Cate Street Capital- Legal Fraud Status Checks Out -Here's How it Happened !

Tweet This: http://goo.gl/t7bJbI  

Below is a quote that was passed on to me by an acquaintance who had contacted a member of the media concening investigations into the legal status of Subchapter 12: MAINE NEW MARKETS CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM , which is the premise of the legality of a fraud perpetuated on the Maine people as reported as fact by the Maine media and costing Maine tax payers 76 million dollars at the latest telling in this article by Whit Richardson

Thanks for writing, and for taking the time to do some digging. What you discovered is true. I don’t believe the Senate voted to approve LD 991 in 2011. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter as the bill’s language was folded into the budget bill that year. The House and Senate both voted to approve the budget, which means they also voted to create the New Markets program even though the original bill died on the appropriations table. Legislative leadership can fold language into the budget bill any time they want.

This response inspired a search for the truth as to whether or not the statute was in a budget bill voted on by the House & Senate in the process for bill enactment found in the Maine Constitution.

In response to one of my FOA requests to the Legislative Library, I had received a copy of record of the budget meeting in which the statute was embedded. That document was very difficult to read as it was a copy from a book with a distracting background texture but through that I was able to find the Record of the Budget Meeting on line-HERE

You can search "new markets" to get to the section where a statute is inserted into a budget.
This represents the rational I have encountered through out the Maine media whose story line continues with "There is nothing to be done about it"  and so Maine Tax payers must deliver the money as mandated by their representatives,who wrote thie following in the findings for Subchapter 12: MAINE NEW MARKETS CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM

The Legislature finds that the incentives offered by the State pursuant to this subchapter are intended to induce major investments in qualified businesses and developments located in economically distressed areas of the State and that any party who accepts and reasonably relies upon these inducements in making qualified investments is entitled to the full realization of these incentives without impairment by subsequent changes in law.

The Legislature finds that when determining whether a project is financially feasible an investing party must rely in good faith upon the Legislature to ensure that the promised incentives of this subchapter will be available for a period of 7 years following the date of each qualified investment and that a party's confidence in the full realization of these benefits is a critical factor in inducing the party to make the desired investment. It is the intent of this Legislature that all successor Legislatures honor the commitments held out by this subchapter. This section of the enacted statute based on the version enacted into law as found in the budget report appears to be identical to the LD 991 which was passed  to be enacted by the House. This section was written by the Committee "A"which judging by dates found in amendment records and the fact that this section came back as an amendment after being referred to the committee on taxation, the source of the section would be the budget committee who clearly wants to make certain that the taxpayers are bound firmly to this agreement.

All of which was arranged without the consent of the Maine taxpayers. I have not researched the source of such allocations-whether the funds come from bonds sold to the taxpayers as "creating jobs" or else where- that is another project. But let it be said that bonds voted in without the fiscal information accompanying the ballot question cannot be constitutionally ratified despite the fact the the legislature passed and LePage signed a bill saying other wise. The constituion cannot be ammended by passing a statute !

"The House and Senate both voted to approve the budget, which means they also voted to create the New Markets program even though the original bill died on the appropriations table".  -Lets examine the veracity of this claim !

This is the Budget Bill in which the New Markets Tax Credit Statute is embedded 

However Recall that in response to an FOA request, the Legislative Library wrote this:

Note that the subject matter was included in the biennial budget bill (PL 2011, c. 380, Pt Q) and LD 991 was allowed to die.

It was codified under 10 MRSA §1100-Z:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/10/title10sec1100-Z.html

Noting that the reference intended by the pronoun "It" is not clear. Does "it: refer to :the subject matter"- or does "it" refer to LD 991 ?

A further inquiry produced this response:

·         P.L. 2011, ch. 380, Part Q can be found starting on page 856: http://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/Laws/2011/2011_PL_c380.pdf·         What Ryan is referring to is that while the one bill did not pass (125^th LD 991), the idea of the bill seems to have been rolled into the larger budget bill that year. In that way, while LD 991 did not pass, this program was still enacted into law because it was contained in the budget. This is relatively common, and the motivations may sometimes be unclear, but the result is similar to if the original bill passed. It is important to note that the language enacted in the budget bill (P.L. 2011, ch. 380) is not identical to the language in 125^th LD 991 or amendment S-299, but it seems similar.
·         This program, enacted by P.L. 2011, ch. 380 Part Q is codified as 10 MRSA §1100-Z: http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10sec1100-Z.html

This clarifies that it is the "similar but different " statute included in a bill written by a committee of 12 legislatures, three from the Senate and nine from the House, which has been codified into the statute which became the premise of a "legal fraud" perpetuated on the Maine taxpayers, which at last telling will cost the taxpayers 76 million dollars.

These were the Commitee Members SenateRichard W Rosen - Chair - R HancockRoger J Katz R KennebeckDawn Hill D York
House
Tom J Winsor R NorwayKathleen D Chase R WellsTyler Clark R EastonKenneth Wade fredeet R NewportDennis L Kesch R BelgradeMargaret R Rotunso D LewistonJohn L Martin D Eagle LakeFavid C Webster D FreeportDara R Stevens D BangorThis information was also obtained through an FOA request in teh form of a page copied from a book.

 I don’t believe the Senate voted to approve LD 991 in 2011. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter as the bill’s language was folded into the budget bill that year. The House and Senate both voted to approve the budget, which means they also voted to create the New Markets program even though the original bill died on the appropriations table

To confirm this I needed to find the bill status. I found it by going to advanced bill search for the 125th Session using this information found in Part Q of the PDF file for the Budgetary meeting

HP0778, Emergency Signed on 2011-06-20 00:00:00.0 - First Regular Session - 125th Maine Legislature, page 38 

Part Q is found in the first Ammendment L.D. 1043

How ever Part Q found there contains only this summary:

PART Q  This Part enacts the Maine New Markets Capital Investment Program, which is modeled after the federal tax credit to attract investment in economically distressed areas. It provides a refundable credit taken over 7 years equal to 39% of qualified investments for which a maximum aggregate amount of tax credit of $250,000 is authorized. The 20 credit amounts are 0% for the first 2 years, 7% in the 3rd year and 8% in the last 4 years. The credit can be carried forward.

The Part requires the Finance Authority of Maine to develop a process for qualified community development entities to apply for allocation of the Maine credit, to certify the qualified investments and to engage in rulemaking to implement the program. It requires the Commissioner of Administrative and Financial Services to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the investors eligible for the credit. The Department of Administrative and Financial Services, Bureau of Revenue Services processes the credits through tax returns and executes the recapture of the credit as needed. The Part requires the Finance Authority of Maine to report, no later than January 1, 2015, to the joint standing committees of the Legislature having jurisdiction over appropriations and financial affairs and over taxation matters on the activities and performance of the program. http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0778&item=2&snum=125

 Emergency Enacted, Jun 20, 2011Governor's Action: Emergency Signed, Jun 20, 2011

I put in an FOA Request for the  Senate and House Roll Call Vote

This is the Roll Call Vote for the Senate LD 1043 (HP 778)
This is the Roll Call Vote for The House
These are all the Details of the Roll Call Vote

The New Markets Tax Credit is in the amendment-The House and Senate did vote for this statute fully embedded as an amendment to the budget bill. 


Can't help but notice that while the amendment is not embedded in the bill text, when one clicks on the fiscal note for the amendment- that is embeded in the fiscal note for the entire bill. There are many generically lettered parts in the fiscal notes but none that say New Markets Tax Credit and so to figure out which lettered part refers to the New Markets Tax Credit one would have to do a lot of research and decoding- where as if the fiscal note were attached to a stand alone bill as was LD 991, what ever was in the fiscal note would transparently apply to the New Markets Tax Credit.

It is also true that by submerging The statute for the New Markets Tax Credits it is not easy to find out who voted for the amendment that  includes the statute, which is what I originally wanted to find out. Even in the amendment the New Market Tax Credit is submerged in many other considerations, which means that voting for the statute is contigent on voting for all of those other considerations.

The House was straight forward and voted on LD 991 by its self- not so the Senate !

SUMMARY:

The bill was submerged almost identically into the budget bill giving the impression that it was done for entirely political reasons with no concern for public transparency. This means that if a member of the public goes back to check the bill status of a published statute, it will say that the bill died before it was codified.

 When I finally tracked down that the statute has been submerged into a two year budget bill. and when I looked up the bill status of the budget bill, I still could not find the House and Senate vote. The information that resulted from a bill status search said only that the budget bill was enacted and signed by the Governor. It required an FOA request to locate the House and Senate Roll Call to confirm that there had been a, (nearly) conventional House ad Senate vote to enact a bill, which simultaneously enacted a statute.

The inquiry was originally initiated because I wanted to see the roll call for the vote on the New Markets Tax Credit Statute. Because the statute was embedded into a budget bill, that information is impossible to derive. A legislator voting for or against a permament statute would also be voting for or against an entire two year budget ! This entirerly compromises the decison to vote for a stand alone statute.

This raises the question: How many bills are there that are reported on the publicly available bill status to have died when they have actually been submerged into another bill and passed? It is particuarily disturbing when a statute is passed this way since a statute has a much longer life than a two year budget.

 There is also the question of the constitutionality of refundable tax credits. Our constitution places a limit on the debt that the legislature is allowed to occur without public consent. There is no public consent with refundable tax credits.

The Seed Capital Refundable Tax Credit was created in 1987 at a 30 percent refund taken from taxpayer pockets and transferred to corporate bank accounts based on nothing more than a legislative mandate, Now The Seed Capital Tax Credit is a 60% refund- and the limit was increased eight fold in 2013. 

Currently despite the scandal pusuant to Cate Street Capital the legislature wants to increase the limit for the New Market Tax Credit by doubling it !

 Refundable tax credits are the merging of Marxism and the public-private special interests hegemony. Refundable tax credits transgress constitutional limitations on the occurance of public debt and allow the legislature to increase public debt without limitation by merely deeming in a bill findings that such an action is good for the economy and the general public. The public has no say in this matter which mandates the public to transfer the fruit of their own labor into corporate bank accounts !- That is unless the money for these tax credits are being financed by public bonds sold to the voter as job creation- my research hasn't gone that far to date

 The media told us that our country bumpkin legislature had just rolled the statute into a budget bill- It's done all the time! As if that is supposed to make it legitimate. The media saw no need to substantiate where they got their own information. Was it from taking the word of the legislature ? As long as the media expects one to just take their word, end of  inquiry, the only way to know for sure is to follow the trail one's self. As a result of doing so, I now know that what I read on bill status as published by the government online is not reliable information.

Why Refundable Tax Credits are really just a legislative mandate to take money out of taxpayer posckets and trnasfer it to corporate bank accounts