Philosophy, Law and Politics

To Legalize, Or, Not To Legalize?

In discussing the current debate of whether the use and sale of marijuana should be generally allowed in each of the 50 States, and no longer be deemed a criminal activity, requires that thought be given to American history and traditional theories of the law. And, perhaps our debate should focus on the history of Prohibition, last century.

Currently proposed legislation before the U.S. Congress asks if the Federal government may, or should, dictate that the use of marijuana is legal conduct for every citizen in every state. Or, should the Federal Government respect the aged-old American doctrine of States Rights and the prudent theory of experimentation within and among jurisdictions, whether they be the Federal judicial Appellate Circuits, the States themselves, or the various political subdivisions therewithin?

As citizens, we must ask in what manner marijuana differs from the time honored American custom of enjoying fermented and distilled spirits – alcohol. If marijuana is properly legal in the United States, regardless of locale, for social, and not only medical, purposes, what is the scientific rationale for permitting it being criminalized in any jurisdiction within the country? If legal in any State and deemed safe by our scientific community, is there a valid legal rationale for treating the use of marijuana differently from the current regulation of our use of alcohol?

Traditional grassroots, self-governance of communities in America is the foundation of our democracy, our representative republic. Governing jurisdictions, as small as towns and villages, may dictate legal policy as to the sale and use of alcohol within their jurisdictions. Yet, they may not proscribe the use of alcohol. This has only been done and repealed by a revision of the U.S. Constitution. Marijuana, like alcohol, should properly be regulated below the Federal level by State and Local Governments only as they regulate commerce within their boundaries. Like alcohol, marijuana requires more regulation than English muffins and wheat bread. Such regulation, though, results from theories of corporate and business structure, and the proper purposes of land use management – zoning restrictions.

If legal in one State, marijuana should be legal in all. And, the existence of the 50 States, and our various political subdivisions and territories, permits American capitalism to experiment. Various business forms may evolve from the art of the “dry county,” the State owned and or regulated, stand alone “brick and mortar” business concern, or the State regulated, corner shop in the interstate or international grocery store.

And, there cannot be an argument for not fully expunging the criminal records of conviction and time served for offenders penalized for personal expression before their governing officials “saw the light.” It goes without saying, then, that, too, all criminal defendants currently “serving time” for marijuana only offenses should be released through existing transitional, reentry programs. Not doing so would be merely a creative theory of law ex post facto.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

Philosophy, Law and Politics

Is the Mandatory Reporting of Convictions to Relevant Agencies Necessary for Fairness and Justice in Our Courts?

Adequate diligence and complete information are necessary for fair and sound decisions by judges, in both civil and criminal matters. Might States benefit from an enhanced requirement that criminal convictions of licensed professionals, for both lesser and more severe offenses, be reported to the State agency governing the defendant’s profession?

A measure before the New York State Legislature, Assembly (A11057-A) and Senate (S8909-A), would amend the New York education law to require reporting to the governing New York State Education Department the criminal convictions and determinations of professional misconduct of persons licensed by the Education Department. The District Attorney for each county within the State of New York would be required to report each conviction of a licensee to the Professional Conduct Officer of the Education Department. The licensee is similarly bound by an obligation of self-reporting. The licensee must self-report criminal convictions to the Education Department. The licensee is also required to report determinations of professional misconduct to the Education Department, regardless of jurisdiction.

A statutory system of fair reporting and due information provides those governed, such as those licensed by the New York Education Department, with both an incentive for proper professional conduct and a deterrence of nonprofessional conduct, before any ill deed is done. Professional codes provide learning within one’s professional disciple throughout one’s career, long after one’s formal academic training. And, a system of fair reporting insures that employers and the courts make fair, adequate and just determinations.

In founding the first American newspaper, Publick Occurrences, first sold in Boston on September 25, 1960, Benjamin Harris stated in his prospectus:

“That something may be done toward the Curing, or at least the Charming of that Spirit of Lying, which prevails amongst us, wherefore nothing shall be entered, but what we have reason to believe is true, repairing to the best fountains for our Information. And when there appears any material mistake in anything that is collected, it shall be corrected in the next. Moreover, the Publisher of these Occurrences is willing to engage, that whereas, there are many False Reports, maliciously made, and spread among us, if any well-minded person will be at the pains to trace any such false Report, so far as to find out and Convict the First Raiser of it, he will in this Paper (unless just Advice be given to the contrary) expose the Name of such Person, as A malicious Raiser of a false Report. It is suppos’d that none will dislike this Proposal, but such as intend to be guilty of so villainous a Crime.”

Neither the public nor the courts benefit from acting upon an absence of information. And, no one subject to a mandatory reporting requirement benefits if deprived of the rehabilitative purpose of ostensibly putative measures by inadequate information.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

Philosophy, Law and Politics

Clarity and Equality in the Ohio Sales Tax Statute?

The following Comment Letter was submitted today to the Ohio General Assembly Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review for consideration during its review of a proposed amendment of an Ohio Sales Tax regulation regarding interstate commerce.

May 10, 2018

Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review

The Ohio General Assembly

Vern Riffe Center

77 South High Street

Concourse Level

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Sent Via Email to: jcarr1@jcarr.state.oh.us

Re: Department of Taxation Proposed Amendment of Rule Number 5703-9-39 (Interstate commerce)

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review,

I write with interest in the proposed amendment of Rule Number 5703-9-39 of the Ohio Administrative Code by the Department of Taxation regarding the imposition of a tax upon retail sale transactions between Ohio residents and out-of-state vendors. The Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis submitted by the Department of Taxation to accompany this proposed amendment states that the Department seeks merely to make grammatical corrections in the Rule and not adopt any substantive changes.

The proposed amendment does not adequately revise the text of the Rule to correct certain wording that is confusing to citizens and residents of the various States who would engage in commerce, as well as those engaging in commerce abroad. For, it does not clearly indicate that purchases are exempt from taxation if delivered via an interstate carrier to either the buyer or the agent of the buyer and, instead, gives the sense that the exemption applies only to interstate carrier deliveries made to an agent.

Similarly, the proposed amendment retains reference to “an agent of his” in acknowledgement that Ohio purchasers of goods from foreign vendors may avail themselves of an agent to receive the goods purchased. Legal drafters in the 21^st century style to no longer use personal pronouns reflective of gender when the concept of gender is not materially relevant to the import and substance of the law.

Finally, the Rule would also lessen confusion if it did not refer to the sales tax as a “retail sales tax” unless such is done consistently throughout Ohio Revised Code Chapter 5703: Sales Tax and Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 5703-9: Sales and Use Tax. For, the sales tax is more often referred to as an “excise tax,” and O.R.C. §5739.02, in implementing the sales tax, expressly states that “an excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this State.”

In respect of the foregoing, I offer the following modification of the amendment, with proposed changes italicized:

5703-9-39 Interstate commerce.

When tangible personal property is sold within the State and the vendor is obligated to deliver it to a point outside of the State, or to deliver it to a carrier or to the mails for transportation to a point outside of the State, the Ohio Sales sales Tax tax does not apply. However, where tangible personal property pursuant to a sale is delivered in this State to either the buyer or to an its agent, of his other than an interstate carrier the retail Sales Tax sales tax applies, unless the delivery is made by means of an interstate carrier, notwithstanding that the buyer may subsequently transport the property out of the State.

The grant of a sales tax exemption for purchases made by Ohioans from out-of-state vendors whom, themselves, have no physical presence within Ohio or nexus with Ohio, is a great encouragement to the advance of commerce. It provides economic efficiency to domestic purchasers and encourages reciprocity in the tax policy of other States.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this Rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

Philosophy, Law and Politics

Promoting Reasonable and Consistent State Agency Regulation in Ohio

Proposed new regulations of Ohio Executive Agencies are reviewed for adequacy by the Ohio Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, composed of members of the Ohio Senate and House. In the current proposed revision of Ohio law governing the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (SB 221, amending Ohio Revised Code 106.021), perhaps it should be made mandatory that JCARR undertake review of whether a proposed regulation is contrary to law and similarly be required to request an invalidation of a proposed rule by the Ohio General Assembly upon making a finding that a proposed regulation is contrary to law. Under current law, both are left to JCARR’s discretion.

Mandatory review and invalidation is necessary because JCARR should be precluded from permitting unreasonable proposed rules and regulations to become effective. A regulation must be reasonable to be lawful. Agencies should adequately justify their decision making with sufficient analysis and explanation. It is the duty of JCARR to ensure as a balance and check on government that the agencies make wise and reasoned policy choices. JCARR does not supplant its policy choices for that of the agency, rather it only looks to the due and proper procedure and basis upon which the agency relies for the rule its seeks to promulgate. Such a requirement of reasonableness would result in regulation that is consistent with and does not conflict with governing law, without first relying upon a court for judicial review after the harm has been done. No committee of a state legislature should have within its discretion non-action upon arbitrary and capricious proposed agency regulation.

A review of the possible “adverse impact” of a proposed regulation is a preexisting requirement as to Ohio Revised Code 106.021(F). Usually neither an analysis nor finding of a possible adverse impact is reported for consideration as to the validity of a proposed regulation. Review of potential adverse impact usually merely addresses fiscal, business considerations, and not the substantive analysis required in legal drafting.

SB 221, Line 103, amending Ohio Revised Code 101.352, proposes to permit JCARR to seek an agency’s appearance to explain whether current rules reflect the principles and policies of the agency, or rather whether the agency should propose new rules that establish its present basis for regulation. Yet, this duty is permissive and subject to JCARR’s discretion and is not mandatory, even if JCARR is on notice that an agency’s regulations are not up to date? Would a mandatory provision place too great an administrative burden upon JCARR?

SB 221, Line 134, amending Ohio Revised Code 101.352, similarly permits that upon initiating review of an agency’s regulations and receiving an agency’s testimony at a hearing, JCARR “may” but is not required to vote upon whether to recommend that the agency review its regulations. Would making the vote mandatory create a violation of the separation of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive branches? Or, would it no more enhance the power and authority currently permitted JCARR than the creation of its power to review proposed executive agency regulations in the first instance?

SB221, Lines 1541-1619, amending Ohio Revised Code 121.931, permits a person to petition an agency to request a review of whether the agency has not properly revised or restated its regulations. If the agency denies the petition, the petitioner may appear at an agency hearing. In such a proceeding, how is the agency’s standard of review – that the petitioner has shown that the agency’s action in not revising its regulation is “erroneous” – to be defined? Is the burden of proof borne by the petitioner – that the agency’s previously stated “intention to deny the petition [for revision] is erroneous” — the same as a required showing of erroneousness by the petitioner as to the agency’s rationale for not granting the petition and undertaking a revision or restatement of the rule? Does an inquiry as to whether the agency’s action is erroneous go only to questions of fact or also to whether the agency may have committed an error of law? Is a finding of erroneousness too high a standard for the petitioner to bear? Given that a petitioner may not appeal a denial of a petition within the agency, is an agency denial of a petition a final agency action permitting judicial review?

Our Duties as Ohio Citizens to Cultivate a Life of Learning

We should encourage self-sustaining government that develops our young people within the State of Ohio to participate nationally. Ohio cannot rely upon benevolent carpetbaggers to serve in office so that Ohio can compete nationally. Our own citizens and residents may seek a national education in noteworthy academic institutions across the nation and return to Ohio.

With the advent of Universal Pre-K education throughout Ohio, we can guarantee that our young people benefit from modern America and the great advances in learning and ability our young people now possess. Pre-K program and curriculum should enable the great diversity discernible among our children to be encouraged. Current educational scholarship and learning allows humane “tracking” among the very young by interest, inclination and ability. Achievements should be cultivated from advanced classical curriculum to that mitigating and correcting learning disadvantages whether societal or physiological.

In “Keeping-up-with-the Joneses,” Ohio schools and businesses must also look to self-sustainability in promoting development in energy resources. For, without energy resources modern society cannot exist. Our universities might not invent our energy patents in use, but we must provide a didactic rubric for competitive development of alternative energy sources within our State. Ohio government must look to academics and scientists within the State of Ohio to aid in drafting and revising statutes and administrative regulations that provide an overarching framework for bringing energy technology into Ohio. Interstate collaboration will permit a long viable modernization of the energy industry in Ohio. Our laws and regulations must be competitive.

Perhaps Former Speaker John Boehner and his soon to be The Boehner Institute at Xavier University in Cincinnati might begin policy formulation and regulation drafting on the topics of education, energy, management of government bureaucracies, as well as many others.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Popular Participation and Involvement is Truly Feasible and Obligatory, Even as to the Most Complex Subject Matters of State Action (Comments submited to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)

I submitted the Comments below in response to a Notice of formal Rulemaking by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

January 22, 2018

Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549-1090

Sent via Email to: rule-comments@sec.gov

Re: File Number S7-09-17

Dear Secretary,

I write with interest in the proposed amendment of 17 C.F.R. Part 200, and the promulgation of regulations, to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80-200.80(g), by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or, alternatively, the “Commission”) regarding agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C §522, as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (the “Improvement Act”), Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538. Please consider this letter submission of comments upon this proposed rule in response to the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments, as published in the Federal Register, on January 3, 2018, 83 Fed. Reg. 291-302. I support this new rule and I believe it achieves the Commission’s primary objectives as stated in the notice: to make revisions required by the Improvement Act, as well as to amend beyond the scope of the Improvement Act and utilize the necessary amendment to also “clarify, update, and streamline” current SEC regulation. 83 Fed. Reg. 292 (2018).

The supplementary information in the notice of this proposed rule states that the new rule essentially “codifies several existing practices” of the SEC, such as electronic responses to information requests and determination of the fees charged therefor. 83 Fed. Reg. 293 (2018). The SEC is longstanding, truly, in its fair reliance upon the incentives inherent within the American economy, and its principles of capitalism, to utilize advances in science and technology, primarily of the profit based commercial sector and marketplace, to the benefit of not only securities investors but also to the benefit of the nation.

In summary, the proposed rule permits reliance by major corporations upon information technologies currently in use, yet ensures individual requesters that their requests will be neither costly nor burdensome, with codification of a permissive outline of fees to be charged. 83 Fed. Reg. 299 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(g)(3)(i)). The proposed rule revises SEC FOIA request and response procedures to require the SEC to make disclosures of information available to the public in both the existing, traditional paper form as well as in various newly available electronic forms. 83 Fed. Reg. 295 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(a)). The new rule also provides all with assurances as to issues of privacy and financial records and data. 83 Fed. Reg. 295-296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(b), (c)).

As in this instance, the SEC periodically refines and revises its own internal standards and procedures. It relies upon these informal decisions to transform intra-agency custom unto newly promulgated governing regulation. This proposed new rule is such an example. This rule provides user friendly information in which all participants, or, as denominated by the SEC “stakeholders,” in the global economy may share through due compliance, from the small individual investor, to the small, medium and large domestic or multinational business entity.

The new rule expressly acknowledges the various uses made of government information by diverse international market participants. For, it categorizes and defines anticipated requesters of information, from the individual investor, the commercial entity, the publicly interested academic or scientific organization, to the journalist of the fourth estate. 82 Fed. Reg. 298-301 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)).

The SEC further achieves great clarity for the benefit of the public, as well as for the other branches of government, in that this new rule proposes to also define and explain the services the SEC offers and relies upon in responding to requests for information. 82 Fed. Reg. 298-302 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)). The rule states that a “search” for information maintained by agencies of the Federal government is agency action to determine whether information is relevant to a specific request, contra distinct from a “review” of records maintained by agencies of the Federal government, which is agency action to determine whether specific information requested is exempt from disclosure as required by law. 82 Fed. Reg. 299 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)(2)(vii), (viii)). And, the SEC charges fees for these defined services which vary according to the category of a specific information requester. 82 Fed. Reg. 299-300 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)(3), (4)).

The new rule places the burden of compliance with SEC FOIA request procedures, not upon the requester of information but, rather, upon the SEC itself. In that, the new rule requires that SEC staff members provide individual guidance to requesters, both before the requester initiates a request, and after the SEC acknowledges having received a request. 82 Fed. Reg. 296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(b)(3)). The new rule, though cautioning requesters that the SEC Office of FOIA Services is primarily responsible for evaluating information requests, expressly provides guidance for requests “misdirected” to a division or office of the SEC other than the Office of FOIA Services. The rule also indicates that the SEC will collaborate, both intra-agency within the SEC and among the other Federal agencies, if necessary in order to respond to a request for information. 82 Fed. Reg. 296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(c)(2), (3)).

In drafting and promulgating regulation over a practitioner’s continuum, the SEC achieves equilibrium in the burden of regulatory compliance to be borne itself, as the governing agency, and as to that to be borne by the public. It, thus, internally evaluates regulatory alternatives prior to offering a new rule for public review. The SEC both protects and encourages investment and maintains market efficiency, and thereby produces national prosperity and capital growth. It gleans, from public participation, research that provides diversity in thought in policy making, examination and enforcement, and so provides both information and guidance to private investors.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

In Pursuit of Both Common Good and Public Interest, Governmental Entities Should be Required to Promote Self-Governance (Written testimony before the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review of the Ohio General Assembly.)

The text below is of a letter submitted yesterday, Christmas Day, in comment testimony before the Ohio General Assembly Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. It concerns proposed rule making by the Attorney General for the State of Ohio in implementation of federal funding to provide support services to victims of sexual abuse. It is to be considered during the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting, tentatively scheduled for January 8, 2018.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

December 25, 2017

Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review
The Ohio General Assembly
Vern Riffe Center
77 South High Street
Concourse Level
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Sent Via Email to: jcarr1@jcarr.state.oh.us

Re: Attorney General Proposed Rules 109:7-1-05 (disbursements) and 109:7-1-06 (definitions)

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review,

I write with interest in the proposed addition to the Ohio Administrative Code of new rules 109:7-1-05 and 109:7-1-06 by the Attorney General regarding the implementation of funding provisions for rape crisis programs under the auspices of the federal centers for disease prevention and control and denominated in the Ohio Revised Code as the “Rape crisis program trust fund.” Ohio Revised Code § 109.921. This program, as enacted, envisions comprehensive services for victims of sexual trauma.

The Ohio Revised Code mandates the Attorney General to provide funding to a “Rape crisis program,” which, as most broadly defined by statute, includes a “nonprofit [nongovernmental] entity that provides a full continuum of services to victims of sexual assault, including hotlines, victim advocacy, and support services from the onset of the need for services through the completion of healing ….” § 109.921(A)(1)(c) (emphasis added). And, the Ohio Revised Code states that “[a] rape crisis program that receives funding … shall use the money received … for the following purposes [among others]:” “(2) … hotlines, victim advocacy, or support services.” O.R.C. § 109.921(D) (emphasis added). However, in contradiction to the foregoing express grant of statutory authority for the funding of “victim advocacy,” the new rule 109-7-05 proposed by the Attorney General expressly prohibits the use of funds for “Lobbying activities.” Proposed Rule 109-7-05(F)(1).

It does not seem that the Attorney General has included a definition of “Lobbying” in the proposed new rules. See, Proposed Rule 109:7-1-06 (definitions governing the trust fund). Nor does a definition of either “advocacy” or “lobbying” seem to appear in any other source of authority that would be applicable to this funding provision, apart and distinct from those generally previously existing under Ohio law. See, O.A.C. § 109:7-01-03 (definitions governing trust fund) and O.A.C. § 109:7-1-04 (procedures for submitting funding requests). See also, O.R.C. §101.70(E) (to “Actively advocate” deemed “Legislative lobbying.”); O.R.C. § 121.60(I) (“[C]ontacts made to promote, oppose, or otherwise influence … an executive agency decision” deemed “lobbying activity.”); and O.R.C. § 3517.20(A)(1), (2), & (3) (defining “Political communications” as those statements “for or against” or “advertising”).

The funding by the Attorney General should encourage productive informal discussions on diverse topics. The proposed funding would, and is needed to, do so. However, the prohibition on lobbying efforts in the proposed rule should be clarified for those entities to be funded. Discussion by program participants should relate to important, current issues in the community, especially as to those seeking support for transitions in difficult times. Activities financed under this trust fund would be an act of the governmental or nonprofit entity, and would not constitute a use of the funds by individual persons in behest of personal expression on various topics. Thus, some revision is indicated for the avoidance of express contradiction of the proposed rules with the authorizing legislation, and even as to contradiction within the very proposed rules, as to the use by the Attorney General of both “advocacy” and “lobbying.”

I offer that the Attorney General should modify the proposed rules to not expressly reach issues of “lobbying,” which under Ohio law includes advocacy. Rather, the Attorney General should only expect funding recipients to remain in compliance with the general laws governing lobbying and political influence. Consequently, funded centers could guide program participants on an individual basis as to personal issues and only be reviewed if they as fund recipients assert interested positions. This would prohibit persuasive statements or presentations by the funded entities which would constitute lobbying under Ohio law, yet still permit funds to support conversation among participants. And, the written informational material and oral presentations of advocacy organizations unaffiliated with the fund recipients could be made available in the ordinary course to permit informed decision making by program participants.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls