CookieG

Nice post. 2 things that really stick out from the decision, in my mind: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opini...OpinionId=81309 first, " Generally, if a witness has testified to material, inculpatory facts against a defendant and, after the verdict but before a motion for new trial has been ruled upon, the witness makes an affidavit that he testified falsely, a new trial should be granted. In our case, Dr. Dietz did not make an affidavit that he testified falsely. However,because the State stipulated that Dr. Dietz would testify that his testimony was in error, thereis no credibility issue requiring an affidavit. See Dougherty v. State, 745 S.W.2d 107, 107(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988), aff’d, 773 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (stating thatState was bound by its stipulation). Close Williams v. State, 375 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). The exceptions to this rule—such as, when the recanting witness is an accomplice, or the recantation is found to be incredible in light of the evidence, or the recantation has been coerced—do not apply in the present case. See Villarreal v. State, 788 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (applying general rule to determine that, because State offered no evidence to controvert recantation or testimony, denial of motion for new trial was abuse of discretion). We note that this rule does not require that the State have knowledge that the testimony was false. We review the record to determine whether the State used the false testimony and, if so, whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. See Ramirez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 386, 394-95 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d). second "Five mental health experts testified that appellant did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. Dr. Dietz was the only mental health expert who testified that appellant knew right from wrong. Therefore, his testimony was critical to establish the State’s case. Although the record does not show that Dr. Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion. On the other hand, had the jury known prior to their deliberations in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, that Dr. Dietz’s testimony regarding the “Law & Order” episodewas false, the jury would likely have considered him, the State’s only mental health expert,to be less credible. "

And in still other news, the Kansas Board of Education again reconsiders its science standards. Back to the 1999, "de-empahasis" of evolution stuff? Dorothy's lesson plan

...

There really isn't one statute that provides for the imposition, requirement and payment of income tax, its done through several code provisions: For example, 26 U.S.C. sec. 1 imposes the tax for individuals, based on filing status: " (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" etc. etc for Head of Household, individuals, and married filing separely. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C1.txt 26 U.S.C. sec. 6012 specifies who must file returns; 26 U.S.C. sec. 6011 specifies that the form of return is to be established by the Secretary and that the taxpayer shall supply the nformation required on the forms; 26 U.S.C. sec. 6072 specifies when returns are due; There are separate code provisions for the computation of tax, when it is due, where it is due, punitive provisions for failing to file or pay, etc. The obligation itself comes from Sec. 1 however, that is thet imposition of tax provision (for individuals.).

It might have been true that the Bill of Rights at one time protected the individual from abuses by the Federal government only, the 14th Amendment changed things. With its due process clause and especially its equal protection clause, the protections afforded the individual against the federal government were then applied against state intrusions. Additionally, when you say, that the constitution was intended to spell out the precise and narrow limits of federal power, I only agree to a certain extent. There are a number of clauses contained in the Constitutiion and its amendments that are inherently vague. Prime examples are the ability of Congress to "regluate commerce among the States", "unreasonable searches and seizures", "due process of law" and even "equal protection of law" None of these clauses are precise, perhaps intentionally so. An argument that these clauses should be strictly construed begs the question...why? The founding fathers, as well as any subsequent Congress could have further defined these vague clauses through constitutional amendment but have not done so. Thus, they must be judicially defined, and that definition may change or may be applied differently over time as circumstances may require. For instance, as bright as our founding fathers were, do you think they could have envisioned a world with super secret electronic eavesdropping. As such, a definition of what constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure" may necessarily be changed, or at least revisited.

Under sec. 2056 of the IRC, a spouse has an unlimited deduction for estate tax purposes, provided the spouse is a US citizen and the property is transfered to the spouse. (exceptions apply is the property is not transferred outright) It matters little right now, as the federal government does not recognise a gay marriage for tax purposes, Social Security purposes, etc.

There are alot of auto parts stores that will do free alternator testing. If you don't know how to do it yourself, take it to one of them. If the car died at a light, while it had been running, it very well could be the alt. as well as a bad or loose belt. Good luck