"Commonsense criminal justice reform”

Red VanWinkle

December 26 at 12:59pm

As we near Kentucky’s 2015 Legislative session. I would like to bring special attention to a topic of our KY Legislators. There is so many topics for our Legislators to consider during the annual session, it would be hard to not miss something here or there. So to be sure the tax dollars spent to obtain this information, isn’t being missed, I will be giving a friendly tag to several KY legislators on this post.

Please feel free to thank our Legislators for their up coming hard work. I would also encourage every Kentuckian to share this post, and/or tag as many KY legislators as possible in the comments.

This post topic will be on the current Legislative topic of, "Commonsense criminal justice reform". Closely related to the 2011 enacted KY HB 463.

The Kentucky Criminal Justice Council met September 17, 2014 at the Justice Cabinet in Frankfort, KY.
The following agencies made presentations at the meeting detailing the impact of the 2011 KY HB 463 on their respective areas:
•Department of Corrections
•Department of Public Advocacy
•Administrative Office of the Courts
•Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
•Kentucky Commonwealth’s Attorneys Association

Public Advocate Ed Monahan, who serves on the Council, presented 10 ways to reduce waste in Kentucky’s criminal justice system and reduce costs for counties and the state: to be associated with 2011 KY HB 463.
The 10 recommendations was:

1.Reclassifying minor misdemeanors to violations
2.Creating "gross misdemeanor" classification for low level felonies
3.Promoting employment/reducing recidivism by creating Class D felony expungement
4.Reducing days in the county jail by creating "clear and convincing" standard for the pretrial release decision
5.Modifying violent offender and PFO statutes
6.Presuming parole for eligible low-risk offenders
7.Providing alternative sentencing plans for flagrant non-support instead of imprisonment for felony
8.Creating alternatives to incarceration
9.Increase the felony theft limit from $500 to $2,000
10.Reducing waste by limiting capital prosecutions.

I would like to reference the first of these recommendations to: Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy’s, letter to Subcommittee on the Penal Code and Controlled Substances Act, last updated on the state’s website 3/6/2012.
The section where Chapter 218A (i.e. Kentucky Drug Laws) should be Rewritten to Reflect Modern Drug Realities.

The section states;
"KRS Chapter 218A, the Controlled Substances Act, was originally passed as law in 1972, prior to the current Kentucky Penal Code, KRS Chapters 500 to 534. Many of its criminal statutes have been added or amended since its creation, but no comprehensive reform has been approved in almost 4 decades. Almost all of the amendments or additions have resulted in longer sentences for a greater variety of drug activity and the time has come to review the Chapter as a whole to see if it reflects current societal desires for the criminal prosecution of drug activity. Upon review, many provisions should be changed or removed."
Then the letter presents a list of researched recommendations.

With the second of those recommendations(labeled "B") stating;
" Reduce possession of marijuana to a violation, punishable by fine only"

Marijuana possession is the lowest KY criminal misdemeanor, then shouldn’t it be lowered to a violation only? .Reclassifying minor misdemeanors to being only violations, was the number one recommendation made by Public Advocate Ed Monahan, who serves on the Council, during the Kentucky Criminal Justice Council meeting, Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at the Justice Cabinet in Frankfort, KY.

With the 2011 KY HB 463, Marijuana possession was lowered with a max of 45 day’s in jail, and/or a $250 max fine. With provisions, that an officer does not have to arrest the person on the spot, if the officer feels the person will show up for court, and there are no other charges/issues.

The reasons behind all this discussion may surprise people. The facts are: the KY total crime rate between 1985-2012 has decreased 6%, with the violent crime rate dropping 27%. Yet the KY incarceration rate has increased by a shocking 281%. These numbers is accredited to research done by The Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. Which was published in their publication "The Advocate" dated March 2014.

The KY laws need to be updated to the current era.
One of the topics being discussed is raising the felony theft amount. I had seen where this was explained . The explanation included this: A person who steals an ipad, needs to be punished, but 5 to 10 years incarceration is way to much. So yes the felony theft amount should be raised to meet current inflation. As many other states have done. Kentucky needs to do a little catching up.
The same logic should apply to a person convicted of Marijuana possession. A victimless act should not carry jail time.

Many other states, including Washington D.C., only imposes a non criminal fine for simple Marijuana possession. While even more states, have Medical Marijuana/Regulated recreational use legalized. This posses an unjust hardship on Kentucky citizens, and their communities.

By keeping Marijuana possession a criminal charge, we are creating a criminal lifestyle for many of the offenders convicted of simple Marijuana possession. This over penalty creates criminals, out of otherwise law abiding citizens.Just as what was happing during the Alcohol prohibition.

In the same "March 2014 edition of The Advocate publication", the article states "There is a safe, less costly way forward".

We can’t afford to stay on the current path. We are spending about $46 per day per inmate.
For instance, if 5000 people serve just 10 days of the 45 day max for Marijuana possession, the cost is an estimated about $2,300,000. Just not worth the cost. Yet, if KY enacts the payable violation option(which has been recommended by the Kentucky Department of Advocacy), there would be a positive revenue. Revenue that could be earmarked for Drug prevention/education, and Law Enforcement.

I personally feel as one Rep stated on the house floor during the passage of the 2011 KY HB 463. This was a great step, and I too look forward to this second part of this measure to correct the current issues at hand.

A criminal possession of Marijuana conviction devastates a person’s ability to get a job and meet their obligations; a victimless act should not carry this life sentence. I truly hope everyone can see this issue, and react to correct the unjust burden placed on Kentuckians, and their communities.

I tagged the Legislator in my original post, on my profile page

Thank you all for your continued support ,’-) Aihooooo

Commonwealth of Kentucky and Macquarie use someone else's Intellectual Property for a $300 Million dollar project?

It seems that when you have a great idea it’s OK for a large State and Corporation to plunder from the Little Guy. This is exactly what is happening with the State of Kentucky and the Macquarie Group.

As many of you are well aware, I’ve put a tremendous amount of time and energy in evangelizing about the Public Private Partnership model (now trademarked as the Myers Model™). My model was developed with over 25 years of experience and most specifically outlined within my publications for the last 10 years. My model is also the only model that can fund the entire program of Broadband. Well, it seems there are those out in the market that believe they can capitalize on someone else’s ideas and claim them as their own.

Now there are many of you who would think I would be very upset – well I am – but I chose a different tactic a long time ago. I’ve been prepared for this situation since day one of this venture. I figure there was going to be one of two paths in the road ahead: 1. A State taking a moral and ethical route of incorporating the ideas then developing them for their needs with proper compensation and accreditation, or; 2. Using the trade secrets and Intellectual Property of someone else then trying to pass it off as their own design even if its against Trade Secrets and Copyright — which by the way being that these Intellectual Property Rights are covered and protected under a Federal Administration and Legislation would make this a Federal Crime. I’m afraid the Governor of Kentucky may have been undermined by his own Staff who found it necessary to plagiarize the material I’ve been presenting to them since 2012 as the justification to augment an RFP for fiber broadband.

Did anybody wonder why the State issued two RFPs for this project in 2014? The first one for the traditional taxpayer funded bond-grants procurement of a fiber optic network. The second, made in haste and a day later, was an RFP asking for a Private Investment entity to bid on the overall program as a Build Operate Transfer contract, of which Sterne Agee won. Then all of a sudden the first RFP states it will be a Public Private Partnership, which included the requirements from the second RFP. The fact is the only reason the State produced these two RFPs was because of the model and the solution I presented to them, over the course of the last two years, was the only viable way they could avoid the complication of further taxation.

I do have one question though, if that’s the case why would the Finance Department Head, a Cabinet Level Appointee of the Governor, feel its necessary to spend the $30 Million in taxpayer money anyway? Seems odd to go with a bid that still has the taxpayer funding parts of the bid; when the alternative was no taxpayer money at all…doesn’t it? The reason being is that the State wants to spend the $30 Million of taxpayer money to maintain their own control. There is only one problem… the State is partnering with a foreign company to which, being that they can’t use taxpayer money for investment purposes, means they have no way of a controlling interest. Only the investors will – a foreign company called Macquarie — which the State cannot be considered as an investor of taxpayer money. Now there is nothing against the Australians, actually you can’t ask for a better partner, but the Australians have even more stringent legal ramifications of protecting Intellectual Property than the US. It’s not totally against the law when a foreign company is holistically making the investment and funding its own operation. The issue is using taxpayer money for government funding, government right-of-ways, government frequencies, and essential Government run Public Safety Services, especially when it’s a protected National Asset. It may be just me but we may have a few sticky points to address, if not all together red flags… but who am I. But I digress…

The secret to my chosen path is the exposure of my material. Since day one I could have tried to hide, and keep secret, my ideas and material, but what good would that be for just a simple American Citizen who doesn’t have the means to market nor protect such valuable materials, especially against such endowed giants within the industry. I am the definition of the “Little Guy”. I am a disadvantaged Veteran with Disability Owned Small Business of one employee — myself. With that in mind I chose an alternative plan. My plan is to use the politics and the exposure of social media and the open market of information as my protection – essentially hiding in plain site. Imagine all the witnesses you can call to court proceedings to vouch about your work. Imagine all the documentation that is readily available for the courts to digest in its ownership and property rights analysis. Imagine the dichotomy of intellectual and empirical works of knowledge associated with said works; let alone the only published dissertation on the topic in the entire Nation – if not the world. If you need to understand further, then let me recap on the use of Intellectual Property Laws.

“Intellectual property (IP) is a legal term that refers to creations of the mind. Under intellectual property laws, owners of intellectual property are granted certain exclusive rights. Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are copyright, patents, and industrial design rights; and the rights that protect trademarks, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets. Intellectual property rights are themselves a form of property, called intangible property.” (Ref Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_(film))

“Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some ‘skill, labor, and judgment’ that has gone into it.[22]

Copyright law recognizes the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an original creation, rather than based on whether it is unique.” (See References below)

The fact is, starting back in 2003, was when I first started scripting and developing this model and its application to the telecommunications market – thus the name “Advancing Telecom” for my business which became an official LLC in 2007. Given the nature and complexity of building broadband is why I chose this topic. But at the time it was focused on delivering broadband to all vertical industries, not just Public Safety. When FirstNet came along I kicked the model into gear and started talking about my idea to everyone of which it then caught fire.

I had my first meeting, with my first State (Texas), in December of 2011, even before the Public Safety Broadband Network was ratified and created. I even solicited a proposal to the State for the Public Private Partnership model to build the State’s Public Safety Broadband Network prior to FirstNet. Texas law states that any Proposal to the State, in a Public Private Partnership fashion, the State has to consider its application and if the proposal creates more opportunity and income for the State and it’s taxpayers, above and beyond what the State can produce on its own, then the State has to adopt it. This was the basis for my initial meeting with the State in December of 2011. Believe me I am watching that submittal very closely.

Following my presentation with the State I thought that the idea would be best applied if I opened
it up to more potential users. It was then that I decided, using my own money and time, to present the model to multiple States. My plan was a multi-prong approach of social media (my blog – which has almost 50K followers and readers), attending conference, State meetings and presentations, as well authoring a book and more than 280 articles and publications. I even capitalized on a paid consulting assignment to develop the model for the Electric Cooperatives in Oklahoma, which was a great success.

Since that original roadshow I’ve now met with more than 30+ States and have presented the material to all of them, whether through their appointed SWICs, State CIOs, DHS, Rural Electric Coops, Investor Owned Utilities, Governors, or Lt Governors and of course my attending an assortment of conferences. In one conference alone, hosted by the State of Ohio, I had twelve States show up in one meeting. I’ve also presented the material, and spoken with, the leadership of the FirstNet Board and the FirstNet organization on a number of occasions – to include people within the Department of Commerce, the NTIA and DHS directly.

The point I’m making is that I’ve been tied to this material for a long time. The only reason the State of Kentucky, and the Macquarie Group, are touting “Public Private Partnership” and “it’s something that’s never been done before” and “it’s the first time of inviting Private Equity into such a mix” is all based on my direct Intellectual Property…. plain and simple. I ask this; why is it that a State like Kentucky and a large multi-billion dollar corporation like Macquarie find it necessary to take out the Little Guy in the deal other than insatiability?

My licensing fees and equity stake are trivial to the overall funding of the program and revenue creation. Why risk a $300+ Million dollar program by plagiarizing someone else’s Intellectual Property? To me that’s like getting 20 years in the slammer for stealing a .50 cent candy bar. Was it worth it? Why put the taxpayers in such a position? It takes a lot of guts for someone to put the State’s plan in jeopardy, let alone their own career, the ethical reputation of a standing Governor, and the entire character of the entire State Government for such a small gesture.

The State’s program is at risk of being delayed in the courts, of which, only taxpayers are the ones to lose in the end — yet again. Is it worth it? How do you think the Grand Jury will look at these two large organizations trying to conquer this lonely Little Guy — let alone a Veteran with Disability Owned Small Business — who is just trying to make an honest living? A lot of people don’t realize that in an Intellectual Property dispute the risk is that the Intellectual Property Holder could end up owning the entire program if the Jury decides in his favor. Penalties alone run a minimum of 25% of the total value in the program, let alone the entire programs revenue stream would be diverted to the Intellectual Property Holder. Plus, don’t forget such actions are open to Federal Prosecution, so someone may end up going to Federal Prison for it. Is it worth it?

It really is that simple…. is it worth it?

My suggestion, settle the issue before things get out of hand. But then again who am I other than….

Just some guy and a blog….

1. Copyright, University of California, 2014, retrieved 2014-12-15

2. 17 U.S.C. § 106, United States of America, 2011, retrieved 2014-12-15

3. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

4. "International Copyright Law Survey". Mincov Law Corporation.

5. Boyle, James (1996). Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Harvard University Press. p. 142.ISBN 0-674-80522-4.

6. Copyright in Historical Perspective, p. 136-137, Patterson, 1968, Vanderbilt Univ. Press

7. "Statute of Anne". Copyrighthistory.com. Retrieved 2012-06-08.

8. Bettig, Ronald V. (1996). Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. Westview Press. p. 9–17. ISBN 0-8133-1385-6.

9. Ronan, Deazley (2006). Rethinking copyright: history, theory, language. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-84542-282-0.

10. Pelanda, Brian. Declarations of Cultural Independence: The Nationalistic Imperative Behind the Passage of Early American Copyright Laws, 1783–1787 58 Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 431 (2011).

11. About Stephan Kinsella  (174 Posts) (2011-12-01). "Thomas Jefferson’s Proposal to Limit the Length of Patent and Copyright in the Bill of Rights". Libertarianstandard.com. Retrieved 2012-06-08.

12. "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Article 5". World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved 2011-11-18.

13. Garfinkle, Ann M; Fries, Janet; Lopez, Daniel; Possessky, Laura (1997). "Art conservation and the legal obligation to preserve artistic intent". JAIC 36 (2): 165–179.

14. International Copyright Relations of the United States", U.S. Copyright Office Circular No. 38a, August 2003.

15. Parties to the Geneva Act of the Universal Copyright Convention[dead link]as of 2000-01-01: the dates given in the document are dates of ratification, not dates of coming into force. The Geneva Act came into force on September 16, 1955, for the first twelve to have ratified (which included four non-members of the Berne Union as required by Art. 9.1), or three months after ratification for other countries.

16. 165 Parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as of May 2012.

17. MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde and Graeme T Laurie (2007).Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4.

18. Peter K, Yu (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 346.ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8.

19. World Intellectual Property Organization. "Understanding Copyright and Related Rights" (PDF). WIPO. p. 8. Retrieved August 2008.

20. Simon, Stokes (2001). Art and copyright. Hart Publishing. pp. 48–49.ISBN 978-1-84113-225-9.

21. (2012) Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short PhrasesU.S. Copyright Office

22. Express Newspaper Plc v News (UK) Plc, F.S.R. 36 (1991)

23. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)

24. Copyright Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94–553, 90 Stat. 2541, § 401(a) (October 19, 1976)

25. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (BCIA), Pub.L. 100–568, 102 Stat. 2853, 2857. One of the changes introduced by the BCIA was to section 401, which governs copyright notices on published copies, specifying that notices "may be placed on" such copies; prior to the BCIA, the statute read that notices "shall be placed on all" such copies. An analogous change was made in section 402, dealing with copyright notices on phonorecords.

26. "U.S. Copyright Office – Information Circular" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-07.

27. 17 U.S.C.§ 401(d)

28. Copyright in General – "I’ve heard about a ‘poor man’s copyright.’ What is it?", U.S Copyright Office

29. "Copyright Registers", United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office

30. "Automatic right", United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office

31. Peter K, Yu (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 346. ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8.

32. Tom G. Palmer, "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified?" Accessed February 5, 2013.

33. "U.S Copyright Office – Copyright Law: Chapter 1". Retrieved 2012-06-27.

34. "US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". .law.cornell.edu. 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2009-06-16.

35. Copyright Law of the USA, Chapter 1 Section 121

36. Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 (England)

37. ^ Jump up to:a b WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2004. p. 15. ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.

38. WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2004. p. 8. ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.

39. WIPO Guide on the Licensing of Copyright and Related Rights. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2004. p. 16. ISBN 978-92-805-1271-7.

40. ^ Jump up to:a b Creative Commons Website http://creativecommons.org/ retrieved October 24, 2011.

41. ^ Jump up to:a b Rubin, R. E. (2010) ‘Foundations of Library and Information Science: Third Edition’, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 341

42. 17 U.S.C. § 305

43. The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, part II, Amendments of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

44. Nimmer, David (2003). Copyright: Sacred Text, Technology, and the DMCA. Kluwer Law International. p. 63. ISBN 978-90-411-8876-2.OCLC 50606064.

45. "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States.", Cornell University.

46. See Peter B. Hirtle, "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2014" online at footnote 8

47. Lawrence Lessig, Copyright’s First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001)

48. "Stanford Center for Internet and Society". Web.archive.org. Archived fromthe original on 2006-10-27. Retrieved 2010-05-08.

49. Owen, L. (2001). "Piracy".
Learned Publishing 14: 67–70.doi:10.1087/09531510125100313. edit

50. Butler, S. Piracy Losses "Billboard" 199(36)

51. "Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internet: Der bestehende rechtliche Rahmen genügt". Ejpd.admin.ch.

52. Tobias Kretschmer & Christian Peukert (2014). [Abstract PDF "Video Killed the Radio Star? Online Music Videos and Digital Music Sales"]. Social Science Electronic Publishing. ISSN 2042-2695.





Ky. medical marijuana doubtful despite support

Gregory A. Hall, [email protected] 11:39 a.m. EST December 26, 2014

FRANKFORT, Ky. – House Speaker Greg Stumbo says he will file a bill in the upcoming General Assembly session to allow medical marijuana though he concedes its chances are uncertain.

The outright opposition to medical marijuana once seen among legislators has softened, though many still don’t seem comfortable enough with the policy shift to commit to voting for it.

"I think it’s going to get some play this session; I don’t know how much," the Prestonsburg Democrat said.

Medical marijuana once was a fringe issue with no chance, but other states’ approvals have brought it increasingly into the mainstream and, in recent years and months, the issue has received no shortage of attention in Kentucky.


Medical marijuana debated in Kentucky for PTSD

Kentuckians expressed support for medical marijuana in Bluegrass Polls the last two years. Legislators unanimously approved a bill in the last session that allows marijuana oil to be used to treat seizures. Two bills to allow broader medical marijuana use died, including a House bill that was voted out of its Health and Welfare Committee before being sent to the Judiciary Committee where it died.

Since then, the issue has been discussed in at least three hearings by a legislative committee.

At one of those in November, Jaime Montalvo, the founder and president of Kentuckians for Medical Marijuana, told the Joint Licensing and Occupations committee about the need for a law that would let him treat his multiple sclerosis as people in 23 states and the District of Columbia, where the plant can be used medically.

"This is for people who are really sick and need safe access to something that has been found to be therapeutically effective in treating their pain or other issues," he said.

RELATED | Medical marijuana advocates plead with lawmakers

RELATED | Heroin, dating abuse back before Ky legislature

Stumbo said he’s moved by the stories of people in his own district.

"I think it’s one of those issues … that the more people learn about it, the less they fear it," Stumbo said. "… I don’t believe that this is opening the flood gates. I believe the stories of the families that I hear from because I know them. They’re reputable people."

But other legislators, while saying they’re open to the concept, cite other problems.

Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, said he would want any legal medical marijuana dispensed through pharmacies — if that’s even possible — rather than the "compassion centers" advocated by Montalvo’s group. Buford also suggested legislators can’t resolve the issue if the state attorney general, the Kentucky State Police or federal officials don’t cooperate.

"I don’t know that we can do much for you," Buford told Montalvo at the November hearing. "I’m not opposed to what you want to do, but I think you’ve got … bigger minds to change than ours to move forward in this situation."

Montalvo and other supporters of medicinal use of the plant say it can treat a range of ailments or their symptoms — including cancer-related nausea, pain and glaucoma — without the side effects of existing medications.

One of the uses is for post-traumatic stress disorder, although clinical and psychiatric experts from the Louisville Veterans Affairs Medical Center cautioned lawmakers in July over a lack of controlled drug trials and clinical evidence for treating PTSD patients with marijuana — despite anecdotal evidence.

Similarly, critics of medical marijuana say generally that medical use is not supported by scientific evidence and ultimately leads to recreational abuse and illegal trafficking under the guise of medicine.

But Montalvo cites a study published this summer in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Internal Medicine publication that found increases in opioid deaths were about 25 percent less than expected in states with legal medical marijuana than states where it’s illegal.

Four states allow recreational use.

Almost a dozen have passed legislation for marijuana oil, also known as CBD, although narcotics laws have rendered ineffective most of those — including Kentucky’s, Montalvo said.

The system endorsed by Montalvo’s group would establish a regulated three-tier system, similar to the alcoholic beverage system that prevents one group from having too much control, that separates users, distributors and growers.

"There is a accountability at every angle," he said.

Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said he’s sympathetic to the cause but might have an easier time supporting a narrower bill that, for example, only allowed digestible forms of marijuana. He also said he’s concerned that some of the conditions eligible for treatment could be faked to get marijuana.

Stumbo’s concept would require a prescription, reporting to a database for law enforcement that tracks narcotic prescriptions and any participating physician to go through a certification course. He doesn’t believe the federal government would stand in the way — given the fact it hasn’t intervened in other states.

Besides Stumbo’s expected bill, Sen. Perry Clark, D-Louisville, has filed a bill for the upcoming session to allow medical marijuana use as he has the last three years. Clark has said repeatedly that he believes science supports his position that marijuana is medicine but his medical marijuana bills have never moved in the Republican-majority Senate.

Senate President Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, said he’d like to see scientific studies that show medical marijuana has a definite medical value.

"I want something that is research-based that says there is therapeutic value," he said.

Stivers said no Republican member has said they want to vote on medical marijuana.

The marijuana oil measure passed because it had empirical evidence of therapeutic impact, Stivers said, "and until that happens (with medical marijuana) in a similar vein, I can’t see me or the Senate taking it up."

The greatest chance for success would be in the Democratic-majority House, where its Health and Welfare Committee approved the bill last year.

The chairman of that committee, Rep. Tom Burch, D-Buechel, reiterated his support at the November Licensing and Occupations meeting.

"I think this is something that has passed in so many states now that Kentucky has really got to move ahead, do it and take care of people who actually need this particular drug," Burch said. "It does do the job. So I hope that we would look favorably this time on that legislation because I think it’s necessary, and I think it’ll give a lot of help to people who really need it."

Whether it’s the coming session, Stumbo said he believes medical marijuana will be approved in Kentucky eventually.

"Its time will come," he said, adding he doesn’t believe "anybody in the legislature would want to see somebody denied something that would help them in the circumstances that a lot of these people find themselves in."

Reporter Gregory A. Hall can be reached at (502) 582-4087. Follow him on Twitter at @gregoryahall.


Kentucky awards contract to improve Internet

Adam Beam, Associated Press 7:31 a.m. EST December 24, 2014

FRANKFORT, Ky. – An Australian-based investment firm will build and manage a 3,000-mile network of fiber optic cables across Kentucky that state officials say will improve broadband access and cellphone service in some of the country’s most impoverished areas.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear and Republican U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers said Tuesday they believe it to be the first contract of its kind in the country. While officials estimate the project will cost between $250 million and $350 million, taxpayers are slated to pitch in about $40 million while the rest will come from private sources. Kentucky will own the network, but the Macquarie Group and its partners have a contract to build it and operate it for 30 years.

"In today’s economy, high-speed broadband is as essential to a community as water or electricity," Beshear said.

While most Kentucky households have access to the Internet, only about half of them use broadband service with its high-speed Internet connection. Kentucky ranks 46th in the country in broadband availability, with most of the void in rural eastern Kentucky where the mountainous terrain and sparse population have made it unattractive to Internet service providers.

"The cable levels those mountains," Rogers said. "Our goal is to ensure people will not have to leave home for good-paying jobs."

Eastern Kentucky, along with its Appalachian brethren in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, has long been the cultural center of the nation’s coal industry. But it has also been the face of the country’s poverty problem. Several eastern Kentucky counties rank among the poorest in the nation, according to U.S. Census data.

Kentucky’s political leaders have long looked at technology as the answer to the region’s economic problems. But Tuesday’s announcement appears to be the first major effort to build a network capable of sustaining high tech companies in the region.

"This is a beacon of hope," Rogers said. “The cable levels those mountains. Our goal is to ensure people will not have to leave home for good-paying jobs. ”

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers

The project will be built in two phases, with the first concentrating on eastern Kentucky and scheduled to be completed in the spring 2016. Phase two will encompass central and western Kentucky and should be completed by fall 2016.

At first, the network will primarily benefit state offices, public schools and universities. But the state plans to lease the network to private companies, making money for the state. In Tuesday’s news conference, Beshear seemed to be making a sales pitch, saying the network would allow businesses to compete globally and health care entities to collaborate and share patient information.

"But only if they use it," Beshear said. "We’re going to build the system and we’re going to make it available. But it’s up to our businesses, our communities and our educational institutions to take advantage of this opportunity."

Four companies bid on the broadband project, but the state only considered two of them. The Macquarie Group is the project’s lead developer and is responsible for the project’s long-term financing. Other companies are also involved, including the Bowlin Group, a fiber-line contractor based in Walton. It’s executives include Jack "Goose" Givens, the former University of Kentucky basketball star who led the team to the NCAA championship in 1978.


Kentucky now home to a new breed of cat

Mountain lion

Posted: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:12 pm

The recent killing of an adult mountain lion in Bourbon County drew statewide attention in a state that has little experience with the largest member of the North American cat family.

The DNA of that 125-pound male is being analyzed by scientists to determine if it came from the wild or if it had been bred and raised in captivity, either in a zoo or by a private collector of exotic animals.

State wildlife officials said it was the first mountain lion reported in Kentucky for more than 20 years. The last was in Western Kentucky.

Animal rights activists have protested the killing of the big cat in a residential area near Paris but the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KFWR) said it had no choice.

Paris is about 55 highway miles northwest of Morehead.

Shane Ratliff, a KFWR conservation officer in Rowan and 12 other counties, said Monday that he is not aware of any confirmed mountain lion sightings in the 8th Wildlife District.

He stated that possession of such animals by private citizens has been illegal in Kentucky for several years.

“I can’t imagine a more dangerous animal to try to keep as a pet,” he said.

Mountain lions have the ability to leap 15 feet up into a tree and sprint up to speeds of 50 miles. They also are known as cougars, pumas, panthers, yellow cats and catamounts.

They once roamed throughout North America but today are seen most frequently in the 12 westernmost states and Florida.

Full grown, the big cats can be 30 inches in height at the shoulder and eight feet long from nose to tail as adults. They can weigh between 75 and 175 pounds.

Mountain lions can survive in a variety of habitats, including high mountains, deserts, and swamps.

According to the National Park Service, human activity has encouraged mountain lions to retreat to rugged terrain that remains largely uninhabited by humans.

Mountain lion habitat must provide an adequate source of prey as well as cover and concealment for hunting.

A mountain lion’s vision is one of its most important tools in hunting. Its large eyes give mountain lions strong night vision to go with extremely sensitive hearing.

Mountain lions, known as ambush hunters, are said to consume 20 to 30 pounds of meat in one meal. They bury the remains of their prey after eating.

Anyone sighting what possibly could be a mountain lion is advised to avoid contact and immediately notify KDFWR through any post of the Kentucky State Police.

Keith Kappes can be reached at [email protected] or by telephone at 784-4116.



PLEASE SEE THIS POST AS WELL:  http://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2014/12/17/mountain-lion-killed-in-kentucky/



I am writing to you today to protest the unnecessary killing of a Mountain Lion in Bourbon County Ky yesterday as reported in the news.

Apparently the “cat” was in a tree (in other words “treed”) by barking dogs and COULD NOT get away.

Do you think that “cat” wanted to be there??? If the dogs had been put up, the “cat” would have left and went back to the woods.

Maybe a PSA could’ve been put out to alert people to be careful for a few hours, but according to what I’ve read there was no one in immediate danger…EXCEPT THE “CAT”!

Hasn’t your department been trained to use “tranquilizer guns” – and then move the animal??? (Although I do not think this was necessary either).

Someone was out for a “KILL TROPHY” and I do not like it one bit.

I live in Mammoth Cave Ky and after this – you can bet I’ll never call in to report a wild animal – unless it is actually eating someone!

And if that be the case I could take care of it quicker than you all and I’m not a hunter!

This is sick…..

Someone should be held accountable – although I know they won’t….

Sheree Krider

Freedom Feed and Seed is America’s first federally permitted hemp seed and fibre farm



By Diego Flammini, Farms.com

Companies from the states of Florida and Kentucky came together in a deal that, when completed, will come in being worth $1.9 million.

"This acquisition is so key for us as we were not only able to obtain a one-of-a-kind company but it also gives iMD a source that is capable of leasing land, purchasing seed, clones and the equipment needed to grow industrial hemp," said Larry Robertson, president of iMD Companies, Inc. "The bold vision that iMD management has in common with Freedom Seed Farm’s (FSF) David Hadland and Michael Lewis will help expedite our entrance into the industrial hemp market."’’

There are more than 30 countries who grow hemp as an agricultural product and as a source of national income.
In 2011, Canada alone licensed more than 30,000 acres of land dedicated to growing hemp, which resulted in $10 million in product sales. Because the United States currently doesn’t allow industrial hemp production, judging the market value is difficult, but it’s estimated the value of all hemp-based items can be greater than $300 million annually.
Since 1970, the United States deemed hemp illegal to grow because of its similarity to marijuana. In 2005, the U.S. government allowed for hemp products to be imported.