Mediaboss Marketing

The $1 trillion U.S. Infrastructure Bill seemed to have touched on nearly every subject, ranging from clean energy and infrastructure, to the internet and even digital assets. However, many crypto investors are worried about what the bill could mean for their trading activities. As it turns out, so are a few lawyers.

During an episode of the What Bitcoin Did podcast, host Peter McCormack spoke to independent lawyer Abraham Sutherland and Chief Compliance Officer at Multicoin Capital, Greg Xethalis. They discussed the US Infrastructure Bill and in particular, Section 6050I.

6050I is part of the U.S. Tax Code. A proposed amendment to it would make the recipient of digital assets valued at more than $10,000, responsible for verifying their senders personal details including their Social Security number.

Recipients would then have to send a report of the same to the government authorities within a certain time frame. Those who dont obey could be forced to pay fines or spend up to five years in prison.

Sutherlandsaid,

This is an amendment to the tax code but its really a new criminal prohibition on peer-to-peer transfers and its been overlooked.

In essence, the proposed requirements fly in the face of DeFi and decentralization itself. For his part, Xethalis worried that the problematic amendmentput the onus of KYC and verification on people who were not equipped to be regulators.

Meanwhile, McCormack pointed out that many U.S. residents wouldnt even be able to comply with the rules, due to the nature of crypto itself.

Sutherlands research report on the provisionstated,

Miners, stakers, lenders, decentralized application and marketplace users, traders, businesses and individuals are all at risk of being subject to this reporting requirement, even though in most situations the person or entity in receipt is not in the position to report the required information.

Calling the requirements an invasion of privacy, McCormack questioned whether a crypto exchange user would soon have to report every transaction, as well as their sender or recipient, to the U.S. government.

Americas Bank Secrecy Act makes it mandatory for banks to report all cash transactions involvingmore than $10,000 to the government. If the US Infrastructure Bill passes, Sutherland believed that banks could also apply this rule to digital assets.

McCormack naturally wondered how such regulations would apply to an asset as volatile as Bitcoin or even NFTs.

Speaking about the amendment, Sutherlandsaid,

Now, I dont want to focus on, kind of, the legal infirmities of this, but [its] highly constitutionally suspect under the fourth amendment.

He was, of course referring to Americas 4th amendment right, which deals with citizens security and privacy.

Read this article:
What is the US infra bill crypto amendment REALLY all about - AMBCrypto News

By Carson Eschen and Eric Rodriguez

SANTA BARBARA, CA A deputy public defender argued here in Santa Barbara County Superior Court Wednesday that a mothers pretrial release conditions were too stringent and that they were wrongfully based on acts that were committed not by her but by a defendant in a related case.

Danisha Michelle Figueroa is being charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, and accessory to a crime.

During the hearing, Figueroas public defender, Brian Mathis, stated that he believed the pretrial report was primarily describing the actions of David Lamar, not Figueroa. The only allegations that he believed were actually being levied against Figueroa were surrounding the attempted deletion of evidence.

Lamars casein which he is being charged with threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, commit battery, and prevent/dissuade witness victim from giving testimonyis associated with Figueroas case but his charges are not her charges, maintained the defense attorney.

According to the defense attorney, Figueroa allegedly discussed deleting incriminating evidence during a jail call, and agreed to deleting such evidence by accessing Lamars email and attempting to delete the incriminating evidence.

PD Mathis claims her allegations fall under minor cyber-crimes, as opposed to the felony charges in Lamars case.

Taken alongside Figueroas status as a mother of three children14, 12, and 3Mathis requested that she be released with pretrial supervision without a GPS tracking device. He pointed out that the use of GPS tracking devices was unnecessary as Figueroa was complying in any way possible.

He also argued that GPS tracking incurred a significant cost, which he believed to be unnecessary for this case.

He also objected to a clause giving up Figureoas Fourth Amendment right and a clause to abstain from drugs and alcohol, stating that they also didnt pertain to the current charges.

The judge agreed to the release, but still insisted on the GPS tracking device and other terms and conditions proposed by the prosecution, noting that she had sometimes left her kids with their father to meet up with Lamar.

He also cited previous incidents, occurring five years prior, where Figueroa had failed to show up for court.

Figueroa is expected to report to probation on Oct. 14 for supervised release.

Her case has also been placed under the same judge that is overseeing Lamars case to make due process more efficient, as proposed by the district attorney.

Figueroa is scheduled to appear at the court on Oct. 22 for a hearing setting date.

Read the original here:
Mother of Three, Associated with a Man Charged with Domestic Violence, Given Pretrial Release - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

BELLEFONTE The Penn Stater Hotel and Conference Center is once again part of Centre Countys Election Day plans.

On Tuesday, Centre County commissioner Michael Pipe confirmed that the county will use the site to count mail-in ballots, but on a much smaller scale.

Much smaller, Pipe said. In 2020, we had about 275, 300 individuals over the course of two days. This election, were looking at about 70 people. So its much, much smaller. Were bringing it down to scale. Were going to be able to enhance some of the things that weve done in the past to make sure that its transparent and open. Folks can come in to look at it. It should be a good process.

Election Day 2021 will not draw the crowds that 2020 saw, since its not a presidential election. However, with COVID-19 numbers on the rise once again in Centre County, mail-in ballots are a safe and effective way to cast votes.

We do have about 10,000 applications for mail-in ballots as of this morning, commissioner Steve Dershem said.

Secure dropboxes will be located throughout the county, Pipe said.

Drop off boxes were installed over the last few days, so theyll be opened once ballots start going out. That will be this week, Pipe said.

Election Day is right around the corner Tuesday, Nov. 2. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. that day. Voters casting mail-in ballots can use the U.S. Mail. They can also deliver them to the main entrance of the countys Willowbank Building, 420 Holmes St., in Bellefonte, or to any of eight secure drop-box locations around the county until 8 p.m. on Election Day.

In other business Tuesday, the commissioners:

Issued Proclamation No. 33 of 2021, which proclaimed October 2021 as Cyber Security Awareness Month in Centre County.

Watched as county administrator Margaret Gray opened responses for the RFP Information Technology Managed Services. The RFP was tabled until Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2021.

Approved a contract with Centre Communications to provide microwave battery maintenance at ten tower sites to include battery capacity upgrades at two sites, and a backup battery charger and rectifier at one site. The contract total is $90,158 for the period of Oct. 19, 2021 to Feb. 28, 2022. The contract was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Received a quotation from Centre Communications for decommissioning and removal of the tower at the Centre Hall site. Centre Communications will decommission and dismantle the tower and remove all steel from the site. The county will be responsible for removing concrete foundations, piers, anchors and other items below ground level. The total quote is $9,360. The quotation was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a contract with Helen Stolinas, Esquire of Mazza Law Group PC to provide legal services. The contract total is $7,500, which is funded as follows: State ($6,000) and county ($1,500) for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a contract renewal with Pathways Adolescent Center to provide residential/transitional living services for dependent/delinquent youth.

The contract total is $250,000, which is funded as follows: State ($200,000) and county ($50,000) for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a contract renewal with Pressley Ridge to provide residential services for dependent/delinquent youth. The contract total is $37,500, which is funded as follows: State ($30,000) and county ($7,500) for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a contract renewal with Adelphoi Village, Inc. to provide foster/residential services. The contract total is $295,000, which is funded as follows: State ($236,000) and county ($59,000) for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a contract renewal with Centre County Youth Service Bureau to provide residential services for dependent/delinquent youth. The contract total is $1,702,000, which is funded as follows: State ($1,361,600) and county ($340,400) for the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

Approved a fourth amendment to the lease agreement with Fred R. Wood and Denise M. Wood d.b.a Together Investments for the premises located at 1524 West College Avenue, State College for the Centre Region MDJ Office. The contract total is $284,418.60 for the period of Jan. 1, 2022 through Dec. 31, 2027. The item was moved to next weeks consent agenda.

The Centre County commissioners will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 19 at the Willowbank Building. The meeting is open to the public and masks are required. The meeting will also be televised live via C-NET.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See more here:
Centre County will use Penn Stater on Election Day - Lock Haven Express

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

As previously reported, the Company is party to a Loan and Security Agreementwith North Mill Capital, LLC ("North Mill"), as successor in interest to SummitFinancial Resources, L.P., dated effective February 27, 2017, as amended April16, 2018, April 24, 2019 and December 18, 2020 (as amended, the "CreditAgreement"). The Company's obligations under the Credit Facility are secured byall of the Company's personal property, both tangible and intangible, pursuantto the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement.Availability of funds under the Credit Agreement is based on the Company'saccounts receivable and inventory but will not exceed $4,000,000.

Effective October 7, 2021, the Company and North Mill amended the CreditAgreement to increase the availability under the loan based on inventory. Underthe amendment, minimum availability under the loan based on inventory shall bethe lowest of: (i) the total cost eligible inventory multiplied by the advancerate; (ii) one hundred percent (100%) of the current availability provided byeligible accounts receivable; (iii) two million dollars ($2,000,000), anincrease from the prior amount of $1,000,000. The inventory advance rate remainsat 25%. This increase in borrowing capacity will allow the Company to increaseits borrowing under the Credit Agreement to meet its working capital needs, notto exceed the $4,000,000 maximum which remains unchanged.

The minimum monthly payment will remain .25% (25 basis points) on the maximumavailability ($10,000 per month). In the event the Company prepays or terminatesthe Credit Facility prior to February 27, 2022, the Company will be obligated topay an amount equal to the minimum monthly payment multiplied by the number ofmonths remaining between February 27, 2022 and the date of such prepayment ortermination. The maturity remains February 27, 2023, at which time all amountsoutstanding will be due and payable. Total availability under the creditagreement remains at $4,000,000.

The foregoing summary of the Credit Agreement is qualified in its entirety byreference to the Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement, a copy ofwhich is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1, and incorporated by reference herein.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information related to the Credit Agreement discussed under Item 1.01 setforth above is hereby incorporated by reference under this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

See more here:
ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the use of the writs of assistance. But though the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the colonies late and as a result of experience, there was also a rich English experience to draw on. Every mans house is his castle was a maxim much celebrated in England, as Samans Case demonstrated in 1603. A civil case of execution of process, Samans Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the Kings agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the Kings process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself.

Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets, and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive of all the comforts of society, and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a persons papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature contrary to the genius of the law of England. Besides its general character, the court said, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a great judgment, one of the landmarks of English liberty, one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution, and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.

In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. Once issued, the writs remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, opposition was led by James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism. Otis lost and the writs were issued and used, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.

The language of the provision that became the Fourth Amendment underwent some modest changes on its passage through the Congress, and it is possible that the changes reflected more than a modest significance in the interpretation of the relationship of the two clauses. Madisons introduced version provided The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute and no warrant shall issue for by warrants issuing in the committee draft. In some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional provision.

As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendments two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are reasonable are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are reasonable searches under the first clause that need not comply with the second clause. This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute that has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. Although the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter.

More:
Fourth Amendment: Historical Background | Constitution ...