Home Blog Page 5194

CHANNEL 44 NEWS: Evansville Sewer Rates To Increase For The Next 4 Years

0

Evansville Sewer Rates to Increase for the Next 4 Years

OCTOBER 24TH, 2016

MATT PEAK EVANSVILLE, INDIANA

 Sewer rates could be going up by as much as 11% over the next four years.

Evansville City Council took a final vote on the proposal at Monday night’s meeting.

City Council passed a plan to increase sewer rates.

Evansville Water and Sewer Utility officials proposed a 26% increase, to take effect over the next few weeks.

Residential customers would then see another 16% increase starting in 2018.

The average customer will likely be paying about $30 more for water and sewage.

Officials say the increase is needed to pay for the Renew Evansville Initiative.

This program insures the city complies with the Clean Water Act.

The proposed increase is also going to impact customers living out of the city, who already pay higher rates than city residents.

Indiana, Kentucky Police in Top Ten List of Overworked Officers

OCTOBER 24TH, 2016 

MATT PEAK INDIANA, KENTUCKY

 Police officers have a serious job to do, keeping the community safe by enforcing the law, but some are asked to do more than they are supposed to do.

Within the Tri-State, Kentucky and Indiana managed to make the top ten list for the most overworked police officers in the country.

All findings are based off FBI crime statistics, Census data, and analysis by the Safewise Team.

The Bluegrass State comes in #4.

Kentucky had the 32nd most crimes per capita for violent and property crime, and each officer was in charge of about 297 people.

The Hoosier State barely made on the list coming in at #10.

For every 294 people in Indiana, there is one police officer.

While Gary and Indianapolis are two of the top three most dangerous cities in Indiana, police officers are kept busy throughout the state.

Michigan ranks number one out of all 50 states.

Letter to Director of FBI From Retired FBI Agent Hugh W. Galyean

3

Letter to Director of FBI From Retired FBI Agent Hugh W. Galyean

Sir, I am writing regarding your public statement in July, 2016 informing the American people that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was being closed without referring it to a Federal Grand Jury or the Attorney General of the U. S. for a decision whether or not to indict her. Strangely, you eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was abundant evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in Federal Court. However, you personally re-worded and soft-pedaled the actions she took as Secretary of State describing her actions as “extremely careless” in using a personal email and un-secured server for her communications while Secretary of State. You rewrote the statute, which is not your job.

As a retired Special Agent of the FBI, I have standing to write this letter. My thirty years in law enforcement, including 22 years as a Special Agent with the FBI have given me the knowledge, expertise and experience to question and confront you for your perplexing actions, which (as you well know) were outside the normal standard operating procedure of the FBI and Federal judicial procedures. Some of the finest people in the world proudly carry the credentials of FBI Agent and you have soiled them and not allowed them to speak. But I will not be silent.

Sorry, but NO SIR, Ms Clinton was not merely careless or extremely careless. She was not even negligent or grossly negligent (as the statute requires). Hillary Clinton was knowingly purposeful in her decisions and actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control what information was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State. Furthermore, she took those government owned communications into her personal possession after leaving her position and knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them so her nefarious actions could never be known or used as evidence of her corrupt moral character against her. Sir, what possessed you? Did you cave in to political pressure to unilaterally come to this decision? I fear that is the case, and Rule of Law be damned. I am embarrassed for and ashamed of you. You have set a precedent that can never be rectified and certainly not justified. Shame on you, Sir. You ought to resign right now in disgrace for what you have done to tarnish the reputation of the finest Law Enforcement Agency in the world. for entirely political reasons.

Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent, or team of agents with one being the Case agent, or the lead investigator. When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Federal District involved. It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation. NOT the FBI agent. But in the Clinton investigation, YOU (unilaterally) decided not to forward the investigation to the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the U.S. but, instead, personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a Federal Grand Jury. You were wrong to take this upon yourself. Sir, in order to indict a subject, only a preponderance of evidence , or 51% is needed for probable cause to exist. You did not think even that level of probability existed? Who do you think you are fooling? What judicial proceeding did you think you were following?

Throughout my years with the FBI, I (along with my fellow agents) took great pride in conducting each investigation in an unbiased manner regardless of the subject’s position or standing in the community. All were treated equally under the law. But you, Sir, decided to allow this corrupt, evil and nasty human being to go free and unchallenged for her treasonous actions (yes, treasonous, in my opinion) which threatened the security of this nation. Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization. This is a RICO case if there ever was one. Even an untrained person can tell from the communications which were recovered that Hillary Clinton spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on State Business. It may be argued that Hillary did not do any State business UNLESS the Clinton Foundation benefitted. You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.

I will conclude with this: Following my retirement from the FBI, I volunteered for a 12 month tour of duty in Afghanistan as a Law Enforcement Professional, embedded with U.S. forces as a subject matter expert in counter-terrorism investigations. For most of that year I operated outside the wire patrolling with the troops, interviewing witnesses to IED incidents and gathering evidence on the bad guys. The results of my work would then be reported through secure channels to the Commanding Officer. All reports and communications were required to be transmitted via secure and encrypted devices. Occasionally my remote location in the mountains of Afghanistan made transmission impossible and I would have to fly back to Bagram Air Base in order to securely report to the Commander of the battle space. It would have been convenient if I could have just called the Commander on my personal cell phone or written him an email on my personal laptop. But, had I done so I would have been reporting classified information via an unsecured device and it could have been compromised. These were, relative to Secretary of State communications, low level classifications of Secret. Had I ever sent even one in such a manner I would have been prosecuted and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years or so. That is how serious this violation is considered.

Now, because of you, Hillary Clinton is allowed to continue her RICO activities and is running for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world. You have trampled on the Rule of Law and destroyed the trust of the American people in the FBI and in unbiased enforcement of the law. How do you sleep at night? It is time for you to go and work for the Clinton Foundation.

Sincerely,

(FBI Agent, Retired)

Resolved: Politicians Must Obey the Law

1

Resolved: Politicians Must Obey the Law

Freedom, IN – For years I’ve tried to make an issue of crony corruption (like “pay to play”), election fraud (which we documented in 2004), lying (like the deceptions that got us into at least most of our wars), and unregulated and illegal spying (where do I start with that?). I’m glad some other people are starting to notice that something’s amiss here.

But our entrenched status quo rulers also commit other serious crimes.
It’s of course a crime to give away what doesn’t belong to you; no matter who does it. For example, no treaty made by any federal official can exceed the authority granted to our federal government by our federal constitution. But it’s also wrong to abdicate important jobs that were intentionally given to only you. For example, the USA Congress has no authority to delegate away its sole power, and accountability, in lawmaking, declaring war, issuing currency, creating or limiting jurisdiction of courts, or impeachment. (see Article I)

Therefore:

Most of our recent treaties are fraudulent. The thousands of laws written by Executives, Courts and executive agencies/bureaucracies are null and void. Our “Federal Reserve System” is a counterfeiting and theft racket. All wars and military aggressions since WWII are illegal killings.

What do you call it when you kill people illegally?

So, I propose the following resolution:

Whereas the plain wording of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is binding law;

Be it resolved that;

No federal law, agency, program or international treaty that depends upon authority not specifically granted by the Constitution for the United States of America shall be valid within the United States of America;

Any federal agency, law, program or international treaty transcending authority specifically granted by the Constitution for the United States of America is null and void;

Unconstitutional laws, agencies, programs and treaties have created both problems and dependencies that will take time to rectify;
All unconstitutional federal powers, delegations, laws, programs, treaties and entities that cannot be immediately nullified must be phased out within no more than ten years.

Liberty or Bust!
Andrew Horning
Libertarian for 8th District US House of Representatives
7851 Pleasant Hill Road, Freedom, IN 47431
Facebook www.facebook.com/HorningForCongress/
Campaign Twitter www.twitter.com/HorningCongress
Blog http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/
Website http://andrewhorning.wix.com/horningforcongress

Clinton Foundation: Hillary Personally Negotiated $12 Million Pay Day From Morocco’s King

2

CLINTON FOUNDATION: HILLARY PERSONALLY NEGOTIATED CLINTON FOUNDATION $12 MILLION PAY DAY FROM MOROCCO’S KING

BY GUY BENSON FOR DOWNHILL DAILY

Why was Hillary Clinton still entertaining a lucrative face-to-face meeting with Morocco’s king on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, even after she’d announced her presidential run last year? Because there was a lot of money at stake, hacked Wikileaks emails reveal. Fox News’ Ed Henry reports:

Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco. One of the more remarkable parts of the charge is that the allegation came from Clinton’s loyal aide, Huma Abedin, who described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to the candidate, John Podesta and Robby Mook. Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king. “She created this mess and she knows it,” Abedin wrote to Podesta and Mook. The “mess” refers in part to the fact that the three Clinton advisers were discussing the possibility of the former secretary of state pulling out of speaking at the May 2015 event because it was happening one month after the official launch of her presidential campaign and could raise more questions about her role at the foundation.

In January 2015, Mook indicated Clinton was still considering whether to attend the event, even though her advisers clearly seemed to be concerned about the appearance of such heavy involvement in the foundation amid questions about its fundraising. With the subject line, “FYI CGI Africa,” Mook sent an email to Podesta and Abedin on January 18, 2015. “Came up on our call with HRC,” wrote Mook. “John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she’s sitll(sic)considering.” Abedin wrote back later that day, and suggested the King would be furious if Clinton pulled out of the event. “Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation,” Abedin wrote. “If hrc was not part if(sic) it, meeting was a non-starter.” Abedin added that CGI had not even come up with the idea to hold the event in Morocco, instead it was generated by Clinton herself. “This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request,” wrote Abedin. “The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting.”…While Clinton was secretary of state, her department in 2011 charged that the Moroccan government was behind “arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.”
The King of Morocco set up an elaborate visit for Hillary Clinton, apparently at her suggestion, and agreed to contribute $12 million to the foundation. Given his country’s blemished corruption record — according to Clinton’s State Department — what did the monarch believe he might receive in exchange for his generosity, one wonders? Surely something was worth $12 million to him, and it couldn’t have been her mere presence. (In another questionable episode, the ISIS-funding Qatari regime offered a $1 million “birthday gift” to Bill Clinton, asking for five minutes of face time with the former president to present the check. This extreme generosity cannot realistically be viewed as purely altruistic). At Wednesday’s debate, Mrs. Clinton side-stepped questions about pay-for-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation — whose high level donors have received preferential treatment in terms of access to Sec. Clinton, coveted invitations, contracts, and even appointments. It was one giant conflict of interest. She boasted of the organization’s strong charity-to-overhead cost ratio, as well as its strong ratings from charity watchdogs. What she failed to mention was that the foundation’s finances have looked much more profligate and wasteful in the recent past, and that the foundation was on a charity watch list — getting removed under heavy political pressure in 2015. Mrs. Clinton has egregiously mischaracterized the level of transparency with which her family ran the organization while she was Secretary of State, during which time she repeatedly violated her ethics agreement with the Obama administration. Oh, and here’s another curious little tidbit from new Wikileaks documents. I share Democrats’ alarm about Russia clearly attempting to influence our election, but granting and setting those concerns aside, how can the Clinton campaign explain this?

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE AREAS OF ESTATE, TAX AND PERSONAL AND BUSINESS PLANNING

0

CURRENT ISSUES IN THE AREAS OF ESTATE, TAX AND PERSONAL AND BUSINESS PLANNING

by Randall Craig-Attorney for Estate Planning

The information that follows summarizes some of the current issues in the areas of estate, tax and personal and business planning which may be of interest to you. Although this information is accurate and authoritative, it is general in nature and not intended to constitute specific professional advice. For professional advice or more specific information, please contact my office.

Indiana Statutory Changes. There were several Elder Law Developments that I presented at the 38th Annual Judge Robert H. Staton Indiana Law Update in Indianapolis on September 21, 2016, including proposed changes to the VA pension rules, developments concerning ABLE accounts (“Achieving a Better Life Experience” accounts established under the ABLE Act which originally took effect at the beginning of 2015), and several judicial decisions pertaining to Elder Law issues.

There were several interesting statutory developments during 2016 as well. Senate Enrolled Act (“SEA”) No. 221 enacted a new chapter called “Senior Savings Protection” to address the issue of “financial exploitation” which is defined as the wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, appropriation, or use of money, real property, or personal property of a financially endangered adult. A “financially endangered adult” is an individual who is at least 65 years of age, or at least 18 years of age and incapable by reason of mental or physical disability of managing or directing the management of the individual’s property. Among other goals, an employee of a securities broker- dealer is required to notify the securities commissioner and report to appropriate entities his or her belief that financial exploitation has been attempted or is being attempted, and such an individual may also notify members of the immediate family of the financially endangered adult as well as his or her legal guardian, the trustee, an agent under a power of attorney, and certain other persons. The employee may also refuse a request for disbursement of funds from an account owned by a financially endangered adult, but the refusal expires after fifteen days unless the Indiana Securities Commissioner extends the refusal for an additional fifteen days.

SEA No. 371 made several changes to the priority of certain relationships. It now allows a stepchild (or a majority of the surviving stepchildren) to be included after the other designated people having priority to address issues relating to internment, entombment, disposition of the body, arrangements for funeral services, ceremonial arrangements after a person’s death, etc. However, the stepchildren are listed in the last order of priority after a long list of people which includes an individual granted the authority in a funeral planning declaration, an individual granted authority in a power of attorney or health care power of attorney, the spouse of the decedent, the decedent’s surviving adult children, etc.

SEA No. 371 also adds a “standby guardian” as the second person in the order of priority to be entitled to consideration for the appointment of a guardian, the first order of priority being theperson designated to be the guardian in a power of attorney. There is a statutory list of people who are prioritized for the appointment of a guardian, but ultimately the court shall select the person it considers best qualified and may pass over a person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority at all.

Finally, SEA No. 371 also amends Indiana’s disclaimer statute to provide that if a beneficiary of a transfer-on-death transfer disclaims an interest in property, the disclaimant’s interest passes as follows: (i) in the case of an individual, as if the disclaimant had died immediately before the death of the owner; and (ii) in the case of a disclaimant who is not an individual, as if the disclaimant did not exist before the death of the owner.

Business Succession (Cont’d). Continuing our discussion of business succession issues, it should be noted that in many instances appraisals or business valuations will be required. This will occur in particular when a gift or sale is contemplated of a closely held business interest or when there is a death of an owner of a closely held business interest. Although in most instances people will think in terms of a low valuation, it is very important that the valuation be a reasonable valuation that can be supported by the facts and circumstances and which will withstand legal scrutiny. The appraiser will take many factors into account in determining the value of a business, discussion of which would be far beyond the scope of this commentary. In many instances a discount may be available to reduce the value of the interest being transferred due to such factors as lack of control and lack of marketability. This can allow business interests to pass in such a way as to give rise to a better tax result for federal estate tax and gift tax planning purposes. While the tendency of the owner of the business interest or the surviving family might be to maximize such discounts, the position of the IRS is obviously to minimize the discounts. A qualified business appraiser will understand and properly evaluate the applicable facts and circumstances to arrive at a reasonable and a justifiable value after taking into account the appropriate level of discounts. It is very important in this area of business succession planning to select the right appraiser. Not every business appraiser will have credentials which are appropriate to value every type of business.

Separate Accounts for Several IRA Beneficiaries. In general, if there are several beneficiaries of an IRA, it will be advantageous to divide the IRA into separate accounts after the IRA holder’s death so that each individual beneficiary will have a separate account. If done, this must be accomplished before December 31 of the year after the death of the IRA participant. Once separated, each IRA beneficiary can use his or her individual life expectancy in determining the amount of the annual minimum required distribution. Of course, each beneficiary may take as much as he or she wants from his or her inherited account, but the goal generally is to “stretch out” the deferral as long as possible. Unless the IRA is divided, all of the beneficiaries would be required to use the life expectancy of the oldest beneficiary. When divided, of course, the division should be proportional as to value based on the percentage or fractional share of each beneficiary. If they are equal beneficiaries, then the separate accounts should be of equal value when they are divided. By having a separate account, each inherited IRA beneficiary may be able to name his or her own successor beneficiary, which is a concept that we will address in the next newsletter.

Additional Information. Future issues of this Newsletter will address other issues of current interest. Please contact my office with any questions that you might have.

The information that follows summarizes some of the current issues in the areas of estate, tax and personal and business planning which may be of interest to you. Although this information is accurate and authoritative, it is general in nature and not intended to constitute specific professional advice. For professional advice or more specific information, please contact my office.

Indiana Statutory Changes. There were several Elder Law Developments that I presented at the 38th Annual Judge Robert H. Staton Indiana Law Update in Indianapolis on September 21, 2016, including proposed changes to the VA pension rules, developments concerning ABLE accounts (“Achieving a Better Life Experience” accounts established under the ABLE Act which originally took effect at the beginning of 2015), and several judicial decisions pertaining to Elder Law issues.

There were several interesting statutory developments during 2016 as well. Senate Enrolled Act (“SEA”) No. 221 enacted a new chapter called “Senior Savings Protection” to address the issue of “financial exploitation” which is defined as the wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, appropriation, or use of money, real property, or personal property of a financially endangered adult. A “financially endangered adult” is an individual who is at least 65 years of age, or at least 18 years of age and incapable by reason of mental or physical disability of managing or directing the management of the individual’s property. Among other goals, an employee of a securities broker- dealer is required to notify the securities commissioner and report to appropriate entities his or her belief that financial exploitation has been attempted or is being attempted, and such an individual may also notify members of the immediate family of the financially endangered adult as well as his or her legal guardian, the trustee, an agent under a power of attorney, and certain other persons. The employee may also refuse a request for disbursement of funds from an account owned by a financially endangered adult, but the refusal expires after fifteen days unless the Indiana Securities Commissioner extends the refusal for an additional fifteen days.

SEA No. 371 made several changes to the priority of certain relationships. It now allows a stepchild (or a majority of the surviving stepchildren) to be included after the other designated people having priority to address issues relating to internment, entombment, disposition of the body, arrangements for funeral services, ceremonial arrangements after a person’s death, etc. However, the stepchildren are listed in the last order of priority after a long list of people which includes an individual granted the authority in a funeral planning declaration, an individual granted authority in a power of attorney or health care power of attorney, the spouse of the decedent, the decedent’s surviving adult children, etc.

SEA No. 371 also adds a “standby guardian” as the second person in the order of priority to be entitled to consideration for the appointment of a guardian, the first order of priority being the

(Continued on Reverse Side)

person designated to be the guardian in a power of attorney. There is a statutory list of people who are prioritized for the appointment of a guardian, but ultimately the court shall select the person it considers best qualified and may pass over a person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority at all.

Finally, SEA No. 371 also amends Indiana’s disclaimer statute to provide that if a beneficiary of a transfer-on-death transfer disclaims an interest in property, the disclaimant’s interest passes as follows: (i) in the case of an individual, as if the disclaimant had died immediately before the death of the owner; and (ii) in the case of a disclaimant who is not an individual, as if the disclaimant did not exist before the death of the owner.

Business Succession (Cont’d). Continuing our discussion of business succession issues, it should be noted that in many instances appraisals or business valuations will be required. This will occur in particular when a gift or sale is contemplated of a closely held business interest or when there is a death of an owner of a closely held business interest. Although in most instances people will think in terms of a low valuation, it is very important that the valuation be a reasonable valuation that can be supported by the facts and circumstances and which will withstand legal scrutiny. The appraiser will take many factors into account in determining the value of a business, discussion of which would be far beyond the scope of this commentary. In many instances a discount may be available to reduce the value of the interest being transferred due to such factors as lack of control and lack of marketability. This can allow business interests to pass in such a way as to give rise to a better tax result for federal estate tax and gift tax planning purposes. While the tendency of the owner of the business interest or the surviving family might be to maximize such discounts, the position of the IRS is obviously to minimize the discounts. A qualified business appraiser will understand and properly evaluate the applicable facts and circumstances to arrive at a reasonable and a justifiable value after taking into account the appropriate level of discounts. It is very important in this area of business succession planning to select the right appraiser. Not every business appraiser will have credentials which are appropriate to value every type of business.

Separate Accounts for Several IRA Beneficiaries. In general, if there are several beneficiaries of an IRA, it will be advantageous to divide the IRA into separate accounts after the IRA holder’s death so that each individual beneficiary will have a separate account. If done, this must be accomplished before December 31 of the year after the death of the IRA participant. Once separated, each IRA beneficiary can use his or her individual life expectancy in determining the amount of the annual minimum required distribution. Of course, each beneficiary may take as much as he or she wants from his or her inherited account, but the goal generally is to “stretch out” the deferral as long as possible. Unless the IRA is divided, all of the beneficiaries would be required to use the life expectancy of the oldest beneficiary. When divided, of course, the division should be proportional as to value based on the percentage or fractional share of each beneficiary. If they are equal beneficiaries, then the separate accounts should be of equal value when they are divided. By having a separate account, each inherited IRA beneficiary may be able to name his or her own successor beneficiary, which is a concept that we will address in the next newsletter.

Additional Information. Future issues of this Newsletter will address other issues of current interest. Please contact my office with any questions that you might have.

USA Track & Field Counsel Discusses Olympic Trademarks, Doping Rules With Law Students

0

USA Track & Field Counsel Discusses Olympic Trademarks, Doping Rules With Law StudentsOlivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

The most important legal consideration of the Olympic Games is the protection of intellectual property – specifically, the protection of the trademarked five Olympic rings.

Securing the rights of the use of the infamous logo is essential to ensuring the games bring in the necessary revenue, Norman Wain, general counsel for USA Track & Field, told a group of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law students on Thursday. Wain spoke about the legal considerations surrounding the Olympics during a lecture Thursday evening at the Indianapolis law school.

The rings are the games’ greatest asset, Wain said, so they are protected vigorously to ensure that companies and individuals who pay for the rights to use the rings in their advertising as Olympic sponsors can effectively monetize their investments. Those investments are so important that when a London sausage shop put out a display with its sausages arranged in the pattern of the rings during the 2012 Olympic Games, the shop received a cease-and-desist order against the display because it did not have the rights to use the trademark.

Even sports organizations that send athletes to the Olympics must gain permission before using any sort of branding that might be owned by the International Olympic Committee or the United States Olympic Committee, Wain said.

He pointed to the annual USA Track & Field Outdoor Championships as an example of the Olympic committee’s close protection of their trademarks. The outdoor championships occur each year, but every fourth year the championships are branded as the “Olympic trials” as the country’s top track and field athletes compete for a sport on the United States Olympic team.

With the “Olympic trials” branding, the USOC allows the track and field organization temporary use of the five rings trademark, as well as the promotion of Team USA, a phrase that is also trademarked by the Olympic committee. Once the trials are over, USATF loses its rights to the marks and must wait four more years before it can advertise with the rings or “Team USA” again.

Television rights are also tied to the rights to use trademarked Olympic branding, Wain said. The USOC’s television partnership is with the NBC network, which means NBC has the rights to broadcast the games. USATF’s partnership is also with NBC, which means the network also broadcasts the annual outdoor championships.

However, if USATF had a partnership with ESPN, then the sports network would have the rights to broadcast the annual championships for three years in a row. But on the fourth year, when USATF brands its annual competition as the Olympic trials, the trials would have to be broadcast on NBC because only NBC has the right to broadcast the USOC’s trademarks through its partnership with the committee, Wain said.

The protection of the Olympic committee’s trademarks is particularly important in the United States because, unlike other national committees, the USOC is not publicly funded by the government. Thus, the rights to the trademarks and other Olympic branding are the key revenue stream for the games in the U.S., Wain said.

Aside from trademarks and intellectual property, Wain also broached the legalities of anti-doping laws, which became particularly important during the 2106 Rio Games after dozens of Russia athletes tested positive for banned substances.

Unlike the USOC, the Russian Olympic committee is publicly funded, as is its anti-doping agency. The Russian government often funnels more of its money toward the Olympic committee and much less toward its anti-doping efforts, Wain said, which results in a lower anti-doping standard in the country.

In fact, Wain said there is evidence that athletic leaders in Russia would intentionally put track and field competitors on doping regimens before a competition, wean them off the substances leading up to an event so that they would test clean at the competition, then put them back on the doping regimens when they returned home for training.

As a result, the International Association of Athletics Federations banned Russian athletes, but with a caveat – any athlete living and training in another country and subject to that country’s anti-doping laws could still compete. That meant a Russian track and field athlete who had been training in Florida was allowed to compete as a Russian athlete, even though the Russian track and field team did not compete.

Adopt A Pet

0

This pretty buff tabby is Pudding! She’s about 4 years old. Her previous owner’s health was declining and Pudding is now seeking a new permanent forever family. She is front-declawed! Her $50 adoption fee includes her spay, microchip, vaccines, and more. Contact the Vanderburgh Humane Society at (812) 426-2563 or www.vhslifesaver.org for adoption details!

HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS BRING THEIR 2017 WORLD TOUR TO EVANSVILLE ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 12TH!

0

Basketball’s most entertaining team will debut the sport’s first 4-point line during 91st season

The world famous Harlem Globetrotters, featuring some of the most electrifying athletes on the planet, will bring their spectacular show to The Ford Center in Evansville for a special Martin Luther King Jr. Day game during their 2017 World Tour.

New this season, for the first time ever, the Globetrotters will debut basketball’s first 4-point line. The 4- point line will be located 30 feet from the basket – 6 feet, 3 inches beyond the top of the NBA’s current 3- point line.

During their 2017 World Tour, the famed team will feature a star-studded roster that includes Big Easy Lofton, Ant Atkinson, Hi-Lite Bruton, Thunder Law, Bull Bullard and Cheese Chisholm – plus female stars TNT Lister and Ace Jackson*– the Globetrotters’ one-of-a-kind show is unrivaled in the world of family entertainment. Every game will showcase incredible ball handling wizardry, rim-rattling dunks, trick shots, hilarious comedy and unequaled fan interaction. After the game, Globetrotter stars will sign autographs and take photos with fans.^

Tickets start at $26.00 and are now for available for presale at harlemglobetrotters.com, thefordcenter.com, or ticketmaster.com, The Ford Center ticket office, or by phone at 800-745- 3000. Information on group and scout tickets can also be found at harlemglobetrotters.com.

The Harlem Globetrotters will tip off their 2017 World Tour on Dec. 26, 2016 and bring their unrivalled family entertainment to over 250 cities in 48 states across North America.

The Harlem Globetrotters® are legendary worldwide, synonymous with one-of-a-kind family entertainment and great basketball skills for the past 90 years. Throughout their history, the Original Harlem Globetrotters have showcased their iconic talents in 122 countries and territories on six continents, often breaking down cultural and societal barriers while providing fans with their first-ever basketball experience. Proud inductees of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, the Globetrotters have entertained hundreds of millions of fans – among them popes, kings, queens, and presidents – over nine thrilling decades. Sponsored by Baden Sports, Harlem Globetrotters International, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Herschend Enterprises, the largest family-owned themed entertainment company in the U.S. For the latest news and information about the Harlem Globetrotters, visit the Globetrotters’ official Web site: www.harlemglobetrotters.com and follow them on Twitter @Globies.

Indiana fails to provide consistent indigent defense

0

Dave Stafford for www.theindianalawyer.com

Indiana is failing to equally provide constitutionally guaranteed effective counsel to indigent people accused of misdemeanor, felony and juvenile offenses, according to a report released Monday. In some counties, poor people facing criminal charges are encouraged to negotiate directly with prosecutors before being appointed counsel.

Those are among the findings of a report on the state of Indiana’s provision of public defenders for the indigent released by the Boston-based Sixth Amendment Center. The report was commissioned by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as part of its public defense reform program.

“The state of Indiana fails to consistently ensure that each person facing potential incarceration has the aid of a lawyer with the time, ability, and resources to present an effective defense, as is the state’s constitutional obligation,” according to the Sixth Amendment Center.

The report identifies numerous key findings regarding the provision of indigent criminal defense in Indiana, several of which it contends are in conflict with United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), which clarified that violations of the Sixth Amendment  may occur when there is evidence that the adversary system has suffered as a result of the circumstances in which a public defender is appointed.

The report lays out five recommendations for policymakers that it says would help meet the requirements under Cronic. They are:

  • Establishing standards in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for: presence of counsel at critical stages of the proceeding, indigent determination, attorney performance, attorney qualification, training and supervision, and attorney workload;
  • Creating a mandatory, standards-based training and supervision system for all indigent defenders;
  • Creating an independent system to evaluate compliance with and adherence to standards;
  • Prohibiting contracts to provide indigent defense that create financial disincentives for attorneys to provide effective representation; and,
  • Creating a statewide appellate defender office as a check against inadequate trial-level representation.

The report highlight’s Indiana’s patchwork approach to providing representation to indigent criminal defendants, noting differences in how indigency is determined from county to county.

“Indiana counties may, if they so choose, receive a partial reimbursement from the state for their indigent defense felony and delinquency costs in exchange for meeting standards set by the Indiana Public Defender Commission (IPDC). But counties are also free to forgo state money and avoid state oversight completely. Thirty-seven of Indiana’s 92 counties (40 percent as of June 30, 2015) choose not to participate in the state’s reimbursement program. Indiana has no oversight over any indigent defense cases in these counties,” the Sixth Amendment Center statement said. It also said the IPDC has just two employees to monitor the work of defenders in the program.

The report looked at public defense in eight sample counties — Blackford, Elkhart, Lake, Lawrence, Marion, Montgomery, Scott and Warrick. The counties use a variety of means of providing indigent defense. “What actually occurs during the course of a case can look quite different from one county to another and even from one court to another within a given county,” the report says.

In more egregious cases, “Some courts encourage defendants to negotiate directly with prosecutors before being appointed counsel, and others accept uncounselled pleas at initial hearings, and/or use non-uniform indigency standards to deny counsel to defendants who would otherwise qualify for counsel in another county,” the Sixth Amendment Center said.

“With little to no state oversight, Indiana’s counties do not consistently require indigent defense attorneys to have specific qualifications necessary to handle cases of varying severity or to have the training needed to handle specific types of cases (other than for capital cases),” the center said in a statement.

According to the report, “The public defense systems in many Indiana counties have undue judicial interference, undue political interference, flat-fee contracts, or all three, that produce conflicts between the lawyer’s financial self-interest and the defendant’s right to effective representation. These conflicts result in public defense attorneys throughout Indiana carrying excessive caseloads and spending insufficient time on appointed cases.”

The unequal treatment of poor criminal defendants resulted in the filing of a class-action lawsuit last year against Johnson County.

The suit alleges indigent criminal defendants are not adequately represented because the county and courts there failed to place reasonable limits on caseloads and didn’t properly fund or oversee defenders. The suit also charged that because Johnson County public defenders were hired based on contractual agreements with judges, they lacked independence. That case pending in Shelby Superior Court 1 is set for bench trial beginning May 9, 2017.

The center argues such contractual arrangements disserve indigent defendants. “What many Indiana counties have realized is that they can contract with private counsel on a flat fee basis for an unlimited number of cases for less money than it would cost to comply with state standards (even factoring in the state reimbursement).”

“With little to no state oversight, Indiana’s counties do not consistently require indigent defense attorneys to have specific qualifications necessary to handle cases of varying severity or to have the training needed to handle specific types of cases (other than for capital cases),” the center said in a statement.

The report, “The Right to Counsel in Indiana: Evaluation of Trial Level Indigent Defense Services,” was prepared for the Indiana Indigent Defense Study Advisory Committee. That committee is comprised of representatives of the Indiana Supreme Court, Indiana General Assembly, Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana Public Defender Commission, Indiana Public Defender Council, Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, Indiana Judges Association and the Indiana Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.

50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War Commemoration

0

Recently, Congressman Bucshon joined local veterans at an event commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War. The ceremony was held at the Indiana Military Museum in Vincennes, a fitting location to recognize the contributions of the brave men and women who served this great nation and the indelible mark they left on our history.

 

Congressman Bucshon speaking with Vietnam Veterans about their experiences in the war. 

 

“As we recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Vietnam War, let us never forget what has been given up by so many so that we may stand here today.”

 

Congressman Bucshon delivering a speech at the 50th anniversary commemoration.

 

You can view Congressman Bucshon’s remarks by clicking the image above from the event here.

The Rolling Thunder Indiana Chapter 6 also performed the “Missing Man Table” presentation to honor the soldiers who have become Prisoners of War or Missing in Action, including the 1,600 Americans still missing or unaccounted for today.

 

Members of the Rolling Thunder Indiana Chapter 6 performing the “Missing Man Table” presentation.

 

During the Vietnam War, over 9 million Americans served on active duty. Tragically, 58,286 American soldiers lost their lives, including 1,534 Hoosiers. After bravely serving in the conflict, thousands of Hoosiers returned home to raise families, work, and continue their lives. It was an honor to speak with these brave Hoosier Vietnam Veterans about the issues they faced during the conflict, after leaving the military, and the ones they still dealing with today.

 

The world would surely be a different place without those who have selflessly answered the call at home and abroad.

1...5,1935,1945,195...7,189Page 5,194 of 7,189