Summoned by a Prank Call, Police in Wichita Kill a Man at His Front Door

By MITCH SMITHDEC. 29, 2017

The call to the police sounded dire: a violent dispute at a house in Wichita, Kan., a person shot to death, an armed man holding hostages and threatening to burn the place down.

Officers raced to the scene and surrounded the house. A man emerged and the police commanded him to put his hands up. Moments later, an officer fired a deadly shot.

The whole encounter on Thursday night had been based on a hoax: There had been no shooting before the police arrived, no hostages, no threat of arson. Instead, it was a fatal incarnation of “swatting,” in which people report fake crimes in hopes of getting a SWAT team to raid a rival’s house.

“If the false police call had not been made, we would not have been there,” Deputy Chief Troy Livingston of the Wichita Police Department said at a news conference on Friday.

A 25-year-old man, Tyler Barriss, was arrested in connection with the hoax, Officer Mike Lopez, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department, said late Friday. The Wichita police could not be reached for comment.

The victim was identified by family members in local news media reports as Andrew Finch, 28. His mother, Lisa Finch, told The Wichita Eagle that her son had heard movement outside and was shot by officers when he opened the door to investigate.

 

Chief Livingston placed the blame for the shooting squarely on “the irresponsible actions of a prankster,” but Ms. Finch said the police were culpable. “That cop murdered my son over a false report,” she said in an interview with The Eagle. She and other family members did not immediately respond to several messages from The New York Times on Friday.

Chief Livingston said that Mr. Finch, who was unarmed, had not followed commands to keep his arms raised, and that an officer had feared he was drawing a gun. Grainy body camera footage showed a person in a distant doorway, an officer ordering the person to walk toward the police, and a gunshot.

Swatting might be intended to be a scary nuisance, but it can have tragic fallout. In 2015, police officers in Maryland shot a man with rubber bullets after being called to a nonexistent hostage situation, causing broken bones and bruised lungs. That same year, a man in Oklahoma shot and wounded a police chief, thinking he was a burglar, after a swatting phone call.

But the swatting on Thursday was unusual for its fatal ending.

“This is probably the worst-case scenario for a police department,” said Chuck Wexler of the Police Executive Research Forum, which advises departments on best practices. “The consequences here are so tragic. It’s every police chief’s nightmare.”

Mr. Wexler said that many departments had been trained to identify potential swatting calls, but that “technology clearly is trying to trump good common sense here. What may sound like a legitimate call has to be questioned.”

The Kansas shooting had some of the common markers of a swatting prank, including that the emergency call initially went to the security desk of City Hall, not 911, suggesting that the caller was not local.

California Supreme Court Set For Ruling That Could Cut Pensions For Public Workers

by Tyler Durden

Fri, 12/29/2017 - 18:20

 

For decades now public pensions have been guided by one universal rule which stipulates that current public employees can not be 'financially injured' by having their future benefits reduced.  On the other hand, that 'universal rule' also necessarily stipulates that taxpayers can be absolutely steamrolled by whatever tax hikes are necessary to fulfill the bloated pension benefits that unions promise themselves.

Alas, that one 'universal rule' may finally be at risk as the California Supreme Court is currently considering a case which could determine whether taxpayers have an unlimited obligation to simply fork over whatever pension benefits are demanded of them or whether there is some "reasonableness" test that must be applied.  Here's more from VC Star:

At issue is the "California Rule," which dates to court rulings beginning in 1947. It says workers enter a contract with their employer on their first day of work, entitling them to retirement benefits that can never be diminished unless replaced with similar benefits.


"Lots of people in the pension community are paying attention to these cases and are really interested in what the California Supreme Court is going to do here," said Amy Monahan, a University of Minnesota professor who studies pension law.

"For years, self-interested parties, overly generous promises whose true costs were often shrouded by flawed actuarial analyses, and failures of public leadership had caused unsustainable public pension liabilities," his office wrote. A ruling is expected before Brown leaves office in January 2019.
 

Meanwhile, it's not just California taxpayers that have an interest in the Supreme Court's decision as twelve other states also observe a variation of the 'California Rule', said Greg Mennis, director of the Public Sector Retirement Systems project at Pew Charitable Trusts. One of them, Colorado, has walked it back a bit, he said, requiring "clear and unmistakable intent to form a contract before pensions will be contractually protected."

While a change to California's interpretation of its rule would not automatically change legal precedents in other states, it could provide the catalyst for lawmakers to test changes that they previously considered unfeasible.

Safe and Effective!

Once upon a time...

Spraying children with DDT insecticide was "Safe and Effective."

Once upon a time...

Once upon a time...

Water Fluoridation was considered "Safe and Effective"  ...

 But now?

***************************************

  

Kinder Morgan planned for pipeline protests a year before project started

Posted Wednesday, December 27, 2017 7:42 pm

By Heather Bellow, The Berkshire Eagle

SANDISFIELD — Kinder Morgan, which has, since May, paid Massachusetts State Police more than $1 million for pipeline security, began communicating with State Police about the potential for protests and gas explosions almost a year before the project began.

Emails obtained by The Eagle show that, beginning in June 2016, Kinder Morgan and State Police officials started arranging meetings about "possible adversities" facing construction of the Connecticut Expansion Project, a 13-mile, tri-state natural gas spur with a 3.8-mile Massachusetts loop.

The project, which was completed in November in a corridor with two existing pipelines, was built by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Kinder Morgan subsidiary.

In a June 30, 2016, email from State Police Lt. David Buell to Kinder Morgan's Donald Perkins, a New England operations manager, Buell said he wants to "start an email dialogue ... in case there are any developments," to which Perkins responded that, while the "project is moving forward," the company has found itself in court over the Otis State Forest easement that Tennessee Gas said it required for the project.

"We are awaiting the outcome of some legal proceedings regarding state lands by the end of July," Perkins wrote July 14, 2016. "In my opinion, things will really heat up once we get final approval and we start work."

Perkins was right. It was the company's encroachment into state-owned lands that added a new twist to an already controversial project, since the nearly 2-mile state forest stretch was also protected for the public by Article 97 of the state constitution.

The court ruling would strengthen the precedent that even the highest state protections can't outmaneuver federal interstate commerce law.

The state Attorney General's Office found this out, and lost.

Protesters were already outside Berkshire Superior Court with a mock coffin that said, "Here Lies Otis State Forest and the Demise of its Article 97 Protection - Rest in Pieces."

Enter, State Police

Keep Sinnin' - We got a budget to balance!

Task force wants relaxed alcohol laws, higher taxes

By Dan Adams Globe Staff  December 28, 2017

 

The price of beer, wine, and liquor in Massachusetts would increase, but unpopular restrictions on the sale of alcohol would go away, under a radical proposed overhaul of the state’s byzantine booze laws that’s expected to be unveiled by a government-appointed task force Thursday.

The proposals include increasing the state’s excise taxes on beer, wine, and liquor by about 50 percent and banning discounts for package stores and bars for buying bulk quantities from wholesalers.  

 

If the measures are enacted, the companies could pass some or all of the new costs onto drinkers, while the state would reap tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue.

 

But the task force also recommends relaxing rules that annoy shoppers and businesses alike, saying that the state should abolish the limit on the number of alcohol licenses grocery store chains can hold, allow bars to accept out-of-state photo IDs, and permit brew pubs to sell beer through other retailers.

 

The group also proposed making it easier for business to obtain all-alcohol licenses while limiting the issuance of beer-and-wine-only permits. That could lead to more establishments that sell hard liquor, rather than just beer and wine.

While most of these measures would need approval from the Legislature, they nonetheless represent the most extensive official rethinking of alcohol rules in Massachusetts since many were put in place at the end of Prohibition in 1933.

“Massachusetts appears to be experiencing a moment of openness to reform of liquor licensing laws, and a rejection of the status quo in situations where the 1933 laws no longer make sense,” the task force said in its report, acknowledging the modest loosening of rules governing the sale and shipment of alcohol in the state made by the Legislature recently.

The task force was convened in January by State Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, who oversees alcohol regulations, following a series of scandals and controversies in the industry.

She gave the group free rein to design a “21st-century” system of regulation and appointed seven lawyers and state officials who have no connections to the alcohol business.

MEMA warns of impacts from 'potentially life-threatening wind chill temperatures'

Updated Dec 27, 2:11 PM; Posted Dec 27, 1:15 PM

 

 

By Kristin LaFratta

kristin.lafratta@masslive.com

It doesn't take an expert to know it's very, very cold in Massachusetts this week. But as many huddle inside during their holiday breaks, some experts are warning of potential impacts from the freezing cold weather outside.

Wednesday night will bring the meanest temperatures: communities north of the Massachusetts Turnpike will see temperatures drop below zero. Paired with wind chill, places like western Massachusetts could feel as cold as -15 to -25 degrees. The National Weather Service issued formal wind advisories across the state, beginning Wednesday evening into Thursday morning.

The Mass. Emergency Management Agency is warning residents to take extra caution both inside and outside of their homes as the bout of gusty cold takes over.

For those outside, MEMA warns "potentially life-threatening wind chill temperatures" could cause frostbite and hypothermia to those not properly dressed in layers, hats and gloves. If skin is left unprotected, the dangerous medical conditions can occur in as little as 30 minutes.

MEMA also alerts against improper use of space heaters or blowtorches on freezing pipes. The agency warns "alternative heating sources" can cause fires or carbon monoxide poisoning if mishandled.

A state public safety website explains the proper procedure for handling different heating methods like chimneys, furnaces and fuel stoves. For electronic space heaters, users are advised to "keep anything that can burn at least three feet away."

The freezing cold can also cause car failure, water main breaks, pipe bursts and power outages. Online, MEMA offers digital forecasting tools, extreme cold weather tips and a statewide power outage map.

Why we need pot research

• By Daniele Piomelli and Bob Solomon Los Angeles Times (TNS)
• Dec 26, 2017
•  
• An epidemic of opioid abuse is ravaging the United States and, as we look for ways to respond to it, some see cannabis as part of the solution, while others see it as part of the problem. This is just one area in which unbiased scientific research is necessary, but outdated federal legislation, having concluded almost 50 years ago that there is no medical value to cannabis, is blocking all meaningful efforts to understand the real benefits and risks of the plant.
  
  There are critical open questions about cannabis, and without research conducted under rigorous scientific standards, we will not find answers. If you think these questions don’t really matter in daily life, let’s look at three scenarios.
  
  Your friend is one of the 1,125,000 people in California who use medical cannabis. Before going to bed, he drinks a cannabis tea because it helps him go to sleep. The morning after, he feels well rested and doesn’t experience any aftereffects. But one day, as he is driving to work, the police stop him for a random blood THC test (this type of test is already in use in Colorado and may be adopted in California). Your friend turns out to be THC positive and loses his driver’s license, even though there is no correlation between blood THC levels and intoxication. A person can have detectable blood THC levels and be perfectly functional, or have undetectable levels and be impaired. We need research to develop objective, unbiased ways of measuring cannabis intoxication, or innocent people will end up paying for a crime they did not commit.
  
  Or let’s say your grandfather is convinced that cannabis is the only thing that helps him with his arthritis pain. He is not alone in believing this — cannabis use in persons over 50 has tripled in the last 10 years, a phenomenon primarily driven by self-medication for pain and sleep problems. You are happy for Grandpa, but then you notice that he has become more forgetful than he used to be. Is this a normal consequence of age, or a side effect of the drug? Will forgetfulness turn into memory impairment? We can’t answer this question now, because the effects of cannabis have never been studied in elderly people. Research shows that that in old mice, low doses of cannabis may actually improve memory — but what about in humans?
  
  One last example, which takes us back to the opioid crisis.
  

Rush to set up LLCs met with caution from top regulator The Lowell Sun Updated:   12/26/2017 04:22:26 PM EST By Andy Metzger STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE BOSTON -- Hoping to cash in on the new federal tax law, some Bay State workers have shown a growing interest in forming limited liability companies in time for the tax year that starts Monday, but a top state official is urging them to look before they LLC. The "key advantage" for small business owners under the new law passed by congressional Republicans is a provision enabling them to reduce the taxable portion of their "pass through" income by 20 percent, said David Johnson, the Massachusetts and Rhode Island chapter president of the National Association of Tax Professionals. That advantage might make it more lucrative for ride-hailing service drivers, hairdressers and artisans who previously did business on their own to register as an LLC. But Secretary of State William Galvin said there is some uncertainty about what lines of work will be eligible for the tax break. "If you're going to create it for the purpose of taxes you might want to do it this week, but there's no certainty of it. That's why I say we strongly recommend that people consult with their individual tax adviser before they make a strategic move," Galvin said. "But some people have concluded that it will help. We've had an increase in interest in forming LLCs." An opponent of the tax overhaul signed by President Donald Trump last week, Galvin acknowledged that it offers savings for entities that "pass through" income to the owner, such as LLCs, although he said there are some unanswered questions about what particular businesses can take advantage of that.

"People are seeking clarity," said Galvin. He said, "Accountants are working very hard this week answering questions from their clients."

Congressman Richard Neal, a Springfield Democrat and his party's ranking member on the House Committee on Ways and Means, is seeking clarity from the Internal Revenue Service about what occupations can take advantage of the tax savings, according to Galvin.

New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One

by Tyler Durden

Dec 27, 2017 7:41 AM

 

The Trump Administration quietly issued an Executive Order (EO) last Thursday which allows for the freezing of US-housed assets belonging to foreign individuals or entities deemed "serious human rights abusers," along with government officials and executives of foreign corporations (current or former) found to have engaged in corruption - which includes the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, and corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources. 

Furthermore, anyone in the United States who aids or participates in said corruption or human rights abuses by foreign parties is subject to frozen assets - along with any U.S. corporation who employs foreigners deemed to have engaged in corruption on behalf of the company.



In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. 


The EO, based on the 2016 Global Human Rights Accountability Act, immediately added 13 foreign individuals to a list of "Specially Designated Nationals" (SDN) maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) - several of whom have ties to the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, or Clinton associates (details below). Moreover, the Treasury Department sanctioned an additional 39 people,  for a total of 52 under the new order - including the son of Russia's prosecutor general.

The Order reads: 

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, such as those committed or directed by persons listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems.

Last Week's Executive Order could have serious implications for D.C. lobbyists who provide "goods and services" (e.g. lobbying services) to despots, corrupt foreign politicians or foreign organizations engaging in the crimes described in the EO. "Virtually every lobbyist in DC has got to be in a cold sweat over the scope of this EO," said an attorney consulted in the matter who wishes to remain anonymous.

And because the phrase "person" means "an individual or entity" in the order - any US organization which merely employs a foreigner engaging in the listed offenses is also subject to frozen assets. "Consider, what would happen if Apple, say employed a foreign national who bribed a PRC official for government approvals? How about a hypothetical case of a company like Northrop or Boeing where an employee, or consultant, who is a foreign national bribes a Saudi official to direct government purchases of airplanes and military equipment? At least some or all of their assets could be frozen."



Now consider that if reports from The Hill are accurate - an FBI mole deep within the Russian uranium industry uncovered evidence that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow (the Uranium One approval)” – a deal which would eventually grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America’s uranium supply right around the time Bill Clinton also collected $500,000 for a Moscow speech, as detailed by author Peter Schweitzer’s book Clinton Cash and the New York Times in 2015.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill

The same FBI informant claims to have video evidence showing Russian agents with briefcases full of bribe money related to the controversial Uranium One deal:

Whistleblower says she warned drugmaker of risks of taking antipsychotic Seroquel with methadone

 Sam Roe  Chicago Tribune

Few prescription drugs were as popular as the antipsychotic Seroquel. Psychiatrists trusted it, nursing homes used it and addiction specialists prescribed it. Annual sales exceeded $3 billion.
But in the winter of 2009, one of the top pharmaceutical sales representatives selling it, Allison Zayas, began to have her doubts.

According to Zayas, one of her best clients, a doctor at a New York City outpatient clinic, told her that a patient had died while taking the drug and that the combination of Seroquel and methadone might have played a role.

Soon after, Zayas recalled, two other doctors told her as many as 10 patients at New York methadone clinics had died taking Seroquel and methadone together. Zayas said she reported the deaths to her company, drugmaker AstraZeneca, but that it continued to aggressively market the blockbuster drug, even to methadone clinics.

"Their goal was to get in there and sell Seroquel," she told the Tribune in an interview. "It was not, 'Let's draw back. Let's take a look at the information.' It was, 'Get in there and sell.' Everything is sell, sell, sell."

Alarmed at the inaction, Zayas quit AstraZeneca and filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the firm, alleging it concealed the true cardiac risks of Seroquel when taken with certain other medications.
The suit, filed in 2010, is a rare example of an employee of a major pharmaceutical company bringing a whistleblower claim over dangerous drug combinations. A filing last month in federal court in Brooklyn states the parties have reached a settlement in principle; a status report is expected by Monday. Bloomberg reported on the suit and the possible settlement last week.

Drug interactions are a serious public health problem, hospitalizing tens of thousands each year. A Tribune investigation last year exposed how health care workers often fail to recognize drug interactions, prompting widespread safety changes at U.S. pharmacy chains.

Drugmakers also have a crucial role in protecting and informing the public. Zayas' suit claims AstraZeneca failed to do either.

Her suit claims the company withheld safety information from two U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panels and failed to alert patients, doctors and pharmacists about Seroquel's heart risks. The FDA declined comment for this story.

Zayas, a 46-year-old Manhattan resident, also claims AstraZeneca directed and incentivized its sales representatives to sell to doctors whom it knew prescribed Seroquel with methadone and other drugs that might trigger a dangerous reaction. Methadone is a powerful opioid that treats pain as well as addiction to narcotics.

"While others saw a crisis in the opioid epidemic, AstraZeneca cynically saw a financial opportunity," Zayas' attorney James Pepper said. "While others sent help, AstraZeneca sent sales representatives. Their job? To sell Seroquel to doctors who treated this very vulnerable patient population."

A spokeswoman for United Kingdom-based AstraZeneca said the firm disputes the lawsuit's allegations but declined to comment further.

In one court document, AstraZeneca said the 313-page whistleblower suit "is long on words, paragraphs and pages, but falls far short of stating a claim."

The drugmaker wrote that Zayas cites dozens of clinical studies and articles that purportedly support her opinion about the relationship between Seroquel and a potentially dangerous heart condition "while ignoring others that do not support her opinion." As a result, the suit "provides a convoluted, often contradictory recitation of the regulatory history regarding this issue."

Turbines blow hot, cold on financial benefits for local towns

 By Elaine Thompson
Telegram & Gazette Staff

Posted Dec 23, 2017 at 7:00 PM  

Updated Dec 23, 2017 at 10:05 PM

 

Massachusetts and other states are ramping up efforts to better harness wind as a bigger source of renewable, clean energy and the experience here has been generally favorable. Despite the demise of the Cape Wind project, much smaller wind turbine projects have generally proven to be a good investment.

However, in Central Massachusetts, Princeton is an exception. Residents there are not benefiting financially from the electricity generated from their $7 million wind turbine project.

In addition to not being able to use energy from the two 15 megawatt turbines installed on the side of Wachusett Mountain in 2010, ratepayers have to make up the nearly half-million-dollar annual project deficit.

Brian Allen, manager of the Princeton Municipal Light Department, said the failed project is the result of a “business plan that didn’t pan out the way it was supposed to.” He notes he was not manager at the time.

In 2006, when energy was selling at about $90 a megawatt, projections indicated that when the wind turbines went on line four years later, a megawatt of energy would sell for $100 to $115, he said.

 

But, right after the turbines were commissioned in 2010, the natural gas market took a dive. Instead of getting the projected price, the town receives $30 per megawatt.

Having a business plan that included an agreement with an organization that would buy electricity at a certain rate instead of market rate might have been a better way to go, Mr. Allen said.

The annual cost of the turbines, including paying down the 20-year $7.3 million bond and maintenance, is about $900,000.

“We recover $400,000 in energy we sell and renewable energy credits, which leaves us $500,000 in the hole every year. Since 2010, we’ve had to absorb this,” Mr. Allen said.

The shortfall is shared by the 1,500 residential customers, since the town has virtually has no commercial customers. The current rate is 24.75 cents per kilowatt hour. Without the turbines, it would be 19.75 cents per kw hour.

“In 2016, we would have had to get 28 cents a kw hour to break even. Nobody will pay us that because the market price people can buy energy is so low right now,” he continued.

He said the towns of Sterling and West Boylston buy 25 percent of the output at 8 cents per kw hour. The other 75 percent goes into the market.

The town buys all of its energy from Florida-based NextEra Energy, which owns the largest number of wind turbines in the country; 6,000 mw of solar energy, as well as the lion’s share of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire and the Florida Light and Power Co.

Mr. Allen said the project was too big for the town. It might have been better if the project was smaller, perhaps a smaller turbine, so the energy could all be used in town.

Mr. Allen said, to no avail, he reached out to the Patrick administration through state Sen. Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester, to try to get some financial assistance through the Clean Energy Technology Center and other means.

The state, he said, should be obligated to help the town because Princeton constructed the first wind turbines in the commonwealth in 1983. They were replaced by the two installed in 2009.

State officials at that time were excited because they saw this as an opportunity to pave the way for other communities and institutions to pursue wind energy, he said.

“That’s all well and good, but it hasn’t quite worked out the way we wanted it to,” he said. “Doesn’t the state have some obligation to push this along ... isn’t there some culpability on the state’s part?”　

Norad Santa Tracker

Norad Santa Tracker

 

How the GOP tax plan could impact Massachusetts taxpayers

Posted December 21, 2017 at 02:34 PM | 

Updated December 21, 2017 at 01:54 PM 

 

President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans this week touted the passage of a GOP tax overhaul plan as a "middle class miracle" that will provide needed tax relief to businesses and American families.

 

 

 

Democrats, however, have vocally opposed the bill and argued it would unduly benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation have further raised concerns about the bill's changes to deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and other provisions. 

Here's how the GOP tax bill could impact Massachusetts taxpayers:

Susan Walsh

 

New tax brackets and reduced rates for some

The GOP plan would maintain the same number of income tax brackets, but set the rates for those brackets at: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent and 37 percent -- resulting in a slight reduction for most filers.

The changes would take effect for the 2018 tax year, or taxes filed in April 2019. The tax rates would not apply to the tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.

In the 2017 tax year, brackets have been set at 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent. 

10 percent bracket

Under the GOP tax bill, single individuals earning up to $9,525 and joint filers earning up to $19,050 would fall into the 10 percent income tax bracket.

In 2017, single individuals earning up to $9,325 and joint filers with incomes up to $18,650 will be in the 10 percent bracket.

12 percent bracket

Single filers earning between $9,525 and $38,700 and joint filers earning between $19,050 and $77,400 would be in the 12 percent tax bracket.

In 2017, single filers earning between $9,325 and $37,950, and joint filers earning $18,650 to $75,900 fall into a 15 percent tax bracket. 

22 percent bracket

Single filers with annual incomes between $38,700 and $82,500 and joint filers with income between $77,400 and $165,000 would be in the 22 percent tax bracket.

In 2017, single filers earning between $37,950 and $91,900 and joint filers earning $75,900 to $153,100 fall into a 25 percent tax bracket.

24 percent bracket

Single filers earning between $82,500 and $157,500 and joint filers earning between $165,000 and $315,000 would fall in the 24 percent tax bracket.

In 2017, single filers earning $91,900 to $191,650 and joint filers with incomes between $153,100 and $233,350 fall into a 28 percent tax bracket. 

32 percent bracket

Single filers with annual incomes between $157,500 and $200,000 and joint filers with income between $315,000 and $400,000 would be in the 32 percent tax bracket.

In 2017, single filers earning $191,650 to $416,700 and joint filers with income between $233,350 and $416,700 fall into a 33 percent tax bracket.

35 percent bracket

Single filers earning between $200,000 and $500,000 and joint filers earning $400,000 to $600,000 would fall in the 35 percent tax bracket.

In 2017, single filers earning $416,700 to $418,400 and joint filers with income between $416,700 and $470,700 fall in the 35 percent tax bracket.

37 percent bracket

And, single filers earning more than $500,000 and joint filers earning more than $600,000 would be in the 37 percent tax bracket.

In 2017 tax year, the top tax rate was set at 39.6 percent for single filers earning above $418,400 and joint filers with incomes above $470,700   

Evan Vucci

 

Higher threshold for itemizing deductions

Fluoride Lawsuit Update

VICTORY: Judge denies EPA’s motion to dismiss our case!

 

Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | December 22, 2017

Yesterday afternoon, we received this exciting message from FAN’s Legal Advisor, Michael Connett, JD:

“Judge just handed down his ruling —
he has denied EPA’s motion to dismiss!”

A federal judge has ruled in our favor to allow FAN’s lawsuit against the EPA to move forward. This ruling was picked up by a prominent law website, which in turn has been picked up by Reuters. So the news is out:

WE ARE WINNING. The next phase will be discovery.

Above: a video interview with attorney Michael Connett about the lawsuit and yesterday’s decision. FAN will provide a full analysis from Michael early next week.

Timeline of Lawsuit Against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Below is a complete timeline of events leading up to yesterdays big win.

November 23, 2016: Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups, collectively known as the “Petitioners” (see *below), served the EPA with a Petition calling on the Agency to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to the risks these chemicals pose to the brain. The Petition was submitted under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) because it authorizes EPA to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations.

TSCA also gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

February 27, 2017: EPA denied the TSCA Section 21 Petition. Read their reasons here. In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

April 18, 2017: FAN et al.’s response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.


September 25, 2017: Motion to Dismiss FAN et al. Petition by the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA.

October 25, 2017: FAN et al. response to EPA’s rejection of Petition.

October 25, 2017: Amicus Curiae Brief of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party. Their brief against EPA’s basis to dismiss our section 21 Petition that FAN et al. focused on the unacceptable demand: “must evaluate all of a chemical’s conditions of use”

November 30, 2017: Hearing with arguments from both parties. Michael Connett, JD, put forward the arguments of why EPA’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

December 21, 2017: Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss.

Thank you,
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

Judge Declares Mistrial In Bundy Case, Says Government Willfully Withheld Evidence

by Tyler Durden

Dec 20, 2017 5:37 PM

n a shocking verdict, Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed jurors Wednesday, declaring a mistrial in the Bundy Ranch case saying U.S. prosecutors willfully withheld critical and "potentially exculpatory" evidence from the defense.

 "The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials.

Listen closely - we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that."

As AZCentral.com reports, Navarro cited five key pieces of information that prosecutors did not disclose: records about surveillance and snipers at the Bundy Ranch; unredacted FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days around the standoff; threat assessments about the Bundys dating to 2012; and internal affairs reports about the BLM.

Navarro methodically laid out her reasoning for about an hour, citing legal standards and case law, before delivering her ruling.

She said the evidence that was withheld could have been favorable to the accused and could have affected the outcome of the case.

Navarro stopped short of dismissing charges against the four men. It is unclear whether the case will be retried because Navarro did not rule whether the mistrial was with or without prejudice.



Navarro suspended the trial two weeks ago and warned of a potential mistrial after prosecutors for the first time disclosed several documents that appeared to support defense claims about the government's use of video surveillance and sniper teams during the standoff.

Prosecutors have long maintained the FBI was not involved in the standoff and that no video surveillance or sniper teams were used. They charged defendants with making false claims about snipers and videos to incite militia in the runup to the standoff.

*  *  *

She has set another hearing for January and has tentatively scheduled a new trial to begin Feb. 26.

Winter Weather

Holiday Open House - TODAY

Dunkin' beer? Wormtown Brewery and Dunkin' Donuts team up to make limited-edition coffee stout

Updated Dec 18; Posted Dec 18

By Melissa Hanson

mhanson@masslive.com

To celebrate the darkest day of the year, Worcester's Wormtown Brewery is unleashing a special edition beer with the extra kick of Dunkin' Donuts Dark Roast beans.

When the winter solstice strikes at 11:28 a.m. Thursday, Wormtown and Dunkin' Donuts will host a ceremonial keg tapping event to launch DDark Roasted Brew.

The brew is described as a "decadent stout-style beer" that features a full-roasted coffee flavor, according to a news release.

"Worcester is home to one of the first Dunkin' Donuts restaurants so we know how much residents love the brand and our coffee," said Rob Branca, a local Dunkin' Donuts franchise owner in Worcester. "This partnership with Wormtown continues to drive innovation in Worcester and we are excited to brew up something extra bold to help our loyal guests to celebrate the darkest day of the year."

DDark Roasted Brew is the first beer to be brewed with Dunkin' Donuts Dark Roast beans. It will be available on draft at Wormtown Brewery's Tap Room starting at the winter solstice.( December 21)

Wormtown and Branca will also donate $11,500 to the Worcester Food Bank to celebrate the release of the special brew.

"We couldn't be more excited to partner with Dunkin' Donuts on our latest beer," said Scott Drake, the head brewer at Wormtown. "We're confident this beer is going to be an instant favorite for New Englanders this holiday season, and the fact that we're able to give back to Worcester-area families through this partnership just makes it that much better."

Present calm on Massachusetts budget front may be short lived

 By Michael P. Norton, State House News Service

Posted Dec 18, 2017 at 6:43 PM  

Updated Dec 18, 2017 at 6:43 PM

BOSTON - Despite collecting more than $200 million in unanticipated tax revenue since July 1, the state budget is precariously balanced due to budget veto overrides carried out by the Legislature, underfunded spending accounts and disagreement over Gov. Charlie Baker’s MassHealth savings proposal, according to a new mid-fiscal year analysis.

The fiscal 2018 budget is in “slightly better shape” than it has been in the last few years, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Revenue estimates are holding up, and for the first time since fiscal 2014 were not downgraded after the first quarter. Baker has also not made unilateral spending cuts, as he has in recent years, although he threatened this year to take steps if lawmakers didn’t adopt his MassHealth reform proposal -- they didn’t. A Baker declaration in October that he’s putting earmarked spending on hold indefinitely has led to tension between the Corner Office and the Legislature.

Looking beyond the next election cycle, and to the budget picture awaiting whoever is elected governor in November 2018, the MTF brief says budget talks that will get underway a year from now could be “chaotic” due to the outcome of sales and income tax ballot questions, impacts of a federal tax reform package up for votes this week, and new revenue from casinos and legal marijuana. “Sizable revenue swings” are possible, depending on how things play out.

The business-backed MTF, over the years, has become known for its sobering assessments of budget conditions that elected officials often portray in mostly positive terms. Its assessment of the $39.4 billion fiscal 2018 budget sticks to that theme, outlining issues to watch for in the coming months.

• UNDERFUNDED ACCOUNTS - While noting a revenue surplus is not assured, MTF says that if one holds up the money will be needed to cover known spending needs not adequately funded in the budget signed by Baker in July. They include indigent legal defense costs, expected snow removal bills, and costs tied to family homelessness. Baker’s MassHealth reform plan, rejected over the summer by the Legislature, had been counted upon for $85 million in savings.

• REVENUE TRENDS - Tax collections tailed off in the second half of the most recent fiscal years, the January to June stretch that is approaching again. The MTF brief warns it would be “dangerous” and a “mistake” to assume the trend over the first five months of the fiscal year will hold through the remainder, with the state’s three largest collection months coming up -- January, April and June.

After critical audit, Webster to drop town accountant

By Brian Lee
Telegram & Gazette Staff

Posted Dec 18, 2017 at 10:32 PM  

Updated Dec 19, 2017 at 6:36 AM

 

WEBSTER – On the recommendation of Town Administrator Douglas C. Willardson, selectmen voted 4-1 Monday not to renew Town Accountant Pamela Leduc’s contract when it expires in July.
Ms. Leduc, who has served in the job since 2000, will be placed on paid administrative leave until her contract ends.

She hugged various town employees after the board took its vote.

Earlier in the meeting, Marsha Bohinc and Mary Jane Handy from the state Department of Revenue reiterated fiscal management concerns that were first addressed in an audit by Roselli, Clark & Associates of Woburn.

The new DOR report to selectmen said Webster needed to address longstanding deficiencies in financial management practices. The town suffers from an inability or unwillingness to fulfill fundamental responsibilities including the obligations to clear tax titles, reconcile cash and receivables, implement checks and balances and submit required reports to the DOR’s Division of Local Services on a timely basis, the report said. Many of those shortcomings persist today, and some have been exacerbated by turnover, lack of political will, and inadequate formal authority to hold staff accountable, the report said.

Mr. Willardson said he recommended Ms. Leduc not be retained, in part, because of an issue with the town’s recently completed $43 million elementary school project.

The town hadn’t borrowed a $4.4 million portion when those funds were made available at a previous town meeting. Instead, it paid out of its general fund, resulting in cash flow issues and a “free cash” certification for fiscal 2015 that ran at negative $4.1 million. That amount is now taxable, and over the life of the bond, will cost taxpayers roughly $800,000, the administrator said.

Also, according to Mr. Willardson, Ms. Leduc hadn’t set enough money aside for the town’s portion of health insurance. It resulted in a more than $750,000 overall deficit. The town is taking steps to no longer serve as a self-insurer.

HIV spike among drug users worries health officials

• By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter
• Dec 17, 2017

BOSTON — Health officials are alarmed about a recent spike in the virus that causes AIDS among some drug users, warning that the opioid crisis threatens to undo hard-fought gains in reducing the number of HIV and AIDS cases in the state.

From Jan. 1 to Nov. 21, there were 64 new cases of the human immunodeficiency virus among individuals who inject drugs, representing 14 percent of all HIV cases reported this year, according to the state Department of Public Health.

In previous years, the percentage has ranged from 4 to 8 percent.

"It's very worrisome, and we're trying to get the word out," said Dr. Alfred DeMaria, medical director for the department’s Bureau of Infectious Disease Prevention. "Basically all the other risk categories for HIV infections have been on a downward trend, while this category is going up."

DeMaria said state officials are investigating the uptick and have issued a rare clinical advisory to health care providers and local boards of health.

The increase comes after years of overall declining HIV infections, largely attributed to the success of public health campaigns and needle exchange programs.

From 2000 to 2015, the number of new HIV diagnoses declined 47 percent, from 1,191 to 629, according to the latest data from the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.