Domain: ct.gov
Stories and comments across the archive that link to ct.gov.
Comments · 75
-
Re:Internet crimes, like rape?
The laws about sexual assault and things like that are compared state by state here. Overall, consensus seems to be on age differences of more than three years being a problem, but specific age restrictions vary from state to state, as do charges.
-
Phone logs and the FTC
Dosn't matter a bit FBI? CIA? RGB? TFB?
If she was getting call backs, she should tell EVERY ONE WHO CALLS, AWS are scammers, and they should register with the FTC: and START Signed and dated PHONE LOGS. Every one I hear gets these phone calls, I show them the origional post card that started it all, and my phone log. I have clued in about 20 people, and we have filed over 15 reports for illegal telemarketing contact, i.e. Dont call EVER, and
... they ... call @ $500 per complaint.Scammer name:
Automotive Warranty Solutions
6501 congress ave, ste 140, boca raton, fl 33487
877-700-5880,
Call their 800 number, and ask to be put on their do not call list. ( just everone call plz )This is a Attorney General who is taking this problem seriously. ( Note: California and Florida are probibly NOT ):
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?A=2795&Q=411422
a blogger who did a lot of flatfoot work:
http://www.markturner.net/2007/11/08/car-warranty-scam-continued/
Remember: REMEMBER! Documented phone logs make diffrence. If you can document DNC and the call back time and date. Give them a call and get on their DNC list ANYWAY. So when they do call...
-
Re:Someone tell the European
Not in CT - anymore. Supervised (ie adult) driving and no groups till 18.
Teen Driving Rules -
Re:juror comp
That's actually a very reasonably policy. "We expect your undivided attention in this legal matter. We'll value your time accordingly."
The last jury selection I attended, everyone in the room was concerned about being chosen for the multi-week domestic abuse case. Several single-parents tried to be excused, but all were denied because covering for their kids was considered "an inconvenience" and not a necessity. I saw exactly one person be excused from jury duty prior to the selection process - an elderly woman on oxygen and taking hallucinogenic meds. If you're not doped-up and can fog a mirror, you qualify for jury duty in the States.
I did a little searching, and Maryland is par for the course on jury comp. The data is a little stale, but it's representative. Your employer can't legally fire you while you're on jury duty, but he can force you to burn all your leave and then take a leave-of-absence (i.e. no pay.) $15 per day won't cover beans. Minimum wage in the US is currently $5.85/hr, moving up to $6.55/hr in July. $15 is about 2.5 hours of minimum-wage labor. A full-time minimum-wage employee is earning $46.80/day. Basically, regardless of your employment status, jury duty in the States is "punishment."
-
Re:Photovoltaic solar
Ouch, here in Connecticut, "The program offers an incentive of $ 5 per watt for the first 5 kilowatts (kw) of a system's installed capacity, with a maximum rebate of $ 25,000 per household."
(Basically cuts the $37,000 average system price here in half, but I don't use that much, about 2/3rds of you...however I do pay nearly 20 cents per kWh. Your $47k system would cost you $22,000 out of pocket here...)
Of course, you pay about $1000/year, I pay about $1900. Not considering a car, you'd barely break even.
Also, state statute, "requires electric companies...to provide a credit for power produced by residential customers...who generate electricity from solar energy... It requires electric companies to install metering equipment for such customers."
Essentially the installers offer two basic packages, one to cover the average house, and a half-sized one at over $9,000, which imo would do far better for a car with no sugar supplier or labor needed and throw the extra at the house!
(If only I had that spare $18,500 lying around...)
Ref: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0753.htm -
New York City always had short yellow lights
New York City has shortened the yellow light for as long as I can remember and it was for practical reasons. The four-second (and sometimes shorter) delay discourages yellow light runners and theoretically makes the intersections slightly safer. The temptation to run the yellow is quickly squelched
It has been criticized over the years, too, and the delay goes up and down depending on what year you're talking about.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5342/nydrive.htm
http://www.allcarrentacar.com/driving-in-queens.php
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-r-0540.htm -
Re:This is getting ridiculousget their document format adopted as an ISO standard--something which will yield them little to no gain I guess you haven't really been following along, but there is *MASSIVE* benefit to getting MS's proprietary standard declared "open".
But I'm sure you'll counter with the absurd assertion that MS doesn't need to maintain lock-in, because they already have a monopoly, right? -
Nope
I don't see how that matters. The GPL is a license, not a contract. It doesn't grant rights. It's just an easy way of saying "if you agree to these conditions, you can use my copyrighted work". By distributing something under the GPL, he's not entering into a contract; he's simply waiving some of his rights under the copyright statute.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that being under 18 doesn't mean you can't waive rights. A quick search shows that people are typically mirandized down to age 14, for example. -
OT: Drunk driving
Now the bad news -- we live in a society that tolerates 20,000 annual alcohol-related fatalities (40% of total traffic fatalities) and cares more about Brittany Spears' antics than the national diabetes epidemic.
I love analogies, but I'm going to have to go way OT here and set you straight. In the USA, drunk driving is NOT tolerated. After years of onerous regulations, infringements on drivers' (and sometimes passengers') rights in the form of sobriety checkpoints, and ridiculously low BAC requirements (now commonly .08), we still have fatalities due to drunk driving.But this isn't because we don't care.
Obviously, all those things I listed show that people do care; however, they are going the wrong things to address the problem. We have allowed special interests like MADD, who are modern-day temperance societies, dictate these changes to us with little review or oversight. It has been statistically proven that fatalities do not decrease with a .08 BAC law, yet 15 states have passed such laws and MADD continues to pressure more. Sobriety checkpoints were begrudgingly allowed by the courts in the 1980s and 1990s to address the drunk driving "emergency"; but since judicial decisions don't have a sunset, and no one wants to challenge a policy that protects "the children", this infringement on our personal rights continues. The federal government infringed on states' rights in order to force the drinking age to 21 in the USA, even though Canada (with age limits of 18 and 19) has shown that drunk driving could be greatly reduced without infringing on the rights of young adults. Now MADD wants to require breathalyser interlocks in all new motor vehicles; ignoring the privacy rights, expense, and technological issues raised by such draconian policies. Think about how many miles passenger cars travel in a year, and decide in practical terms how many fatalities are practical and acceptable. Think about other oppressive regulations you could impose if safety were truly paramount: reducing the speed limit to 25 MPH, requiring 15 MPH bumpers, requiring driver retesting annually, etc. Rationalizing these kinds of laws in absolute terms such as "for the children" and "if it saves one life" makes no sense as we deal in statistics and weight everything in the balance every day. Life is truly precious, but we live in an evil, dangerous world-- not a rubber room.
Maybe we need to do more. But remember that there will always be people who insist on doing the wrong thing, and finding a way to do it. -
Re: Yes and no.
Think about it this way. In a bookstore or grocery the company is negligent if they put the wrong price on something and then let it be sold as such. However obtaining items under such situations do not result in criminal prosecutions.
Check this government study about advertised price vs actual charged price... Federal Government standard is a 2% error rate of products not checked out at the same price as marked. (Example: Wal-Mart was at an 8.3% wrong price charged (4.1% of the marked items were undercharged, and 3.1% were overcharged http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=306892&A=1949 ) Interesting that it does not matter whether the discrepancy is over or under charged to the consumer. ... The fault here should lie with the Casino not the players. -
Information for tracking the bill
I contacted Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office and was advised that the initiative is being handled by the General Law Committee. I contacted their office on 09 March 2007 and was informed that the proposed legislation would likely be attatched to House Bill #6981
-PHiZ -
Information for tracking the bill
I contacted Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office and was advised that the initiative is being handled by the General Law Committee. I contacted their office on 09 March 2007 and was informed that the proposed legislation would likely be attatched to House Bill #6981
-PHiZ -
Re:compare this to
According to Connecticut statutes, yes. Sexual contact with a student under the age of 16 years would probably be prosecuted as 4th Degree Sexual Assault which is only a Class D Felony, versus the Class C Felony which this teacher was charged under.
-
Re:compare this to
According to Connecticut statutes, yes. Sexual contact with a student under the age of 16 years would probably be prosecuted as 4th Degree Sexual Assault which is only a Class D Felony, versus the Class C Felony which this teacher was charged under.
-
Re:We need a new pressure group/ NGO...Sorry for the double post, it's more appropriate here:
Just for the record, the statute that she is convicted of violating seems a little vague.
And she would be facing the same punishment if she had bought or sold one of the students for money. The teacher was convicted under subdivision (1), while subdivison (3) covers the sale of children.
Chapter 939 Section 53-21 (2005 Statutes)...(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that... the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child,... or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3)...
In addition, (IANAL) a state court seems to have made a ruling concerning using this statute for cases of sexual misconduct (taken from the 2006 supplement):Subdiv. (1): In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's morals must involve physical touching of victim's person in a sexual and indecent way. Such touching, however, need not involve private parts of either victim or defendant. 273 C. 56. Subdiv. (1):In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's health, when committed in a sexual context, includes only those acts that involve direct touching of victim's person and are, or are likely to be, injurious to victim's physical health.
-
Re:We need a new pressure group/ NGO...Sorry for the double post, it's more appropriate here:
Just for the record, the statute that she is convicted of violating seems a little vague.
And she would be facing the same punishment if she had bought or sold one of the students for money. The teacher was convicted under subdivision (1), while subdivison (3) covers the sale of children.
Chapter 939 Section 53-21 (2005 Statutes)...(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that... the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child,... or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3)...
In addition, (IANAL) a state court seems to have made a ruling concerning using this statute for cases of sexual misconduct (taken from the 2006 supplement):Subdiv. (1): In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's morals must involve physical touching of victim's person in a sexual and indecent way. Such touching, however, need not involve private parts of either victim or defendant. 273 C. 56. Subdiv. (1):In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's health, when committed in a sexual context, includes only those acts that involve direct touching of victim's person and are, or are likely to be, injurious to victim's physical health.
-
Punishment fits the crime?Just for the record, the statute that she is convicted of violating seems a little vague.
And she would be facing the same punishment if she had bought or sold one of the students for money. The teacher was convicted under subdivision (1), while subdivison (3) covers the sale of children.
Chapter 939 Section 53-21 (2005 Statutes)...(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that... the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child,... or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3)...
In addition, (IANAL) a state court seems to have made a ruling concerning using this statute for cases of sexual misconduct (taken from the 2006 supplement):
Subdiv. (1): In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's morals must involve physical touching of victim's person in a sexual and indecent way. Such touching, however, need not involve private parts of either victim or defendant. 273 C. 56. Subdiv. (1):In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's health, when committed in a sexual context, includes only those acts that involve direct touching of victim's person and are, or are likely to be, injurious to victim's physical health.
-
Punishment fits the crime?Just for the record, the statute that she is convicted of violating seems a little vague.
And she would be facing the same punishment if she had bought or sold one of the students for money. The teacher was convicted under subdivision (1), while subdivison (3) covers the sale of children.
Chapter 939 Section 53-21 (2005 Statutes)...(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that... the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child,... or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3)...
In addition, (IANAL) a state court seems to have made a ruling concerning using this statute for cases of sexual misconduct (taken from the 2006 supplement):
Subdiv. (1): In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's morals must involve physical touching of victim's person in a sexual and indecent way. Such touching, however, need not involve private parts of either victim or defendant. 273 C. 56. Subdiv. (1):In cases concerning alleged sexual misconduct, an act likely to impair a child's health, when committed in a sexual context, includes only those acts that involve direct touching of victim's person and are, or are likely to be, injurious to victim's physical health.
-
Re:Mob Rulewe should all try to be conscious of the power that we use and do what we can to cut that down...
Nice idea but since both electrical and natural gas rates are, for the most part, regulated industries, you can end up with situations where a company wanted to raise rates because people were conserving too much. Don't believe me? Read on. -
Re:User fees are the way to go
I didn't say thrown out of the car, dumbass, I said out of the seat. Try driving with the front seat passenger in your lap (who is also required to be belted). It's the same reason racing cars have bucket seats, which basically prevent the driver from sliding side to side, unlike bench-style seats.
You'll claim this is prattle, but I'm certainly http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1388&q=259430 >not the only one who claims what I have said. But if you want to be an organ donor, by all means, be my guest. -
Re:Where does that tax go?although devoid of understanding of the use tax.
Pot, meet kettle.
http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?a=1477&q=269924 #CouponsQ. If my customer uses a coupon when making a purchase, do I charge sales tax on the price before or after subtracting the coupon?
A. Sales and use taxes must be calculated on the sales price net of all price reductions from coupons. Any additional value assigned by the retailer, such as to double or triple the coupon, is also excludable from the sales price. For example, if the price of the item was $5.00 and the customer presented a $.50 coupon, sales tax would apply to the net price, $4.50.
That's for Connecticut, I recently looked up the same for Texas with the same results. From my experience, having lived in 9 other states from one end of the country to the other, that's pretty much the way it works everywhere. -
You forgot Connecticut
Connecticut passed a similar law last July, thanks to pressure from citizen action groups. All DRE machines must include paper verification.
-
How the WebLoyalty scam really worksNow, a patented phishing scam! The CEO of WebLoyalty, Vincent D'Agostino, has two patents on the technology, both titled "Method and system for cross-marketing products and services over a distributed communication network".
Here's the WebLoyalty online demo.. This is triggered after checkout from some other store. All the customer provides is an E-mail address, or at least a click on the big red button below the E-mail address form. Their credit card information is taken automatically from the previous transaction.
The key to WebLoyalty is that it's embedded in VirtualCart, a popular shopping cart program, and is on by default. It's quite possible for a merchant to be serving the WebLoyalty scam without even being aware of it. The merchant can't even turn it off directly. From the VirtualCart WebLoyalty FAQ:
- Q. How can webloyalty.com afford to offer Special Rewards and not get paid?
- A. webloyalty.com ultimately generates its revenue from the customer. Each customer who claims the Special Reward is offered the chance to join a discount shopping and protection service (Reservation Rewards), discount travel service (Travel Values Plus), shopping protection service (Buyer Assurance), or credit card and identity protection service (Wallet Shield). Although there is never an obligation for the customer to continue after the 30-day free trial, many customers choose to continue a service for its valuable benefits. This subset of consumers provides revenue to webloyalty.com.
- Q. Why allow the customer the opportunity to transfer his information as opposed to re-entering it?
- A. We believe the customer is always right. And after chatting with hundreds of customers, we heard one thing loud and clear... they want convenience. Most consumers believe allowing them to transfer their personal and financial information with their express permission is much more convenient than re-entering it. Just ask Amazon.com's customers!
- Q. How do I opt-out of this program?
- A. Send us an e-mail to support@vcart.com with your cart ID and we will be more than happy to review your account for removal from this program. virtualCART reserves the right to require all merchants to participate in the program.
And there you have it, the world's most successful phishing scam, run by a Harvard MBA.
If you need to sue those guys, look them up at the Secretary of State of Connecticut , web site, which has their real address and the names and addresses of the corporate officers. Their actual business name is "WebLoyalty.com, Inc."
-
Re:good move
Name one.
Fine:
Aggravated rape of an 11 year old could net you 5 years in CT. If the victim were 6, the minimum is only 10 years, which is damn close enough to 9 years for comparison.
If this really is Tony, next time you are clearly wrong apologize under your real name and don't change the argument.
Just for you: Apology withdrawn.
- Tony -
Re:Not Funny!