees Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Council 4, Amer Federation of State, County, Municipal Emp, AFL-CIO

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Denise A. Bouffard
Ind & o/b/o all others similarly situated

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Geneva M. Hedgecock
Ind & o/b/o all others similarly situated

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Dennis P. Heffernan
Ind & o/b/o all others similarly situated

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
William D. Hill
Ind & o/b/o all others similarly situated

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Plaintiff    
Marcelle Y. Pichanick
Ind & o/b/o all others similarly situated

represented by

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDavid S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan M. Levine
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn J. Ramos
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
V.    
Defendant    
John G. Rowland
I/O as Gov of State of CT

represented by

Albert Zakarian
Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT
242 Trumbull St.
Hartford, CT 06103-1212
860-275-0290
Fax: 860-275-0343
Email: azakarian@daypitney.com
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDAllan B. Taylor
Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT
242 Trumbull St.
Hartford, CT 06103-1212
860-275-0225
Fax: 860-275-0343
Email: abtaylor@daypitney.com
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann H. Rubin
Carmody & Torrance
50 Leavenworth Street
P. O. Box 1110
Waterbury, CT 06721-1110
203-573-1200
Fax: 203-575-2600
Email: arubin@carmodylaw.com
TERMINATED: 09/05/2007
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M. Fitzgerald
Carmody & Torrance
195 Church St., PO Box 1950
18th Floor
POBox 1950
New Haven, CT 06509-1950
203-777-5501
Fax: 203-784-3199
Email: afitzgerald@carmodylaw.com
TERMINATED: 04/22/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard E. Jacques
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter/PH, LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
860-241-2662
Fax: 860-522-2796
Email: bjacques@mdmc-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel J. Klau
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter/PH, LLP
One State Street
14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
860-241-2627
Fax: 860-522-2796
Email: dklau@mdmc-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Adam Schwartz
Pullman & Comley – Htfd
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103-3702
860-424-4359
Fax: 860-424-4370
Email: dschwartz@pullcom.com
TERMINATED: 03/17/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas W. Bartinik
Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT
242 Trumbull St.
Hartford, CT 06103-1212
860-275-0278
Fax: 860-275-0343
Email: douglas.bartinik@sikorsky.com
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Robertson , Jr.
Carmody & Torrance
50 Leavenworth St., Po Box 1110
Waterbury, CT 06721-1110
203-575-2636
Email: jrobertson@carmodylaw.com
TERMINATED: 04/22/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria Woodin Chavey
Jackson Lewis – Htfd, CT
90 State House Sq., 8th Fl.
Hartford, CT 06103-3708
860-522-0404
Fax: 860-247-1330
Email: victoria.chavey@jacksonlewis.com
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

     
Defendant    
Marc S. Ryan
I/O as Sec of Ofc of Policy & Mgmt of State of CT

represented by

Albert Zakarian
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDAllan B. Taylor
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann H. Rubin
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/05/2007
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony M. Fitzgerald
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 04/22/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bernard E. Jacques
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel J. Klau
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Adam Schwartz
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 03/17/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David S. Golub
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas W. Bartinik
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James K. Robertson , Jr.
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 04/22/2005
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victoria Woodin Chavey
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 02/26/2008
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

  (29,501)

Connecticut Taxpayers. Remember November 2011 elections are coming.

June 24, 2011 by

From the Yankee Institute

77 Higher Taxes For CT
Posted on Jun 13, 2011 in Featured 
HARTFORD – According to a new tally by the Yankee Institute, the State of Connecticut will impose at least 77 separate tax increases over 24 categories as part of the changes recently made by the General Assembly.
1. Raises income tax on individuals making as little as $50K and couples making at least $100K
a. Expands the number of brackets from 3 to 6
b. “Bracket Creep” shifts many taxpayers into higher brackets
c. Highest marginal rate rises from 6.5% to 6.7%
d. Phases out the 3% tax bracket for taxpayers with CT AGI of over 56,500 for individuals, $100,500 for joint filer,
e. Income tax hikes retroactive to January 1, 2011
2. Recapture Provision for high income earners effectively flattens the income tax rate on high income earners for the entire amount of their income
3. Property tax credit reduced from $500 to $300 and phased out for couples over $100,500
4. Sales and Use Tax – Increased the general sales and use tax rate from 6% to 6.35%
5. Eliminates Sales and Use Tax Exemptions for:
a. Hazardous waste removal
b. Valet parking at any airport
c. Yoga instruction at a yoga studio
d. Clothing and footwear costing less than $50
e. Non-prescription drugs and medicine
f. Cloth or fabric for non-commercial sewing
g. Property or services used in operating solid waste-to-energy facilities
h. Yarn
i. Smoking cessation products
6. Expands the Sales and Use Tax to include:
a. Motor vehicle storage
b. Packing and crating
c. Motor vehicle towing and road services
d. Intrastate transportation via limousine, community car, or van with a driver
e. Pet grooming and boarding
f. Cosmetic medical procedures
g. Manicures and pedicures
h. Spa services
7. Estate Tax – Lowers the threshold at which the estate tax applies from $3.5 million to $2 million. The estate tax has eight rates starting at 7.2% for estates between $2 million and $3.5 million up to 12% on estates over $10.1 million
8. Hotel tax – Increased from 12% to 15%
9. Luxury Goods Tax – 7% sales and use tax on motor vehicles costing more than $50,000, boats over $100,000, jewelry over $5,000, and clothing over $1000. Rate applies to the entire cost of the item, not just the amount over the threshold.
10. Rental Car Surcharge – Increased from 6.35% to 9.35% on short term car rentals
11. Alcoholic beverages tax
a. Increases excise taxes on alcoholic beverages by 20%
b. One-time floor tax on alcoholic beverages in inventory as of 7/1/2011
12. Corporate Tax Surcharge – 20% corporation tax surcharge for the 2012 and 2013 income years for companies with at least $100 million in annual gross income in those years and a tax liability that exceeds $250. This replaces a temporary 10% surcharge in law for FY2011.
13. Cigarette tax (a 13% increase)
a. Increases from $3 to $3.40 per pack
b. One-time floor tax on cigarettes in the inventory of stores as of 6/30/2011
14. Tobacco Products Tax
a. Increased on snuff tobacco from $0.55 to $1.00 an ounce
b. Increases of 27.5% to 50% on all other tobacco products such as cigars, pipe tobacco, etc.
15. Diesel Fuels Tax
a. Increases the base tax on diesel fuel from $0.26 to $0.29 per gallon
b. Imposes a $0.03/gallon tax on diesel in inventory as of 6/30/2011
16. Real Estate Conveyance Tax
a. Increases the real estate conveyance tax rates from 0.5% to 0.75% on the first $800,000 of the sale price of a residential property
b. Increases the marginal tax on nonresidential and residential property over $800,000 from 1.00% to 1.25%
17. Electric Generation Tax – Imposes a new temporary tax of .25 of one cent per net kilowatt hour of electricity generated and uploaded into the regional bulk power grid at Connecticut facilities, except for solar, wind, or fuel cell energy.
18. Admissions Tax Exemptions Eliminated – The following locations are no longer exempt from the 10% admissions tax on the ticket price:
a. Hartford Civic Center
b. New Haven Coliseum
c. New Britain Beehive Stadium
d. New Britain Stadium
e. New Britain Veterans Memorial Stadium
f. Bridgeport Harbor Yard Stadium
g. Stafford Motor Speedway
h. Lyme Rock Park
i. Thompson Speedway
j. Waterford Speedbowl
k. Tennis Foundation of Connecticut
l. William A. O’Neill Convocation Center
m. Nature’s Art
n. Connecticut Convention Center
o. Dodd Stadium
p. Arena at Harbor Yard
q. New Britain Rock Cats games
r. New Haven Ravens games
s. Waterbury Spirit games
19. Amazon tax – Requires remote sellers with no physical presence in Connecticut to collect sales taxes on their taxable sales in Connecticut
20. Cremation certificate – fee increases from $100 to $150 ( A 50% increase on the Dead !!!)
21. DMV fee changes
a. Increases fees on late renewals
b. Increases fees on getting a regular drivers license and CDL
c. Increases all vehicle registrations
d. Increases fees paid by violators of certain motor vehicle laws such as speeding, reckless driving, and DUI
22. Hospital Tax – establishes a new 4.6% quarterly tax on hospitals’ net patient revenue
23. Nursing Home Resident User Fee – increases fee from 5.5% to 6%
24. Handicapped Care Fee – establishes a new fee for providers of care to individuals with mental retardation. Currently 5.5% is the Connecticut maximum, but can go up to the federal maximum (currently 6%) as of Oct. 1.

Remember:  November 2011 elections are coming

(29,443)   Carl Slicer

Etre Challenges Janowski’s Vote on Closing Rockville Hospital Maternity Ward

October 29, 2010 by

For Immediate release

October 29, 2010

Etre Challenges Janowski’s Vote on Closing Rockville Hospital Maternity Ward

VERNON – Mark Etre, Republican candidate for the 56th Assembly District today challenged incumbent Democrat Claire Janowski to explain to voters why she approved a measure that allowed Rockville General Hospital to close its maternity unit without a public hearing.

“Rockville General is a key element of the Vernon-Rockville economic structure and anything that happens there, particularly a reduction in services, affects the entire community. To vote for a measure that allowed the hospital to close its maternity ward with no notice to the community and no public hearing is unconscionable,” Etre said.

 

Republican Town Chairman Harold Cummings said that “Representative Janowski voted for Public Act 10-179. Section 87 of that act eliminated the requirement that hospitals give notice to the community of such drastic changes in hospital services, and hold a public hearing so area citizens can have input into the decision.”

“There is no appropriate explanation for approving that measure,” Etre said, “even the worn-out claim that ‘I didn’t have time to read it.‘ Nothing that is done in the Legislature can claim to be of such an emergency nature that there is no time to read and understand each bill before voting on it.”

The new law went into effect on October 1, 2010. Cummings said the decision to close the maternity ward at Rockville Hospital and move its services to Manchester Memorial Hospital was a shock even to some staff at the hospital. “Dr. Ellen Marmer and other Rockville physicians appeared at the Vernon Town Council meeting on Tuesday, September 19th to express their outrage at the termination of maternity services in Rockville,” Cummings said.

Etre added that it is especially galling that the requirement for a public hearing is no longer in effect. “Rockville cannot afford to lose Rockville hospital,” Etre said. “With the law passed by State Representative Janowski, it looks like we could lose it, one department at a time, and we wouldn’t even know it until it was too late.”  

Rockville General Hospital is a 102-bed acute care facility that opened in 1921. It belongs to the Eastern Connecticut Health Care network. Under the new law, passed in the last legislative session, the hospital is required only to give the state 60 days notice of a change in services.

The ECHN website link to Rockville General still advertises its maternity section, stating “At the Birthplace at Rockville General Hospital, we want to make the birth of your child a joyful, memorable and medically secure experience. We offer you as many choices and as much flexibility as possible in your care. Our experienced, caring staff explains and respects your options before, during and after the birth of your child. For a free tour of The Birthplace at Rockville General Hospital, please call (860) 872-5153.”

Who do you trust now ?

(26,194)

Ann Coulter: There’s a Reason Why They Call Him “Dick”

October 18, 2010 by

If the Bush administration ever treated terrorism suspects the way Connectictut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal treats law-abiding citizens and small businesses, even conservatives would have blanched.

This activist, interventionist Democrat — like his identical, slightly less oily twin,  Eliot Spitzer — decided at age 5 he was going to be a U.S. senator and then the first Jewish president. And he doesn’t care how many lives he has to destroy to get there.

Currently, Blumenthal is running for the U.S. Senate against Linda McMahon in Connecticut. He must be stopped. Even his ideological ally, The New York Times, thinks he must be stopped. That paper ran a front-page expose on Blumenthal’s lies about having served in Vietnam, violating a century-old Times tradition of never printing information unflattering to a Democrat.

Blumenthal apologized for lying about being in Vietnam, saying, “I take full responsibility.” Who else was he considering blaming? The voices in his head?

Among Blumenthal’s taxpayer-funded citizen-persecution projects was the one he waged against Gina Kolb, owner of Computer Plus Center in East Hartford.

After selling $17.2 million worth of computers and servers to the state in 2001, Kolb found herself being sued by Blumenthal for $1.75 million for allegedly overcharging the state $500,000.  Publicity-whore Blumenthal sent out an accusatory press release about Kolb, saying: “No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the state without severe consequences.”

Soon thereafter, Kolb was arrested at her home on seven first-degree larceny charges, courtesy of Connecticut’s crazily hyperactive attorney general.

Wonder why you have a $4 billion deficit, Nutmeggers? Blumenthal’s endless investigations into responsible, law-abiding citizens like Kolb have now cost more than the entire Iraq War. (And that’s just the cost of the paper for Blumenthal’s 12 billion press releases!)

A court dismissed all charges against Kolb and her company in 2008. But not before this female businesswoman had her company completely shattered by the pathologically ambitious attorney general. I’m sorry, I know you need to be on television every single day, Dick, but that’s not enough of a reason to destroy innocent citizens’ lives, much less use taxpayer money to do so.

Kolb was far from the only innocent citizen persecuted by Blumenthal. The reason we know her story is that, instead of moving as far away from Connecticut as she could, Kolb turned around and sued the state for violating her constitutional rights. The jury agreed, awarding her $18 million for Blumenthal’s “pattern of conduct” that destroyed Kolb’s business and impugned her integrity.  

Noticeably, the attorney general who spends most of his waking hours phoning reporters, holding press conferences and issuing press releases did not make a peep about Kolb’s total vindication in court, despite his having earlier blackened her name. Perhaps he was busy attending a fake Vietnam veterans’ reunion that day.

To the contrary, Blumenthal continued using the power of his office to persecute Kolb. This is the problem with government officials using taxpayer money to further their own political ambitions: No one could tell him to cut his losses and stop harassing Kolb.

Blumenthal filed a blizzard of motions — at taxpayer expense — appealing the jury’s verdict in favor of Kolb. One of them finally succeeded in getting a judge to reduce the damages to Kolb, who presumably is now living in Hawaii under an assumed name so Blumenthal doesn’t start making crank calls to her.

(She should go to Vietnam! Blumenthal will never find her there!)

Connecticut taxpayers spent millions of dollars harassing this innocent businesswoman, successfully destroying a profitable, job-creating computer company in the state and one law-abiding taxpayer in the process. Thanks, Dick!

Blumenthal’s 24-hour publicity office managed to produce a gleaming press release on the reduction of Kolb’s damages award, in which he vowed to “continue fighting to overturn this verdict.”

Asked by Charles Kochakian of the New Haven Register about the case and whether Blumenthal ever released a statement when a victim of his legal harassment was vindicated, Blumenthal essentially said: No one is ever vindicated. Just because no wrongdoing was found, he said, doesn’t mean wrongdoing didn’t occur.

Welcome to Connecticut, where you’re guilty until proved innocent (and you can never be proved innocent).

Most shockingly, Blumenthal said he would never issue a press release about one of his publicly accused targets being vindicated because “new evidence may well emerge.”

“New evidence may well emerge” that Dick Blumenthal is a child molesting ax murderer. But until it does, no one has a right to say so. Hello? ACLU? Heard of Dick Blumenthal?

 Everyone in Connecticut knows Blumenthal’s name, largely on account of his daily press conferences for nearly two decades as attorney general, announcing lawsuits to combat every minor inconvenience. Arby’s served jalapeno poppers at 114 degrees? Blumenthal is holding a press conference at noon!

This hyperactive, publicity-mad lunatic is constantly announcing new lawsuits far beyond the purview of his office, like some New England version of Hugo Chavez. This won him the title: “Worst Attorney General in the Country” from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He’s sued power companies for contributing to “global warming,” asking the courts to impose cap and trade — a bill so absurd neither Obama nor the Democratic Senate will touch it.

He’s sued gun companies, trying to hold them responsible for criminal acts by third parties involving guns.

He’s sued tobacco companies so he could extort millions of dollars for his old law firm and other legal cronies overseeing the shakedown — I mean “settlement.”

Blumenthal is now in a tight race with Linda McMahon for the U.S. Senate. I understand why Connecticut would like to get rid of him, but that’s no reason to foist this menace on the rest of the country. How about sending him to Vietnam?

Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.

(25925)

Peckinpaugh vs. Rep. Courtney on Afghanistan Rules of Engagement

October 7, 2010 by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 7, 2010

 

 PRESS CONTACT: Danica Pecirep
(860) 985-3659
danica@peckinpaughforcongress.com

Comparing the Candidates: Afghanistan Rules of Engagement

Peckinpaugh versus Courtney on the 9th Anniversary of the Conflict in Afghanistan

ESSEX – Janet Peckinpaugh, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Second District, highlighted how her leadership in Congress would be fundamentally different from that of incumbent Congressman Joe Courtney.  “Many American soldiers are reporting that the war in Afghanistan is being fought with rules of engagement that are far too restrictive,” said Peckinpaugh.  “I was pleased to learn last month that a classified House Armed Services Committee review of the rules is in the works[i]   and I look forward to getting actively involved in this process when I am in Congress.  It is the right thing to do for our troops.”

 

 

Candidates

Janet Peckinpaugh

Congressman Courtney

Issue

Restrictive Rules of Engagement for Soldiers fighting in Afghanistan

Vote Wants the House Armed Services Committee to hold hearings into the ROE to ensure that they protect American soldiers first

?

 

Peckinpaugh concluded:   “As a Member of Congress, fighting for our troops in harm’s way will be my top priority.  My first trip abroad as eastern Connecticut’s Congressman will be to thank our troops in Afghanistan and determine whether we can do more for the people that serve us so well.”        

###

For more information please visit our website at peckinpaughforcongress.com

 


[i]Lamothe, Dan.  “Congress to scrutinize rules of engagement”.  Army Times.  Friday, September 17, 2010.  Accessed on October 2, 2010.   

 


  Paid for by Peckinpaugh For Congress, Paul Maxwell, Treasurer.
Approved By Janet Peckinpaugh

 

Peckinpaugh For Congress
P.O. Box 615
12 Main Street
Essex, CT 06426
/
(25728)

Comparing the Candidates: Tax Increases

October 5, 2010 by
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 5, 2010
   PRESS CONTACT: Danica Pecirep
(860) 985-3659
danica@peckinpaughforcongress.com

 

Comparing the Candidates: Tax Increases

Congressman Courtney versus Janet Peckinpaugh on Extending Tax Relief

ESSEX, CT  – Janet Peckinpaugh, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Second District, contrasted her views on the impending $3.7 billion tax hike with those incumbent Congressman Joe Courtney.  “People are trying to figure out how to make ends meet,” said Peckinpaugh.  “Tax increases just as our economy is trying to bounce back from recession are reckless and wrong.  It’s shameful that Congressman Courtney voted to adjourn Congress so he could campaign instead of doing his job to stop the tax hikes.”

 

 

 

 

Candidates

 

Janet Peckinpaugh

 

Congressman Courtney

Issue H CON RES 321,                   Adjournment Resolution
Vote NAY                                         YEA[i]

 

Peckinpaugh concluded:   “I will be a strong, independent voice for fiscal discipline in Congress.  I will always vote to hold the line on taxes, not to go campaign.”

###

For more information please visit our website at www.PeckinpaughForCongress.com


[i] Roll Call #546, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll546.xml


  Paid for by Peckinpaugh For Congress, Paul Maxwell, Treasurer.
Approved By Janet Peckinpaugh

Peckinpaugh For Congress
P.O. Box 615
12 Main Street
Essex, CT 06426

 

(25665)

It’s OK to say Merry Christmas to me !

September 30, 2010 by

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday  Morning  Commentary.My confession: 

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees…  I don’t feel threatened..  I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees. 

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me.  I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu ..  If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. 

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat. 

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too.  But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. 

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different:  This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking. 

In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc..  I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.  Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.  And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.  We said an expert should know what he’s talking about..  And we said okay..

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.  I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’ 

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.  Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.  Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.  Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. 

Are you laughing yet? 

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. 

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. 

Pass it on if you think it has merit. 
  
If not, then just discard it… no one will know you did.  But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.  

My Best Regards,  Honestly and respectfully, 

Ben Stein

(25613)

AN ACT CONCERNING PRIZES FOR TEACUP RAFFLES.

August 31, 2010 by

  Connecticut Seal

Substitute House Bill No. 5340

Connectcut Public Act No. 10-132

AN ACT CONCERNING PRIZES FOR TEACUP RAFFLES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subsection (e) of section 7-185a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2010):

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 7-170 to 7-186, inclusive, as amended by this act, and the regulations adopted [thereunder] pursuant to said sections, any organization conducting a bazaar may operate a “teacup raffle” and may, through the sale of chances, award prizes consisting of gift certificates or merchandise, each not exceeding [one hundred] two hundred fifty dollars in value. [through the sale of chances. ] No such organization may conduct more than one scheduled “teacup raffle” drawing for all prizes offered on any day on which a bazaar is permitted. A “teacup raffle” shall be operated from an authorized bazaar booth, and shall be subject to regulation by the executive director of the Division of Special Revenue. Each “teacup raffle” ticket shall (1) be consecutively numbered and have a correspondingly numbered stub that shall include the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser, or (2) be a sheet containing up to twenty-five coupons, each bearing the same number, and including a “hold” stub for the purchaser and a correspondingly numbered stub including the name, address and telephone number of the purchaser. The Division of Special Revenue shall be the sole issuer of sheet tickets which shall be made available for purchase by permittees as fund raising items at a price not to exceed ten per cent above the state purchase price. Each sponsoring organization conducting such raffle shall conspicuously post, at each bazaar booth at which such raffle is conducted, a notice or notices that include the date and time of any “teacup raffle” drawing. The sponsoring organization shall preserve all sold and unsold tickets or stubs for a period of at least one year from the date of the verified statement required pursuant to section 7-182.

Sec. 2. Section 7-177 of the 2010 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2010):

(a) All prizes given at any bazaar or raffle shall be merchandise, tangible personal property or a ticket, coupon or gift certificate, entitling the winner to merchandise, tangible personal property, services, transportation on a common carrier by land, water or air and to any tour facilities provided in connection therewith, or to participation in a lottery conducted under chapter 226. Such ticket, coupon or gift certificate shall not be refundable or transferable. No cash prizes or prizes consisting of alcoholic liquor shall be given, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and section 7-177a, and no prize shall be redeemed or redeemable for cash, except tickets for a lottery conducted under chapter 226 or gift certificates awarded in accordance with subsection (e) of section 7-185a, as amended by this act. For the purposes of this section, coins whose trading value exceeds their face value and coins not commonly in circulation shall not be deemed a cash prize.

(b) Any sponsoring organization authorized to conduct a bazaar pursuant to section 7-172 may award cash prizes not to exceed fifty dollars each in connection with the playing of a blower ball game. For purposes of this subsection “blower ball game” means a game of chance where the players wager on a color or number and the winner is determined by the drawing of a colored or numbered ball from a mechanical ball blower that mixes ping pong balls with blown air.

Approved June 7, 2010

Co-sponsors of HB-5340
Rep. Paul Davis, 117th Dist.
Rep. Charles D. Clemons, 124th Dist.
Rep. Barbara L. Lambert, 118th Dist.
Rep. Ernest Hewett, 39th Dist.
Rep. Claire L. Janowski, 56th Dist.
Rep. Joseph C. Serra, 33rd Dist.
Rep. Louis P. Esposito, 116th Dist.
Rep. Peter F. Villano, 91st Dist.
Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, 115th Dist.
Sen. Anthony J. Musto, 22nd Dist.
Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp, 10th Dist.
Sen. Edith G. Prague, 19th Dist.

(25022)

Dubitsky, Novak, Peckinpaugh debate live in Vernon

July 13, 2010 by

In preparation for the August 10th, 2010 Conn primary, you are invited to the 2nd Congressional District Republican Candidates Debate.

The Chairs of the Republican Town Committees

For Bolton, Columbia, Coventry, Ellington, Tolland and Vernon

have invited Daria Novak, Doug Dubitsky and Janet Peckinpaugh

to a debate.

To be held on Thursday, July 29, 2010, 7:30pm

Vernon Town Council Chambers,

Vernon Town Hall, 14 Park Place, Vernon, CT

Please RSVP Hal Cummings at yankeejag@aol.com

Moderated by The Hon. Rob Simmons the debate will be broadcast live on Community Voice Channel, on the Vernon Comcast system, Channel 96.

While Rob Simmons will be acting as moderator of this event, he will not be asking you to make a political contribution as a candidate for federal office.

Note: The CVC Comcast system is carried in the following towns on Channel 96. Andover, Bolton, Ellington, Hebron, Marlborough, Tolland and Vernon, CT.   

(24331)

Three Cheers for Obama

July 8, 2010 by

 
Three Cheers for Obama

 
This is so well put, I’m going to carry it around in my back pocket.
 
BEFORE YOU THINK I’VE FLIPPED MY LID, READ THE ENTIRE COLUMN!

Three Cheers for Obama!

That is right – I will say it. . .. . THANK GOD FOR OBAMA!

He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine – Driving a stake thru the Heart of Hillary’s Presidential aspirations–something no Republican was ever able to do.  Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you!

He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty – No more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home.  American women and freedom are safer tonight!

He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes!
    Dennis Moore had never lost a race – quit
    Evan Bayh had never lost a race – quit
    Byron Dorgan – had never lost a race – quit
    Harry Reid – bid for re-election doesn’t look good
These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed!  By the end of 2010 dozens more will be!  
In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats.
The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party.
In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.

He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are.
Every generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge.
He is bringing home the lesson very well!
    Liberals tax, borrow and spend – check
    Liberals won’t bring themselves to protect America – check
    Liberals want to take over the economy – check
    Liberals think they know what is best for everyone – check
    Liberals aren’t happy till they are running YOUR life – check

He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan.

 
In one year he rejuvenated the Conservative Movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans.
Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America !

In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life.  Not of the economy, but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the greatness and wisdom of the American people was flat out wrong.

When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them!
Obama woke up these Great Americans
Again I want say Thank you Obama!

So, Lets Recap “2009”………what a year!  WOW!!!
1. The American people inaugurate a half-Arab president with a total of 142 days experience as a US Senator from the most politically corrupt state (city) in America whose governors have been ousted from office.  The President’s first official act is to order the close of Gitmo and make sure terrorist’s civil rights are not violated.  (Honest mistake?) 
 
2. The U.S. Congress rushes to confirm a black Attorney General, Eric Holder, whose law firm we later find out represents seventeen Gitmo Terrorists.  (An honest mistake?) 
 
3. The CIA Boss appointee, Leon Panetta, has absolutely no experience.  
 
4. We got the second most corrupt American woman (Pelosi is #1) as Secretary of State; bought and paid for. (You can put lipstick on a pig, but it still stinks!) 
 
5. We got a Tax Cheat for Treasury Secretary who did not properly file his own taxes for 12 years.  (He misspoke!) 
 
6. A Commerce Secretary nominee who withdrew due to corruption charges.  (Another honest mistake???) 
 
7. A Tax cheat nominee for Chief Performance Officer who withdrew under charges.  (Hmmm… Another screw-up?) 
 
8. A Labor Secretary nominee who withdrew under charges of unethical conduct.  (Ok, maybe this person was just plain stupid.) 
 
9. A Secretary HHS nominee (Daschle) who withdrew under charges of cheating on his taxes.  (I’m running out of excuses for these idiots!!) 
 
10. Multiple appointments of former lobbyists after an absolute campaign statement that no lobbyists would be appointed.
(Dear God, I am getting a headache!) 
 
All this occurred just during the first three weeks. . . But who’s counting? 
 
America is being run by the modern-day Three Stooges; Barry, Nancy and Harry and they are still trying to define stimulus…”it’s spending!!!” 
 
The congress passes the $800,000,000,000 (that’s $800 billion) pork-loaded spending bill where the government gives you a smidgen of your tax dollars ($13 per week), making you feel so good about yourself [stimulated], that you want to run out to Wal-Mart and buy a new Chinese-made HDTV! 
 
Only with the Liberals…  
Pray for our country.
Here’s the good news though – Obama took Air Force One to Denver to sign the stimulus package, wasting as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel OR 24 JOBS FOR ONE YEAR.
 
Don’t you just love hypocrites?
Obama went to the International Olympic Committee to have them choose Chicago for a host city, he failed.
Obama went to Copenhagen to lecture them on global warming, he failed Obama went to New Jersey to promote the Democratic candidate for governor, he failed, Obama went to Virginia to promote the Democratic candidate for governor, he failed Obama went to Massachusetts to promote the Democratic candidate for senator, he failed.
 
Speaking of praying, Obama has now been president for a full year and yet he & wife (first lady) Michelle, the Christian family they claim to be, have not attended church since the inauguration.
 
Obama is the 1st president in history who did not attend any Christmas religious observance.  He must miss Reverend Wright! 

In these times ‘I’ll keep my God, my freedom, my gun and my money. 

Anyone that supports this insanity can keep “THE CHANGE”.

(24255)

Nuclear Power vs. Solar Wind Hydro

June 10, 2010 by

February 2010.

TED technology symposium discusses the pro’s & con’s of Nuclear power vs. Solar, Wind, Hydro.

Listen to how much waste is created, per person, with oil & coal vs. nuclear. Remarkable.  

Please take a moment to listen to two great expert speakers on this topic.

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust ?”

23,852

ACLU sues Enfield CT public schools to stop the 2010 graduation

June 1, 2010 by

Enfield, CT-  June 1, 2010

May 1, 2010 the ACLU & AUSC filed suit US Federal Court against the Enfield Public Schools  to stop the graduation held at a church in Bloomfield, CT.

 Maybe the ACLU has picked on the wrong subject matter ?

 It still baffles me how an “Inanimate Object” can bring a lawsuit against the people of the USA.

 When the ACLU looses maybe the ACLU will have to pay back 100% of what Enfield had to go through to defend itself.

 Just like the ACLU represents the Rockville resident that could not keep her children “corralled” and the Vernon curfew was challenged in Court. And then Town of Vernon Attorney Joseph Courtney gave his opinion that Vernon could not afford to defend itself in court. So the Vernon Democrats, Mayor Ellen Marmer Shapiro & Joe Couryney gave up the fight.

 Same thing here, Vernon should have sued to uphold the curfew and every town in Conn would have benefited from it.     

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?”

Vernon referendum vote Tuesday May 11 2010

May 3, 2010 by

Vernon, CT

 Residents who spoke at the annual town meeting at Rockville High School on Tuesday were divided on spending, with some saying the proposed budget demands too much of taxpayers and others arguing the $78.72 million plan doesn’t ask for enough.

On Tuesday, April 27, 2010,  the Vernon Town council voted to hold a town-wide referendum Tuesday, May 11, at Center 375.

Town Attorney and moderator Harold Cummings told residents that a petition to send the budget to referendum with the required 200 signatures had been filed with the town clerk, so the meeting would be advisory only.

The proposed budget, which consists of $25.67 million for general government, $5.49 million for capital projects and debt service, and $47.56 million for schools = $78,753,958.

An increase of 3.5% over 2009-2010 budget,  $76,089,866.   

Location is: 375 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, CT.  Center 375 also was the Vernon Elemetary School.

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?”   

23059

Frank J McCoy passes away April 6 2010

April 22, 2010 by

Frank J. McCoy of Vernon, CT, passed away on April 6, 2010

 Frank McCoy

              Frank J. McCoy of Vernon, CT, passed away on April 6, 2010 and joins his wife Jeanette McCoy. He was surrounded by his family. He was born on December 21, 1922 in New Haven, CT and graduated from Milford High School in 1940 before serving as a Sergeant in the United States Army for three years in the European theater during World War II. He graduated from Yale University in 1949 and the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1956. He practiced law for 54 years and served as attorney for the Vernon Fire District during its consolidation with the City of Rockville in forming the Town of Vernon. He served two terms with the Vernon Town Council and Mayor of Vernon for four terms in the 70’s and 80’s. He served as President of the Connecticut Conference of Mayors and served for over 30 years as Attorney representative on the advisory review board for the Whiting Forensic Institute. He was the service officer for the Soldier Sailors Marine Fund for over 40 years helping war time veterans who were in need of financial assistance. In 1960, he formed the Vernon Midget Football League, which was the impetus for football being brought to Rockville High School. He was a coach in Vernon sports for over 40 years, coaching recreation basketball, baseball and football. In 1965, he formed and sponsored the Vernon Orioles baseball team who continue to play in the Hartford Twilight League until today. He is survived by his five children: Jack McCoy (June), Wayne McCoy (Laura), Karen McCoy (Gary Blinn), Dennis McCoy (Diana) and Attorney Frank McCoy, Jr. (Jane); his four grandchildren, Jason, Kevin, Jennifer and Kathleen; his brother John McCoy and sister Helen McCoy (deceased).

A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. April 24, 2010 at the Sacred Heart Church, 550 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, CT 06066. For online condolences, visit www.fullerfuneralhome.com.

(22789)

Rob Simmons for US Senate 2010

April 16, 2010 by

Dear Mr David Muska:                                         16 April 2010

 Yesterday your show was way off basis in many respects. While sitting in for Dan Lavallo, on WDRC,  you did no favors for Dan.

 I don’t know what your personal issue is with Rob Simmons but you did more harm, than any good, yesterday to all the candidates reviewed.  You did not create a platform for equal comparison what so ever. You used  99% conjecture. I felt I was listening to  a temper tantrum.  Mean spirited at best.

You spent all of your air time promoting Linda McMahon & Peter Schiff and bashing Rob Simmons.  

We know you do not like George W. Bush. We get that ! So stop your whining. Some 3000 people died on Sept 11, 2001. President Bush & Vice President Cheney never let that happen again. Rob Simmons was in Congress with Messer’s Liebermann, Dodd, Shays, Johnson,  DeLauro and  Larson as well.  They all voted to the sameway…     to protect the USA.  

Some history Mr Muska:

The good Republicans took great pains to vote out Sam Gejdenson and his 20 year reign over Eastern Conn.  Did you ever hear of the “Can Sam” can ? 

The “Can Sam” can fundraiser was created by Gail Slicer of Vernon, CT. Gail Slicer had worked on the campaigns for Congressman Robert Steele of Vernon, (Son of Bob Steele), and on the campaign of “Ed Munster for Congress”. The “Can Sam” cans were used coffee cans wrapped with paper that asked citizens  for  their spare change because “Your pennies counted”. This emphasizes how one person with determination can get behind a “Good Guy” and make a difference. The same cans were used to fund raise for Rob Simmons as well.  

In November 2000 Rob Simmons won the Congressional seat.  For 6 years the citizens of Connecticut had a Congressman that worked for everyone and was proud to do so.  

In Nov 2006, Rob Simmons lost the election to Joe Courtney by 40 votes.  Mr Courtney is from Vernon CT. And as Gail Slicer was battling cancer she wished she had been able to campaign for Rob Simmons that year. For Gail said she would have been able to get at least 21 more votes for Rob Simmons. Gail passed away January 2007.           

 A few facts about Sam Gejdenson for you, Mr Muska.   

 #1) Mr Gejdenson was in office from 1981 to 2000. His Congressional record is 333% longer than Rob Simmons.  Mr Simmons was in Congressional office for 6 years.

But Rob voted more often and co-sponsored 3 times more bills than Mr Gjdenson every did.  Mr Gejdenson  claimed to be from Bozrah, CT but was living in Branford, CT. Way outside of his Congressional district. Mr Dodd did the same with his bid for the Presidential election in 2008 when he moved out of Connecticut.   

 #2) Mr Gejdenson’s 20 year record was lame in comparison to what Rob Simmons did for Connecticut in 6 years.  

Rob  voted an average of 572 times a year.

Sam voted an average of 530 times a year.

Rob Simmons sponsored 12 bills per year.

Mr Gejdenson sponsored 14 bills per year.

Rob Simmons co-sponsored 170 bills per year.

Mr Gejdenson co-sponsored 73 bills per year.                     

Fact: Joe Courtney was Mr Gejdenson’s campaign manager.

Rob Simmons is a decorated veteran and should be respected for his efforts.    

Rob Simmons was a CIA officer for the US Government. Rob Simmons has risked his life for the citizens of this country.

I know of no government service Linda McMahon has provided to the United State of America.

 While in Congress Rob asked for submarine after submarine after submarine. Rob finally approached Mr Murtha and asked Mr Murth a for his word as a Veteran to support the need for our defense systems. Rob shook hands with Mr Murtha and agreed as gentleman that the submarines were coming to appropriation.

 Murtha lied. The Democrats released all those submarines after Mr Courtney elected.

 If you want to link someone, link Courtney to Gejdenson, Murtha, Pelosi and Reid. 

You should be revealing the likes of Mr Courtney & the Democrat party each & everyday.

 Rob Simmons is a stand up guy, a proud Soldier, a Vietnam Veteran, a father, a husband and a Christian.

All of these facts equate he has morals. From morals come ethics. Without rules we have Chaos.          

Rob Simmons has earned my vote and my Republican loyalty.   

Carl  Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com

“Who do you trust now ? ”

(22650)

Fact 15. Why Connecticut Democrats must go in 2010

April 14, 2010 by

                   Here are some recent issues Democratric politicians have acted upon and have found the NEED to over look their employer.  You !

Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.

  1. U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
  2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.  
  3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
  4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
  5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.  
  6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
  7. Do you feel SCREWED?
  8. Will they have your cost of drugs – doctor fees – local taxes – food, etc., decrease?
  9. NO WAY.

Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I. 

  • Why should they care about you? 
  • You never did anything about it in the past. 
  • You obviously are too stupid or don’t care.  
  • Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?

Send the message to these individuals — “YOU’RE FIRED!”

In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!

Make sure you’re still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.

It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse.  Maybe it’s time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution..

28th Amendment will be as follows:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

Let’s get this passed around, folks – these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves!  It’s time for retribution.  Let’s take back America in November.

In the words of Donald Trump “You’re Fired !”.

Carl Slicer, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?” 

(22608)   

Journal Inquirer covers Frank McCoy, Republican, Mayor, Attorney

April 7, 2010 by

Frank McCoy remembered for influence on Vernon, lives of family members.

By Suzanne Carlson
Journal Inquirer
Published: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 11:49 AM EDT
VERNON — Former Mayor Frank J. McCoy is being remembered today as a “giant among giants” in the town’s political history.

McCoy died of a heart attack Tuesday at his home in Naples, Fla. He was 87.

“Frank McCoy was one of the better things to happen to this town,” said Chester Morgan, who served in the state legislature during the time that McCoy was mayor.

“He was a great friend and a great political foe. Frank and I disagreed on many issues, but then we’d go out to a baseball game and have a beer. He was a really great man and he’s going to be very, very missed by Republicans, Democrats, and everyone who knew him,” Morgan said, calling McCoy a “giant among giants.”

First elected mayor in a 1969 landslide, McCoy served three consecutive terms until 1975 when he lost the election to Democrat Thomas Benoit. He won again in 1977 and served a fourth term before losing to Democrat Marie Herbst in 1979.

But before serving in politics, McCoy was a medic in the Army during World War II where he fought in the Battle of the Bulge before pursuing his education. A graduate of Yale University and the University of Connecticut Law School, McCoy practiced law in town for many years.

Among his myriad contributions to the community, McCoy coached and sponsored the Vernon Orioles baseball team, helped sustain the high school football program, and was responsible for the purchase of Camp Newhoca.

Mayor Jason L. McCoy has followed in his grandfather’s footsteps as both a lawyer and a political leader, and is serving his second term in office.

Jason McCoy said today that the family had been vacationing together in Naples for the Easter holiday when Frank McCoy started having chest pains Tuesday around lunchtime.

He was brought to the hospital, but Jason McCoy said doctors were unable to revive his grandfather and he died Tuesday evening.

His death came just four days after the first anniversary of the death of Jeanette McCoy, Frank’s wife, who died of cancer on April 3, 2009.

Jason McCoy said the family had celebrated Easter together in Naples last year so they could spend more time with Jeanette, and decided to return and do the same this year.

“It was good, in a way, because we were all here. We were all with him,” Jason said today.

“There’s so much to say about my grandfather. He was a great husband, father, and leader. There is never a time when I can’t tell a story or reflect on something he told me I should do. Even the other day, we were talking about the budgets, and I asked him, ‘What do I do?’” Jason McCoy said.

Frank McCoy leaves five children and numerous children, grandchildren, and other relatives to mourn alongside those who knew him as a lawyer and political figure.

Jason McCoy, who said he hopes his son will one day play baseball for his great-grandfather’s beloved Orioles, is staying with family in Florida until Frank McCoy can be buried beside Jeanette, “his great love.”

“My grandfather was just a great person. He touched so many people’s lives all over the state,” Jason McCoy said of the man who inspired him throughout his life. “I’m going to miss him.”

Thank you to the Journal Inquirer  for great coverage.
Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com,  

Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

April 5, 2010 by

 

       CHAPTER 113     SENATE BILL 1070

AN ACT      ( Also found at the website link

AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 13-3883, 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Intent

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(C). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.

E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS, LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.

2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.

3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1644.

F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.

G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.

I. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-1509, to read:

13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document; assessment; exception; authenticated records; classification

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, PROBATION, PARDON, COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE, OR RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT ON ANY BASIS EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 31-233, SUBSECTION A OR B UNTIL THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT HAS BEEN SERVED OR THE PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-1604.07.

D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.

2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

G. ANY RECORD THAT RELATES TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF A PERSON IS ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION OR TESTIMONY FROM A CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS IF THE RECORD IS CERTIFIED AS AUTHENTIC BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE RECORD.

H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:

1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.

(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.

(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105.

(d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.

2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:

(a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.

(b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.

Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions

A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.

B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this section:

1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW.

E. F. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Family member” means the person’s parent, grandparent, sibling or any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree.

2. “Procurement of transportation” means any participation in or facilitation of transportation and includes:

(a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel arrangement services or money transmission services.

(b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification, or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as defined in section 13-2322.

3. “Smuggling of human beings” means the transportation, procurement of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.

Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:

13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.

E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. “SOLICIT” MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE EMPLOYED.

2. “UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN” MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).

13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle impoundment; exception; classification

A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO:

1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF THE ALIEN IN THE UNITED STATES, IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO, ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.

C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER ACTING IN THE WORKER’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR A PERSON WHO IS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A FIRST RESPONDER, AN AMBULANCE ATTENDANT OR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN AND WHO IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE PURSUANT TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 21.1.

D. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.

Sec. 6. Section 13-3883, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant

A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if he THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:

1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony.

2. A misdemeanor has been committed in his THE OFFICER’S presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

3. The person to be arrested has been involved in a traffic accident and violated any criminal section of title 28, and that such violation occurred prior to or immediately following such traffic accident.

4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section 13-3903.

5. THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

B. A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer’s presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.

Sec. 7. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.

E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:

(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v) The duration of the violation.

(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

3. The violation shall be considered:

(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general’s website.

H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER’S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE:

1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

Sec. 8. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense

A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.

B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall not be required to list the complainant’s social security number on the complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.

C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:

1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.

2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.

3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was originally filed with the attorney general.

D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.

E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date.

F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall:

(a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.

(b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

(c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant:

(i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.

(ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.

(iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.

(iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements.

(v) The duration of the violation.

(vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation.

(vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.

(d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the court’s order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court’s order. The court shall send a copy of the court’s order to the attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to subsection G of this section.

2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer’s business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer’s primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.

3. The violation shall be considered:

(a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

(b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer’s business location.

G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the attorney general’s website.

H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government’s determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government’s determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee’s lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government’s determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.

K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER’S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE:

1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.

2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.

L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.

Sec. 9. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify program; economic development incentives; list of registered employers

A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE EMPLOYEE’S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.

B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity’s determination of noncompliance and the employer’s right to appeal the determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the purposes of this subsection:

1. “Economic development incentive” means any grant, loan or performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax provision under title 42 or 43.

2. “Government entity” means this state and any political subdivision of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.

C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the attorney general’s website.

Sec. 10. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle

A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

1. The person’s driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.

2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer’s vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.

4. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF AN ALIEN IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE PERSON IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

5. THE PERSON IS CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD FROM DETECTION AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:

1. The person’s driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.

C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.

D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:

1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.

3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:

(a) Has a valid driver license.

(b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

(c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse’s body if the spouse is under twenty-one years of age.

4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver’s home or other place of safety.

5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.

E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment.

F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department’s record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.

Sec. 11. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:

41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund

THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Sec. 12. Severability, implementation and construction

A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

 D. Nothing in this act shall implement or shall be construed or interpreted to implement or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302) including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.

Sec. 13. Short title

 This act may be cited as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.

APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 23, 2010.

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 23, 2010.

Joe Courtney found $500,000 for New London

April 2, 2010 by

March 2010

Federal Grant money will pay for four additional New London firefighters.  NL Fire Department gets $466,678; new hires to be working within 90 days.

 New London, CT.  The city’s fire department has been awarded nearly half a million dollars in grant money to hire four additional firefighters for the next two years.

Congressman Joe Courtney, D-2nd, announced Monday that New London will receive $466,678 in a federal SAFER grant. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency grant was part of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act and is administered by FEMA. The SAFER Grant was a bill drafted & sponsored by Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican California. Mr Duncan is a US Marine and has served in Iraq.

Duncan Hunter front left

US Congressman Rob Simmons, US Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, US Congressman Chris Shays, US Congresswoman DeLauro worked with US Congressman Hunter on this bill. When the House roll call took place, it passed (361 Ayes) to (68 Noes). Us Congressman John Larson from Conn voted against this bill. The vote took place in Fall of 2003 prior to Mr Courtney.       

The goal of the program is to provide direct grant money for hiring, retention and recruitment of personnel. “It’s very good news. There was no way we could put the four people back on the job without the grant,” said Chief Ronald Samul Jr.

Samul said the new firefighters would be pre-certified and on the job in the next 90 days. The new hires would bring staffing levels from 17 to 18 people per shift, Samul said, and will allow the department to put an additional truck and a third ambulance into service.

Retirements had led to vacancies in the department, he said. Those positions were not funded in the budget.

“As the recent devastating fire in New London proved, it is critical that our local fire departments are adequately staffed to meet the challenges posed by each unique emergency,” Courtney said in a statement released Monday, referring an apartment complex fire on Willetts Avenue. “This grant will help the New London Fire Department continue to do their jobs safely and effectively and with the personnel it needs.”

According the fire department union’s Web site, the grant will allow the department to provide better coverage by staffing a second ladder truck and a third ambulance, which are both assigned to the South Fire Station.

In January,2010, the fire department also received a $159,840 grant to purchase new gear. Those funds were awarded through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program.

US taxpayers; both individuals & businesses that pay the money called “Taxes” that went to Washington DC. So therefore this makes Mr Courtney a messenger.  Please give credit where credit is due.     

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?”

Fact 14. Why Connecticut Democrats must go in 2010.

March 23, 2010 by

President Barack Obama, eager to maintain momentum after 51%  of U.S. lawmakers, only Democrats, passed his cornerstone overhaul of healthcare on Sunday, March 21, 2010, still faces a stack of pressing domestic issues.

 Here is how the Connecticut Democrats voted Sunday, March 21, 2010.  

Democrats – Joseph Courtney, Yea; Rosa DeLauro, Yea;  Jim Himes, Y;  John Larson, Yea;  Chris  Murphy, Yea.

They remembered you, now don’t forget them in November 2010 elections.

The underlying issues that the Democrats refuse to answer:

#1) Illegal Aliens. How to handle illegal aliens. Illegal Aliens need healthcare, prisons & schooling as well.   

#2) No “Tort reform” was every considered to help maintain the ceiling of costs and reckless abuse by “No Ceiling” approach to lawsuits and black mail.

#3) The “War on Drugs” in the USA cost the US $ 44 Billion in Law Enforcement in 2008. (Estimated by Jeff Miron, Harvard Economist.)

The Bottom Line impact is all these categories cost money and increase the cost of doing business for any healthcare provider.

NO DEMOCRAT EVERY TOOK ON A ISSUE THAT WOULD MAKE HIM UNPOPULAR.    

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com,

“Who do you Trust in 2010 ?”

21972

Fact 13. Reasons why CT Democrats need to leave in Nov 2010

March 15, 2010 by

         On Saturday, March 13, 2010, Conn was hit by an “Unemployment Bomb” when UTC announced it was looking to move anywhere but Conn.

Read about the carnage below.

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?”

Saturday, March 13, 2010.

 As I looked over the Journal Inquirer, one could not miss the front page

As Connecticut sinks, the government band plays on

By Chris Powell”

…” If Connecticut’s state legislators had been on the Titanic after the ship struck the iceberg, they wouldn’t have just rearranged the deck chairs. As the ship sank they’d have held a grand costume ball as well.”

 The following articles are from Google.com & AP News service search. _______________________________________________

Frey cites UTC chief as proof state is anti-business

Ridgefield Press – Marc Dillon – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

State Rep. John Frey (R-Ridgefield) Friday pointed to comments made by officials from United Technologies Corp. as proof that state government needs to …

UTC Chief Financial Officer: Connecticut Too Expensive To Do Work

Hartford Courant – Eric Gershon – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to do more of its work outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, …

“Anyplace Outside Of Connecticut”: UTC Stance Stirs Dismay, Resignation

Hartford Courant – Eric Gershon, Mara Lee – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

When United Technologies Corp. executives told Wall Street analysts in New York Friday that it’s a …

UTC plans to move as much work as possible to more ‘low-cost’ locations

Journal Inquirer – Harlan Levy – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

United Technologies Corp. intends to reduce production expenses by moving jobs and work out of Connecticut and other “high-cost” locations, …

Leaders need to lead, not take sides

Westfair Online – John R. Rathgeber – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

Connecticut continues to be battered by the worst economic downturn in generations. The state has lost nearly 95000 jobs since the beginning of the …

“Anyplace Outside Of Connecticut”: UTC Stance Stirs Dismay, Resignation

Trading Markets (press release) – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

When United Technologies Corp. executives told Wall Street analysts in New York Friday that it’s a disadvantage being in Connecticut, one key question arose …

UTC Chief Financial Officer: Connecticut Too Expensive To Do Work

Trading Markets (press release) – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to do more of its work outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, top executives said …

UTC Tells Wall Street: ‘Anyplace Outside Connecticut’

Trading Markets (press release) – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to move more of its operations outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, a top executive …

Frey cites UTC chief as proof state is anti-business

Ridgefield Press – Marc Dillon – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

State Rep. John Frey (R-Ridgefield) Friday pointed to comments made by officials from United Technologies Corp. as proof that state government needs to …

UTC Chief Financial Officer: Connecticut Too Expensive To Do Work

Hartford Courant – Eric Gershon – ‎Mar 13, 2010‎

Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to do more of its work outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, …

“Anyplace Outside Of Connecticut”: UTC Stance Stirs Dismay, Resignation

Hartford Courant – Eric Gershon, Mara Lee – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

When United Technologies Corp. executives told Wall Street analysts in New York Friday that it’s a …

UTC plans to move as much work as possible to more ‘low-cost’ locations

Journal Inquirer – Harlan Levy – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

United Technologies Corp. intends to reduce production expenses by moving jobs and work out of Connecticut and other “high-cost” locations, …

Leaders need to lead, not take sides

Westfair Online – John R. Rathgeber – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

Connecticut continues to be battered by the worst economic downturn in generations. The state has lost nearly 95000 jobs since the beginning of the …

ERIC GERSHON The Hartford Courant

FOX CT – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to move more of its operations outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, a top executive …

UTC Tells Wall Street: ‘Anyplace Outside Connecticut’

Hartford Courant – Eric Gershon – ‎Mar 12, 2010‎

NEW YORK – Connecticut’s biggest private employer is determined to move more of its operations outside its home state and other “high-cost” locations, … 

RIP Conn Employment

(21814)

US Congressman Joe Courtney’s take on ObamaHealthcare

March 13, 2010 by

From the Office of US Congressman Joseph Courtney (D)

Final Health Care Reform Proposal

On March 18, 2010, the final package of health insurance reform legislation was released for public review.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

To help you better understand the final health care reform package and the changes it makes, Congressman Courtney and his staff have updated this question & answer resource to reflect this final legislation.

What is the final health reform package?
What will the House vote on?
Why is this reform package necessary?
Will Congressman Courtney give up his gold-plated, taxpayer subsidized health care plan and join the American people in trying to access affordable health care?
How will this reform package help individuals and families in eastern Connecticut?
I have a pre-existing health condition. How will this reform package help me?
I have heard that his bill does not go into effect for several years, so it won’t help me or most Americans today. Is this true?
I like my current health plan and I don’t want to give it up! Do I have to under this reform package?
Doesn’t the reform plan force me into a government run, “one-size-fits-all” health care system?
Will this reform package tax my health care benefits?
How much does the reform package cost and how will it be paid for?
I am a small business owner. How does this reform package impact me?
I’ve heard that the reform package will fine companies for not providing health insurance. Is that true and won’t this just kill jobs?
Will the proposal result in rationed health care?
I already have health insurance so this plan won’t benefit me.

I’m a senior. What’s in this reform package for me?
Does this reform package create a mandate for me to get health insurance if I don’t already have it?
Under the reform package, will I have to pay for insurance coverage for illegal immigrants?
Will veterans or members of the military be taxed for their health care, or be required to change their health care plans?

What is the final health reform package? On June 19, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee released a discussion draft of legislation to overhaul our health system. Legislation based on the discussion draft, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200), was introduced in the House shortly after on July 14, 2009.

Over the past nine months, congressional committees, national patient and health care organizations, and the American public have scrutinized the bill and suggested a variety of improvements. For example, three House committees held extensive public reviews of this bill, ultimately passing hundreds of amendments – many of them on a bipartisan basis – to improve on the original legislation. These efforts, in part, were reflected in the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), which passed by a vote of 220-215 on November 7, 2009. Similar legislation introduced in the Senate, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), was passed by a vote of 60-39 on December 24, 2009.

On March 18, 2010, a compromise agreement was released which incorporates improvements to the Senate-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This final reform package reflects the same goals and objectives as the original legislation including expansion of coverage and choice, affordability of care, share responsibilities, investments in health and wellness, workforce development, and cost containment.

What will the House vote on? The House will be considering the final health reform package under a process known as “budget reconciliation,” a long-used process by which Congress makes changes to legislation related to the budget and deficit reduction. Under this process, the Senate-passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) will be coupled with the Health Care & Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (H.R. 4872), which makes important changes to the underlying Senate bill. These changes include:

  • Reducing and delaying the excise tax on so-called high cost health care plans. Under the original Senate proposal, the plan would have disproportionately impacted middle class families and older workers.
  • Eliminating the “Cornhusker Kickback,” which gave Nebraska special Medicare treatment over other states.
  • Increasing investment in Community Health Centers.
  • Closing the Medicare Part D “Donut Hole.”
  • Expanding provisions to crackdown on waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

Under this routine legislative process, the House will vote on passage of the underlying Senate-passed bill coupled with the changes made by the reconciliation measure.

After the reconciliation legislation was released on Thursday, March 18, Congressman Courtney posted the bill and a section-by-section of it on his website, and sent it out via press release, Twitter, Facebook, and to subscribers of his e-newsletter. He believes strongly that his constituents and the American people should have 72 hours to review the health reform package before the House votes on it, to which House leadership have committed to.

Why is this reform package necessary? Reform of our health insurance system is long overdue. For too long, our system has grown too costly to most Americans without providing them the coverage they need. In Connecticut, we have seen the direct results of this problem in increasing health insurance premiums for individuals, families and small businesses. Further:

  • Today, health care costs too much. Our current health care path is unsustainable. Over the last decade, health care costs have risen four times faster than workers’ average earnings. Our country spends $2.4 trillion on health care each year, far more than any other industrialized nation. For those that are currently insured, workers now pay $1,600 more for family coverage than they did ten years ago. Rising health care costs are squeezing individual, families and businesses and action is needed, especially in today’s challenging economic times.
  • The cost of inaction is too high. Everyone – individuals, families, government and businesses – pays for the uninsured. Connecticut has seen a 12 percent increase in the number of uninsured since 2007, and our state loses between $1 and $2 billion annually due to lost productivity stemming from the uninsured. Middle class families pay an enormous “hidden tax” of nearly $1,100 per year to provide care for the uninsured and underinsured.
  • Too many Americans are shut out of affordable health care coverage. This costly system, however, left 47 million Americans uninsured and approximately 25 million underinsured in 2007. In addition, millions of Americans are shut out due to pre-existing health conditions.

Will Congressman Courtney give up his gold-plated, taxpayer subsidized health care plan and join the American people in trying to access affordable health care? Actually, you may be interested to know that Congressman Courtney does not take the congressional health care plan. When he took office in 2007, Congressman Courtney promised not to accept taxpayer subsidized health insurance, a benefit offered to all Members of Congress, until Americans had access to affordable quality care. Three years later, the Congressman has kept that promise and still has not enrolled in taxpayer subsidized Congressional health plan.

Throughout the course of the debate on this legislation, Congressman Courtney has committed to joining his constituents in the health insurance reforms created through this legislation, even promising to enroll in the public option that was included in the House-passed version. You may also be interested to learn that Section 1312 of the reform package will require all Members of Congress and congressional staff to get their health care through the reforms made in this package and enroll in the Exchange once it begins operating in 2014, which Congressman Courtney strongly supports.

How will this reform package help individuals and families in eastern Connecticut? People in eastern Connecticut will benefit from lowered costs, expanded coverage, greater choice of care, and stability of coverage for them and their families. That means more than simply having a health care plan – it means having the peace of mind that you have coverage that puts you and your family first and focuses on keeping you healthy, will not threaten your family’s finances, and will be there when you need it.

Under the reform package, caps will be placed on out-of-pocket costs and lifetime caps will be eliminated. Once the Exchange begins operating in 2014, affordability credits will be available for individuals and families on a sliding scale, to purchase from a menu of private insurance options. Approximately 121,000 families in our district will benefit from these tax credits.

In addition, the reform package will require all health plans competing in the Exchange to offer basic coverage for essential health services – ensuring that individuals and families will no longer have to worry about being stuck in an inadequate insurance plan if they get sick. The core services include: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, laboratory services, preventative and wellness services, and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

  • According to an analysis by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the reform package would provide significant benefits in the 2nd Congressional District of Connecticut, including: Extending coverage to 12,500 uninsured residents.
  • Providing tax credits and other assistance to up to 121,000 families.
  • Improving Medicare for 110,000 beneficiaries.
  • Allowing 52,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents’ insurance plans.
  • Providing tax credits to 13,900 small businesses to help purchase insurance coverage for their employees.

Click here for further analysis of how the health reform package would impact eastern Connecticut.

I have a pre-existing health condition. How will this reform package help me? Millions of Americans are denied or subject to denial of health care coverage due to a pre-existing health condition – such as heart disease, diabetes, prior cesarean sections and even old sports injuries. Since coming to Congress, Congressman Courtney introduced and advocated for legislation to end this practice to ensure that all Americans have the health care they need, regardless of their health status.

Beginning immediately under the reform package, individuals that have been denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions will have access to a temporary insurance program with financial assistance to help purchase insurance. Beginning six months after enactment, insurance providers can no longer deny coverage to children based on pre-existing conditions and beginning in 2014, all pre-existing condition exclusions will be completely prohibited.

I have heard that his bill does not go into effect for several years, so it won’t help me or most Americans today. Is this true? No. If fact, several major elements of the health reform package begin going into effect immediately after being signed into law, or shortly thereafter. For example:

  • The package provides small business tax credits beginning in 2010, which will help small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage, and beginning in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.
  • Starts to close the Medicare Part D Donut Hole in 2010 by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, the package institutes a 50% discount on brand?name drugs in the donut hole and completely closes the donut hole by 2020.
  • Within six months, bans discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions. By 2014, this prohibition would apply to both children and adults.
  • Ends the practice of “rescissions” by insurance companies within six months, preventing insurance companies from dropping people from coverage when they get sick.
  • In six months, it begins to require health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice.
  • Prohibits health insurance companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage within six months. Also within six months, it tightly restricts new plans’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care.
  • Requires private plan coverage of preventative care in six months, requiring new private plans to cover preventive services with no co?payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles.
  • Immediately starts to invest in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Click here for a full list of the near term reforms the health care reform package makes.

Click here for a full timeline of the package’s implementation.

I like my current health plan and I don’t want to give it up! Do I have to under this reform package? No. Section 1251 of the reform package clarifies that any individual enrolled in any form of health care, regardless if it meets the insurance requirements, can keep their plan if they choose to. Further Section 1312 clarifies that enrollment in insurance offered in the Exchange is optional.

Doesn’t the reform plan force me into a government run, “one-size-fits-all” health care system? No. The reform package will allow you to choose the insurance that best fits you and your needs. Under this proposal, you and your doctor will make the appropriate personal health care decisions, not insurance agents, and not our federal government. And, if you like the health insurance plan you have now, you can keep it. There is no new government-run health care program created through this package.

Will this reform package tax my health care benefits? In the initial version of the Senate-passed bill, a 40 percent excise tax would have been imposed on individual plans exceeding $8,500 and family plans exceeding $23,000 in 2013. Slightly higher thresholds were included for individuals in high-risk professions, those that live in the 17 highest costs states, and retirees over the age of 55. Independent analysis of this proposal showed that it would disproportionately impact women, older workers and those in high medical cost states like Connecticut.

After Congressman Courtney led the fight against this proposal and in the final version of the reform package, the excise tax was significantly pared down. Under the reform package, no plan will be taxed until 2018. The reform package also raises the tax threshold for individual and family coverage to $10,200 and $27,500 respectively (up from $8,500 for individual plans and $23,000 for family plans), excludes dental and vision coverage from the calculation of the tax threshold, and provides exceptions to factors that contribute to higher premiums, such as age and gender. Additionally, if projected premium increases grow faster than expected over the next eight years, then the baseline thresholds will be increased under the reform package.

How much does the reform package cost and how will it be paid for? According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the reform package will cost $940 billion over the next decade and reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over the same period. In the following decade, the CBO estimates that the package will reduce the federal deficit by an estimated $1.2 trillion.

The reforms will be paid for in a number of different ways. First, the reform package focuses on paying for reform through finding savings in our existing health care system, ensuring that the money we already spend on health care is used more efficiency. About half of the costs are paid for by improving efficiencies and expanding savings in Medicare and Medicaid. For example, nearly $132 billion in over-payments to Medicare Advantage will be removed.

To finance the remaining costs, the reform package increases the Medicare tax to 3.8 percent on income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. Individuals will pay a 2.35 percent tax on income over $200,000 and $250,000 respectively instead of paying 1.45 percent. The reform package also extends the Medicare tax to unearned income.

Click here to read the report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

I am a small business owner. How does this reform package impact me? Throughout the course of the debate on health reform over the last year, Congressman Courtney has heard from small businesses from across eastern Connecticut who are being squeezed by high and increasing health care costs. The reform package has many benefits for small business owners. As our system stands now, health care coverage options for the self-employed and small business do not benefit from economies of scale in individual and small group insurance markets. These plans are much more expensive than large group insurance policies that large businesses benefit from.

In one of the many hearings on health care reform before the House Education and Labor Committee on which I serve, the need for assisting small businesses with the cost of health care has been made clear. To this end, reform package will provide a new mechanism for small businesses to better pool and purchase insurance. The package will allow small businesses with up to 100 employees access state-based Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges, which will provide easy-to-navigate, affordable insurance options.

Additionally, the reform package will help small employers provide health insurance to their employees through tax credits. Sliding scale tax credits will be available to small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000. Between 2010 and 2013, the full credit, which will provide for 35 percent of the employer’s contribution, will be available to employers with ten or fewer employees with average annual wages of less than $25,000. In 2014 and later, small employers that purchase coverage in the Exchange will receive a tax credit for two years of up to 50 percent of their employee contributions.

Click here to read more about how the package helps small business owners.

I’ve heard that the reform package will fine companies for not providing health insurance. Is that true and won’t this just kill jobs? One of the central elements of the health reform package is shared responsibility. This means that individuals, government and business will be responsible – together – for contributing to the costs of care. Under the reform package, employers will be responsible for providing coverage to their employees. Exemptions to this requirement are in place for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. If large companies fail to provide coverage to their employees, then they will incur a penalty. The penalty will be equal to the number of employees minus 30, times $2,000. For example, if an employer with 60 employees chooses not to provide coverage, then they will be assessed a fee of $60,000 (60-30=30, 30x$2,000=$60,000).

Will the proposal result in rationed health care? No. The reform package will incentivize smarter use of care that prioritizes quality over quantity. Further, the reforms will make robust investments in our health care workforce, particularly the primary care workforce. These investments will ensure that we have the doctors and nurses we need to meet the health needs of individuals and families across the nation. Doing nothing leaves too many Americans at the mercy of big insurance companies that make decisions to protect profits, not patients.

I already have health insurance so this plan won’t benefit me. The health reform package makes critical changes that ensure that Americans like you have continued access to reliable and affordable health coverage. For example, the package bans insurance companies from placing lifetime limits on the amount of coverage you and your family receives, prohibits your insurance company from dropping you if you get sick, and prohibits insurance companies from denying your coverage based on a pre-exisiting condition.

Further, everyone pays for the uninsured under the status quo. Emergency rooms across the country are treating those without insurance for primary care or illness that could have easily been prevented. Uncompensated costs for care of the uninsured are transferred to those with insurance in the form of higher premiums and co-pays as well to local, state, and national governments. By reducing the number of uninsured and improving the quality of care available, we all benefit–government payments for uncompensated care decreases as does premiums for insurance coverage. According to the CBO, 95 percent of all Americans will have insurance coverage as a result of this reform package.

I’m a senior. What’s in this reform package for me? Whether you are a Medicare beneficiary or a senior without coverage, the reform package will benefit you. Beginning immediately, Medicare beneficiaries will pay nothing for preventative care services, such as glaucoma tests, vaccinations, colonoscopies, mammograms, among many other services. Additionally, this legislation will eliminate the Medicare Part D “donut hole.” Also, beginning immediately, the size of the donut hole will be reduced by $250 with greater reductions in subsequent years and those that still fall in the hole will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs.

If you are a senior not yet eligible for Medicare, the reforms will also benefit you. This reform package will institute insurance market reforms that will limit coverage cost variation by age. Beginning in 2014, insurance premiums cannot vary more than 3 to 1 based on an individual’s age.

Click here for information on how the package impacts and strengthens Medicare.
Click here to learn more about changes the package makes to Medicare Part D.

Does this reform package create a mandate for me to get health insurance if I don’t already have it? Eventually, yes, except in the case of hardship. As mentioned before, one of the pillars of the reform legislation is shared responsibility. Employers, government, and individuals will be responsible for contributing to the costs of care. Beginning in 2015, if you don’t have insurance, you will be required to obtain coverage or pay a modest penalty.

In 2014, the Exchange will be open to individuals without insurance coverage. Affordability credits will be available to low and moderate-income individuals and families without employer-sponsored coverage to purchase insurance through the Exchange. Affordability credits will be available for individuals and families up to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL): $43,420 for an individual and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2009 FPL levels. Further, hardship waivers will be granted to the basis of affordability, religious objections, among other reasons.

The bottom line is that the reform package will require most Americans to attain coverage to protect against catastrophic care costs. By creating a shared responsibility between the individual, the private sector and the government, this reform package will create a system that provides those without coverage affordable and stable insurance options for themselves and their family.

Under the reform package, will I have to pay for insurance coverage for illegal immigrants? No. Under current law, for example, undocumented aliens are currently not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare and the reform package does nothing to change that. These same restrictions are also to be applied to affordability credits in the Exchange. Specifically, Section 1312 of the reform package states that the Exchange is only open to the citizens and lawful residents only.

Will veterans or members of the military be taxed for their health care, or be required to change their health care plans? No. The reform package does not require these individuals to change coverage, and does not impose any taxes or fees on veterans or military TRICARE health care, nor does it cut any benefits or coverage to those receiving coverage under TRICARE or the VA. As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, Congressman Courtney has made protecting veterans and military health care a top priority in reform legislation.

Section 5000 of the reform package, which defines minimum coverage requirements, clearly identifies VA beneficiaries as having sufficient coverage. In other words, veterans will not be required to enroll in any other health insurance program, or be subject to penalties for not having a private health insurance plan, if they are already enrolled in VA care.

In addition, family members of veterans who do not have health insurance coverage will be eligible to find appropriate coverage through the Exchange, just as all other qualified Americans. And, no other government agency will be able to infringe, reduce or change benefits for individuals enrolled in these programs. The control of TRICARE and VA health care will remain under the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, respectively

 Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Shimes, Chris Murphy, John Larson, Joseph Lieberman, Chris Dodd all voted in favor of this massive bill.

Carl Slicer, blog editor, www.VernonGop.com, “Who do you trust now ?”