Posted 8:56 PM by Douglas
Westlaw Provides Complete Nationwide Coverage of Administrative Codes Not having enough money to buy into westlaw is not and excuse---DW

Posted 9:43 AM by Douglas
CHECK OUR OTHER SITE FOR GENERAL POLITICS AND A LOT MORE

Click here to get to Citizen Cites and Comments

Anybody checking this looking for information related to Daschle in South Dakota and rightwing-smear attacks
on him should check the link above. I will also ad it here on static links to left. This note is here because I posted
the wrong link in a SD Forum. Sorry for the inconvenience.--- DW.
LAT= http://citizencites.blogspot.com/

Posted 11:11 AM by Douglas
.REDUCE the BAC LEVELS--COMMENT


I posted the SD legislation designed to reduce the allowable BAC while driving from 0.10% to 0.08% in this area.
This should be happening in all states where it is not already the law. States should not have to be beaten over the head to
do what truckloads of data indicates makes sense. But, legislation like this should be coupled with calls to insurance companies to
reduce vehicle insurance rates if these laws are enacted and enforced.

You can probably assume that something like 25 to 50 percent
of what you may be paying for vehicle insurance results because of fatality and crash costs related to crashes primarily attributed to
drivers who are drunk or impaired. Alcohol apparently reduced the ability to think about or be cognizant of more than one factor at a
time. It was once assumed that alcohol impairment produced some kind of tunnel vision. It doesn't, but for the impaired driver, just
keeping the car between lane markers overloads their mental systems. They may do this many times and think it is safe to drink and
drive but then something out of the ordinary pops up ...a kid runs across the street, or a car pulls out at the wrong time...things that
a sober driver might have no problem avoiding, but conditions or factors beyond comprehension or even awareness of the drunk or
impaired driver. ------- DW

Posted 11:34 PM by Douglas
HB1034 reducing allowable BAC form 0.10 to 0.08
THIS IS LEGISLATION THAT THE SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE PASSED 20 YEARS AGO. IT IS TIME THEY DID IT WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING THEM TO. IT IS TIME TO STOP KISSING THE LIQUOR INDUSTRY SHINED SHOES--DW.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to reduce the legal blood alcohol limits for motor vehicle drivers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 32-23-1 be amended to read as follows:
32-23-1. A No person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while:


(1) There is 0.10 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his that person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of his that person's breath, blood, or other bodily substance;


(2) Under the influence of an alcoholic beverage;


(3) Under the influence of marijuana or any controlled drug or substance to a degree which renders him the person incapable of safely driving; or


(4) Under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and marijuana or any controlled drug or substance to a degree which renders him the person incapable of safely driving.
Section 2. That § 32-23-7 be amended to read as follows:
32-23-7. In any criminal prosecution for a violation of § 32-23-1 relating to driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of § 22-16-41, or a violation of § 22-16-42, the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant's blood, breath, or other bodily substance shall give gives rise to the following presumptions:


(1) If there was at that time five hundredths percent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it shall be is presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor;


(2) If there was at that time in excess of five hundredths percent but less than ten eight hundredths percent by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, such fact shall does not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but such fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant;


(3) If there was at that time ten eight hundredths percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it shall be is presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.


Percent by weight of alcohol in the blood shall be based upon milligrams of alcohol per 1.0 cubic centimeters of whole blood or 2100 cubic centimeters of deep lung breath.
LAT= http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2002/bills/HB1034p.htm
KWAP=Drunk Driving, Driving under the Influence, DWI, DUI, BAC, Blood Alcohol Content,

Posted 5:47 PM by Douglas
Rules of Professional Conduct for SD Lawyers or lawyers practicing in SD...I assume. THis sure makes comfortable reading. I sure wish I had confidence that all the lawyers in SD behaved as well as suggested by this fine text.--- DW
LAT= http://www.sdbar.org/members/ethics/rules/PC_Rules.htm
KWAP= SD Bar Association, Professional Conduct, Lawyers Responsibilities, terminology, Model Rules of Professional conduct,
diligence, fees (don't assume that anything here will prevent absurd legal charges for services real or imagined however).

Posted 5:38 PM by Douglas
HB 1001 Information on "An Act to ratify the Uniform Sales and Use Tax Administration Act and to implement the uniform and simplified features proposed by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project."

This is the attempt to tinker with state and local taxes to make it somehow possible to fit them into some grand consortium of state tax systems with the aim of taxing internet and similar remote sales. Get text of bills as introduced here. I assume versions of this are being presented in other state legislatures as a way to get around the US Constitution attempts to reduce restrictions on interstate commerce.

These bills deserve a quick death and instead a shift to a federal collection system for all remote sales including stocks, bonds, insurance policies, whatever. The attempt to tax books, computers, etc hits small consumers first and last. Take a look at the proposed legislation here.------- DW.
LAT=http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2002/1001.htm

Posted 5:30 PM by Douglas
Seventy-Seventh Legislative Session includes links to "Bills, Chamber or Comitteee, Members, Reports, Subject Index, General, Bill search option, and a "What's New for 77th Session" link.

Posted 5:28 PM by Douglas
South Dakota Legislature The South Dakota Legislature and Legislative research page includes options for "Current legislators, Current Legislative session, Codified Laws, Admnistrative Rules, Interim Information, Session Laws, Past Sessions, Legislator Historical
Listing, Related Links, and General Information. Also links to the SD Home page, LRC Home Page, Contact information, help, Privacy policy, and feedback.

Posted 9:50 AM by Douglas
----SD INTERNET SALES TAX PROPOSALS---

You have seen a year or so worth of propaganda from State Revenue agencies pushing for some grand conglomeration of simplified
state, local, regional "REMOTE" transactio taxes. I will dig out the fantastic estimates this is supposed to generate for states.
What is surprising is that such large estimates turn up and that they are remarkably similar from state to state..almost without regard
to the size or economy of the states. It is hard not to assume that in the desire to maintain bureaucracies in State Revenue agencies,
numbers were pulled out of clear blue sky to make this look like a bonanza either waiting for exploitation or slipping through the fingers
of these revenue agents.

You have already heard about the highway pirate robber war lords in Afghanistan. They put chains across a road and stick their thugs
with guns by them and then extort a "tax" for going past them. Revolutionary America had an official version of that with the ill-fated
Articles of Confederation. When our present constitution was written, it was intended to prevent state and local taxes which restricted
commerce. Now we have the internet and mail and other "remote" sales going across state lines or from community to community
inside states. State Revenue departments are trying to figure out a way to put chains across all those transactions and pull out their
legal machine guns on the unwary.

The really rabid businessmen and internet geeks say that this is not revenue states are losing, but revenue they should never be
allowed to collect. Their argument suggests state revenue departments are more like thieves lamenting their losses because
a burglar system and tv cameras have been added to their ripest targets. I can see their point, but I suspect that there will be some
kind of transaction taxes on remote sales no matter how much the dotcom denizens rant and rave. So, why not get a system that
works without making a bookkeeping hell for every small businessmen and a huge invasion of privacy for every citizen. The modern
cheapness of data storage and data mining make these state consortium tax ideas ripe for abuse of anybody the state or some
bureaucrat in a state decides to abuse.

The primary problems this will produced is already apparent with the few things I have bought on the internet. I ended up paying SD
sales tax anyway, but not just the 4% sales tax I expected to pay, but also the 2% city sales tax for the adjacent town. Their database
used my zipcode and no way could they get orders with that zipcode out without helping the city mulct taxes from a non-resident.
That is a small example. To make the dreams of the Revenue grubbers into citizen tax nightmares multiply this thousands and millions
of times. The problem with all state and local sales taxes on remote sales is that they require a huge database to determine what
taxes are owed, how much is owed, how much goes to state, how much goes to local, etc. The problem is that these taxes are
not a federal tax and thus require a lot of record-keeping and intrusive nosing into personal details of purchases.

The solution is a federal transaction tax that applies to ALL remote sales. The rate should be the same across the US and be
derived from an average of all the state sales taxes. The major portion of such taxes should then be refunded back to states on the
basis of their census population. No huge database of every Joe Blow's address to the nearest foot and what he has purchased
for the last few years and who he purchased it from etc. etc. If that tax turns out to be 5% or whatever, If a citizen buys a computer
or book by remote sale, that tax must be payed. The seller has to pay it, but he does not have to allocate all those individual sales
to a state or locality or whatever when the business forwards the tax thus collected to the US Government.

Use taxes and other convoluted local presence ideas etc to make an end run around the US Constitution would not be required...in
fact they should be banned and replaced by the uniform federal remote sales tax. The current tax fictions winked at by state courts
and crafted with so many catch 22 provisions would not be required. The inequities of these tax extraction chains across the
road destroy respect for all laws, all courts, and all state legislators.

More on this issue soon.---DW