Proposed 2013 New York State Constituional Amendments on the November 5, 2013 Ballot

eHezi Archives 5 Comments

NYS 2103Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Click onto the poster above to open an enlarged poster that is readable.

Learn more by 
Download Senator Latimer's Constitutional Amendment-Flyer explaining the proposed amendments.

eHeziProposed 2013 New York State Constituional Amendments on the November 5, 2013 Ballot

Comments 5

  1. They do have a feel good proposition in the mix to give Veterans higher civil service clout. I feel this is a good idea even if I cannot find the actual language yet.
    I think it was placed there to get you voting “yes” to all the others. Be careful.
    God bless our Vets!

  2. I am looking forward to the call in on Monday. In Yonkers, there is one local ballot proposition, proposed Amendment No. 1 that states: Should the plan proposed by the Commission for new ward boundaries be adopted? I will vote “No” on this and here’s why: It’s not cost effective and will waste taxpayer money. The Westchester County Board of Elections will have a greater opportunity to save money if they are able to adjust the ward boundaries drawn last year with the local council district lines redrawn this year. That can only happen if this proposal is defeated.

  3. Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
    When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant’s assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
    In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[1]
    There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A “person damaged in his business or property” can sue one or more “racketeers”. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an “enterprise”. The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise “through” the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above. In essence, the enterprise is the illegal device of the racketeers. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[2]
    Both the federal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages.
    Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, “We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”[1]

  4. It’s a big NO on every one of these props. Not one worthy of a yes vote unless you are one kind of trough feeder or another.
    What each of these props. Need is a cost to the taxpayer beside each one cos everyone will lead to higher taxes in the form of taxpayer subsidies.

Leave a Reply

This comment will be displayed anonymously. Your name and email address will not be published.

Comments that are off topic will be removed. If you want a topic to be covered, email me at:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.