Matrix Security

DECATUR - David and Eileen Wetzel don’t get going in the morning quite as early as they used to.

So David Wetzel, 79, was surprised to hear a knock on the door at their eastside home while he was still getting dressed.

Two men in suits were standing on his porch.

“They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois Department of Revenue,” Wetzel said. “I said, ‘Come in.’ Maybe I shouldn’t have.”

Gary May introduced himself as a special agent. The other man, John Egan, was introduced as his colleague. May gave the Wetzels his card, stating that he is the senior agent in the bureau of criminal investigations.

“I was afraid,” Eileen Wetzel said. “I came out of the bathroom. I thought: Good God, we paid our taxes. The check didn’t bounce.”

The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.

Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.

“They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax,” David Wetzel recalled. “Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive.”

Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.

State legislators have rallied to help the Wetzels.

State Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, introduced Senate Bill 267, which would curtail government interference regarding alternative fuels, such as vegetable oil. A public hearing on the bill will be at 1 p.m. today in Room 400 of the state Capitol.

“I would agree that the bond is not acceptable, $2,500 bond,” Watson said, adding that David Wetzel should be commended for his innovative efforts. “(His car) gets 46 miles per gallon running on vegetable oil. We all should be thinking about doing without gasoline if we’re trying to end foreign dependency.

“I think it’s inappropriate of state dollars to send two people to Mr. Wetzel’s home to do this. They could have done with a more friendly approach. It could have been done on the phone. To use an intimidation factor on this - who is he harming? Two revenue agents. You’d think there’s a better use of their time,” Watson said.

The Wetzels, who plan to speak at a Senate hearing in Springfield today, recalled how their struggle with the revenue department unfolded.

According to the Wetzels, May told them during his Jan. 4 visit that they would have to pay taxes at either the gasoline rate of 19½ cents per gallon or the diesel rate of 21½ cents per gallon.

A retired research chemist and food plant manager, Wetzel produced records showing he has used 1,134.6 gallons of vegetable oil from 2002 to 2006. At the higher rate, the tax bill would come to $244.24.

“That averages out to $4.07 a month,” Wetzel noted, adding he is willing to pay that bill.

But the Wetzels would discover that the state had more complicated and costly requirements for them to continue to use their “veggie mobile.”

David Wetzel was told to contact a revenue official and apply for a license as a “special fuel supplier” and “receiver.” After completing a complicated application form designed for businesses, David Wetzel was sent a letter directing him to send in a $2,500 bond.

Eileen Wetzel, a former teaching assistant, calculated that the bond, designed to ensure that their “business” pays its taxes, would cover the next 51 years at their present usage rate.

A couple of weeks later, David Wetzel received another letter from the revenue department, stating that he “must immediately stop operating as a special fuel supplier and receiver until you receive special fuel supplier and receiver licenses.”

This threatening letter stated that acting as a supplier and receiver without a license is a Class 3 felony. This class of felonies carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

On the department of revenue’s Web site, David Wetzel discovered that the definition of special fuel supplier includes someone who operates a plant with an “active bulk storage capacity of not less than 30,000 gallons.” Wetzel also did not fit the definition of a receiver, described as a person who produces, distributes or transports fuel into the state. So Wetzel withdrew his application to become a supplier and receiver.

Mike Klemens, spokesman for the department of revenue, explained that Wetzel has to register as a supplier because the law states that is the only way he can pay motor fuel tax.

But what if he is not, in fact, a supplier? Then would he instead be exempt from paying the tax?

“We are in the process of creating a way to simplify the registration process and self-assess the tax,” Klemens said, adding that a rule change may be in place by spring.

David Wetzel wonders why hybrid cars, which rely on electricity and gasoline, are not taxed for the portion of travel when they are running on electrical power. He said he wants to be treated equally by the law.

David Wetzel, who has been exhibiting his car at energy fairs and universities, views state policies as contradicting stated government aims.

“You hear the president saying we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Wetzel said. “You hear the governor saying that.”

State Rep. Bob Flider, D-Mount Zion, also plans to support legislation favoring alternative fuels.

“I’m disappointed that the Illinois Department of Revenue would go after Mr. Wetzel,” Flider said. “I don’t think it is a situation that merits him being licensed and paying fees.

“The people at the department of revenue apparently feel they need to regulate him in some way. We want to make sure that he is as free as he can be to use vegetable oil. He’s an example of ingenuity. Instead of being whacked on the head, he should be encouraged.”

Huey Freeman can be reached at hfreeman@herald-review.com or 421-6985.

Subscribe to the Herald & Review by Clicking Here!

Senator Dodd to introduce ‘Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007′; Bans torture, restores habeas corpus RAW STORY
Published: Monday February 12, 2007

Print This Email This

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) will introduce a bill called the “Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007″ tomorrow, according to a website his presidential campaign put up today.

The bill will overturn parts of the “Military Commissions Act,” signed into law last October, which suspends habeas corpus for “alien enemy combatants.”

“I want to see us get back as a nation that supports the rule of law,” said Dodd in an Internet video introducing the legislation. “That was our tradition, by and large, over the last fifty years … and we’ve watched this administration retreat from those standards, and as a result I think the world is a more dangerous place today because we’re unwilling to stand up for the rule of law.”

According to the blog Blue Jersey, New Jersey Democratic senator Robert Menendez, who voted for the Military Commissions Act, will co-sponsor the bill.

WHERE I GOT THE STORY AND IT HAS THE VIDEO OF HIM TALKING ABOUT THE BILL

Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found
posted by majestic
on Feb 26, 2007 - 01:55 PM

——————————————————————————–

Email this to a friend Print this story

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world’s foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history. (Discovery Channel plug for its new documentary from James Cameron)

where I got the story

The lack of security in Iraq is leading now to a collapse in food supplies.

“Look at us begging for food despite the fortunes we have,” 60-year-old Um Muthanna from Baghdad said. Standing at a vegetable market in central Baghdad where vegetable supplies are not what they used to be, Um Mahmood despaired for Iraq.

“A country with two great rivers should have been the biggest exporter in the world, but now we beg for food from those who participated in killing us.” Iraq is rich in oil and agricultural resources.

Local and international aid flooded into Iraq in 2004, the year following the invasion, but much of the supply was blocked off after the kidnapping of many aid activists in the country.

The food the Iraqis did get was often not what they needed, or wanted.

“Iraqis do not feel at ease receiving food aid when they exported food in the past,” economist Dr. Jassim al-Rikabi said.

“Iraq has been a field of aid NGOs since the U.S. occupation began, and many of those NGOs brought foodstuff that is not what Iraqis were used to, but they had to take it due to the need they were facing.”

Barley, wheat, pulses and the famous Iraqi dates are staple diet, and are also exported. Common meals in Iraq include rice, lamb, chicken and locally grown vegetables like cucumbers, onions and tomatoes.

Under the occupation, Iraqis are getting much of their food from companies in Australia and other countries who assisted the United States during the invasion and occupation. This food has often been of low quality.

During July 2006 the Iraqi Ministry of Trade rejected or destroyed thousands of tonnes of contaminated food or food past its expiry date. The food had caused widespread poisoning.

Dr. Rikabi holds both the U.S.-backed Iraqi government and U.S. occupation authorities responsible for the failing food supply. “By the end of 2005 most international NGOs had withdrawn from Iraq on the orders of their governments, who saw the writing on the wall of increasing sectarian violence.”

The security situation and lack of petrol mean that local farmers are often unable to get their food to the markets.

Changes in Iraqi import laws introduced by former administrator L. Paul Bremer, dropped tariffs on import of foreign products, making it impossible for Iraqi farmers to compete. Countless Iraqi farms went bankrupt.

But now prices of imported goods have increased dramatically. And so most of the food in Iraqi markets today is imported, and more expensive due to skyrocketing fuel costs and lack of government regulation. Imported foods like chicken, fruits and vegetables now cost more than locally grown foods.

“Local agricultural production is almost nil,” Majid al-Dulaymi from the Ministry of Agriculture said. “The limited loans given by the ministry to farmers and planters are misused simply because it is not possible to maintain the agriculture production for reasons well known to everybody here. Now the private sector is importing everything, and the prices are too high to afford.”

An official from the Ministry of Trade said his ministry is struggling to provide Iraqis with food rations as before, but the circumstances make it difficult.

“There is the security ordeal that we suffer as well as the problems we had with many companies that supplied us bad quality food,” he said.

Australia provided Iraq with wheat last year that when distributed was found to contain steel fragments. An investigation conducted by Iraqi officials has still not held any company accountable.

The majority of Iraqis still remain dependent on the monthly food ration, a programme set up during the economic sanctions period in the 1990s after the first Gulf war. But a growing number of Iraqis no longer receive their monthly ration due to corruption or sectarian favouritism in the distribution channel.

Statistics compiled by the Washington-based Brookings Institute during 2005 showed that nearly 60 percent of the Iraqi population regularly consumes the monthly food rations. And 25 percent, 6.5 million people, are “highly dependent” on rations to meet their nutritional needs.

According to Abdul-Lattif from Iraq’s Ministry of Trade, only sugar, rice, flour and cooking oil remain from the original 12 foodstuffs provided by the former government. Other items such as lentils were removed from the list in May 2006 as a result of budget cuts.

“What food ration are you talking about,” 35-year-old Um Jamila, a mother of five complained. “The whole country has been stolen from us. If this goes on another six months, we will be just like any starving country.”

A report released Jan. 30 by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) showed that 1.5 million internally displaced people (IDPs) in Iraq lack basic necessities such as adequate food, drinking water, sanitation, and health and education facilities.

Entitled ‘Iraq Displacement 2006 Year in Review’, the report puts food at the top of the list of the most urgent needs for IDPs in Iraq.

“I was so happy when my salary was increased to around 300 dollars, but I now wish for the times when it was 30 dollars as it used to be before this occupation,” engineer Kamil Fattah from the Ministry of Industry said. “Inflation in the Iraqi market has made it impossible for us to eat decently while earlier we used to get every basic need for almost free of charge.”

The World Food Programme is sending aid to Iraq but its officials say this is running into difficulties.

“The food is either stolen on the way or cannot be inspected on arrival by third party inspectors,” a retired staff member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation which runs the World Food Programme said. “Each shipment needs to be checked by a third party inspector, but the company is facing difficulties in conducting such inspections due to the security situation.”

Tagged as: food supply, iraq

Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist who reports from Iraq.

Where I got the Story

Judge says Internet documents fall outside injunctions’ reach
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer
3:58 PM PST, February 13, 2007

A federal judge in New York gave websites a partial victory by acknowledging today that when documents are published on the Internet they take on a life of their own, an existence that cannot be reversed by a court.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein issued a mixed decision in the closely watched case involving documents relating to the drug Zyprexa. The case pitted opponents of the drug against its manufacturer, Eli Lilly & Co., and both sides claimed at least part of a victory.
——————————————————————————–
FOR THE RECORD:
Documents: This story stated that the Zyprexa documents were published on the Wikipedia website. In fact, the entry in Wikipedia provided a link to the documents, which were on another website. —

——————————————————————————–
The Brooklyn jurist ordered that the documents be returned to the proper officials and enjoined eight parties from further distributing the documents, which are part of civil liability cases. But Weinstein noted that the wave of modern communication made it all but impossible to extend a traditional legal remedy such as an injunction to the Internet.

“To extend the reach of the injunction further might involve the court in attempting to control a constantly expanding universe of those who might have, or will have, access by reason of the original breach,” Weinstein wrote.

“That such an amplified injunction could be enforced effectively is doubtful. Even if enforcement were possible, on policy grounds the risk of unlimited inhibitions on free speech should be avoided when practicable,” he said.

Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that works for digital rights, praised what he agreed was a split decision. The foundation represented an anonymous individual who was earlier barred by Weinstein from posting web links to the Zyprexa documents.

“My client is pleased because he is no longer part of the injunction,” Von Lohmann said in a telephone interview. “The bad news is that others still are restrained and that the judge didn’t decide this based on the 1st Amendment.”

Lilly also claimed victory, though the company didn’t know whether it would appeal. Weinstein delayed implementing the order for 10 days to allow an appeal.

“We are very pleased the judge reaffirmed the validity of the protective order so that the litigation can proceed according to the law,” Marni Lemons, a spokesperson for Lilly, said in a telephone interview. “The judge acknowledged that [the documents] got out in a reprehensible and illegal manner. Lilly certainly feels vindicated.”

But “there is a certain element of the genie being out of the bottle,” she added.

The case deals with documents relating to Zyprexa, also known as olanzapine, which is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The drug accounted for an estimated 28% of Eli Lilly & Co.’s $14 billion a year in revenue.

Critics have sued Lilly, contending that the company failed to adequately warn Zyprexa users that the drug could heighten the danger of weight gain and raise the level of blood sugar, possibly leading to diabetes. The company has denied that Zyprexa causes diabetes.

Lilly has announced that it had settled 18,000 lawsuits involving Zyprexa and would take a maximum charge of $500 million. In June 2005, the company agreed to pay about $700 million to settle 8,000 Zyprexa-related suits.

About 1,200 cases are still pending, Lemons said.

In such product liability litigation, the company is usually required to make internal documents available to the opposition lawyers. Lilly gave thousands of pages of e-mails, studies and research.

The documents, which were confidential by court order, were eventually given to several news organizations, including the New York Times. The drug company contends that the documents were selectively leaked to support the critics’ arguments.

The Times published stories based on the leaked documents, which the paper said showed that Lilly had tried for a decade to minimize the risks of taking Zyprexa.

In addition to the Times, the documents were published on a variety of websites, including Wikipedia.

On Dec. 18, Lilly obtained a temporary court order to get its documents back. The New York Times refused, but other Web links were ordered shut down.

Weinstein was asked to give the websites the broadest constitutional protection, but the jurist stopped well short of that and kept his ruling narrow. “No newspaper or website is directed to do anything or to refrain from doing anything,” he said.

mailto:michael.muskal@latimes.com

Where I got the story

I am here to voice my comment about what is going on with the babby bells and AT&T.

So It looks like we have a monply on our hands or is it? What am I talking about well back in the 80’s the fcc said that AT&T was to big making south western bell and bell south and the other babby bells. They said that to much countrol of the telephone companys was not good. So what are democrats and repluibans doing now. Why can they just go in their and say ok you can have the phone company back to they way it was but we need to put a few rules in place to make it fair for every one. Here are the rules that are implyed as taken from CNET’S NEWS.COM “The conditions of the merger proposed by AT&T and agreed to by the FCC included the sale of certain wireless airwaves in the 2.5 gigahertz band, a special $19.95 per month price tag for stand-alone basic high-speed Internet service and a promise for the next two years to adhere to specific Network neutrality rules.

One of the most important concessions is AT&T’s commitment to a basic set of principles that establish a practical implementation of Net neutrality. Specifically, it agreed “not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination”

So why do we need to mirge the telephones back together so we can easly track people on the phone and we can get cheep brodband access or is it because now we do not know what a monply is.

In This writers opinion I think this stinks I do not need cheep brodband severce that comes on the back of the feds and I do not need the feds invloved in making a monply eather. On the otherhand if our goverment wants to watch you and listen to you on the phone or over the internet now they can because they have created the network to do so