O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-6111704862570439990";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-10-10T18:33:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-10-10T18:33:30.809-07:00";s:5:"title";s:44:"Attorney General Revised candidate statement";s:12:"atom_content";s:5684:"McCullough for AG Home Page 2016 <br><br> October 10, 2016<br><br>   Everyone knows that Utah is basically a one party state. The full weight of that knowledge, however, did not occur to me until I started working on my first financial report for the elections office for the 2016 election season. As I prepared my own report, showing very little financial activity so far, I had occasion to look at the financial situation of my Republican and Democratic opponents. The current attorney general, Sean Reyes, has received many multi-thousand dollar campaign contributions from large corporations and large law firms. He also reported $250,000 left over from his previous campaign two years ago.<br><br>   Then our Democratic opponent, Jon Harper, withdrew from the race on September 21.  The official “Debate Commission” televised debate was scheduled for later that day.   His announcement indicated that he had health problems, and that he could not go forward.  We all wish him well, but this changes the dynamics of this race substantially. The Commission, in all its majesty, decided to feature a full hour of Sean Reyes all by himself, even though I was in the audience.  Now I am pretty much alone in opposing Mr. Reyes for re-election.  While the Democratic candidate’s name remains on the ballot, he has ceased all campaign activity; and there is no organized effort that I can find to promote him. Some Democrats, most notably Senator James Dabakis, have now switched their support to me.  We welcome them to our efforts to advocate a more free, more open, society; and our efforts to make the office of the Attorney General responsive to the citizens and the Bill of Rights.<br><br>  The disparity in resources remains, and is worse than ever.  The likelihood is higher than ever that there really will not be an election for attorney general in Utah this year, but simply a coronation. Mr. Reyes will spend whatever is necessary, and it will be hard for anyone else to be heard.<br><br>  That is a sad situation. The democratic process thrives on an open debate and a free exchange of ideas. There has been little of that so far in the 2016 election cycle. There does not seem to be much of a choice. The die seems already cast. <br><br>  So, if you have read this far, you are wondering why I even bother to be a candidate. I don’t have a lot of resources.  At least up until the Democrat withdrew, I have had no illusions of victory. In the past, organizations who might otherwise support my view on the issues have automatically endorsed the Democratic candidate on the assumption that he has a better chance of winning. I am still hoping that people and organizations that normally support Democrats will support me and will help me make a race of it.  Time is short; and so is money. But there is still substantial value in doing what we can to give the people a choice, and making an effort to be heard. The current attorney general is a strong religious conservative. During the recent Court actions over same sex marriage, he made that most obvious. At great expense to the taxpayers, he hired a team of LDS attorneys from out of state to make the argument that marriage is not about individual love, but is designed for raising children. In making that argument, he appeared to discount the value of marriage between older people who cannot raise children, as well as those who might have medical problems.  He simply failed to recognize the whole concept of enduring love between two individuals of whatever sex. That just didn’t seem so important.<br><br>    The current Attorney General wants to preserve the drug war, and apparently thinks that putting more people in jail will actually remove drugs from society. He ignores the fact that the whole thing has been a total failure since Richard Nixon first declared it.  The continued arrest and detention of marijuana users in particular is a travesty of justice.  Our side will win this war.  The days of marijuana prohibition are numbered.  But I am the only candidate for Attorney General who will say this.  Possession and use of marijuana needs to be decriminalized, and it needs to be done now.  Not only does the current Attorney General vigorously defend this irrational criminal scheme, but he regularly uses it as grounds to remove children from their parents.  Nobody with any common sense still believes that this is good policy.  But, once again, I am the only candidate who will come out and say it.<br><br>       In the recent legislative session, the current Attorney General opposed civil forfeiture reform, endorsing “policing for profit” which deprives people due process of law. His general support for “Law and order” brings us closer to a police state. <br><br>  At the very least, it is important that those who decent from the 19th century views of the current administration make as much noise as possible. Marriage equality is here to stay, and nobody can stop that. Legalization of marijuana, at least for medical purposes is inevitable. Change will come, despite what the current attorney general and his allies may do to try and stop it. We can encourage change, we can help it move along and we can change the nature of the debate. Please join me in doing what we can to be heard. Make a contribution if you can. Tell your friends and neighbors the good news. Help us put up signs, pass out literature, and use social media to spread the word. The Republican Party’s immense financial and organizational advantage can be slowly eroded, if we work at it. We cannot expect anyone else to do it for us.  Do what you can. We have nothing to lose but our chains.  ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/6111704862570439990/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=6111704862570439990";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6111704862570439990";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6111704862570439990";s:4:"link";s:84:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2016/10/attorney-general-revised-candidate.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-2471048901483533490";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-06-15T11:01:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-06-15T11:04:09.293-07:00";s:5:"title";s:40:"Letter to Hinckley Institute of Politics";s:12:"atom_content";s:2922:"  Hello -<br><br> I am an attorney in Midvale and Chair of the Libertarian Party in Utah.<br><br> This morning's Trib reports a poll on the governor's race, sponsored by your institute.  It has 2 parts, including a poll on the November race for Governor.  The questions asked in that poll apparently assume that there will be two candidates on the ballot for Governor only.  Despite that question, the results show 4% for "other" in a race featuring Gov. Herbert, and 9% for "other" in a race featuring Jon Johnson.  I am assuming that no effort was made to identify the name of the "other" candidate for voters who took that option.  If I am wrong about that, I would really appreciate any information you might give me as to any extended results.<br><br> As I'm sure you are aware, Utah now has a "debate commission" and that commission will set up one televised debate between candidates for major office.  Candidates will be invited to that debate depending on support shown for them in a poll.  If the names of "other" candidates are not included in a poll, obviously the chance of another candidate showing much support in that poll is substantially diminished.<br><br> I realize that you have no duty to the "minor" parties of this State to include us in the polls; but by failing to do so, you are determining whether we will show support of not.  Therefore, you might even say that you are "making the news, rather than simply reporting it".  We express our hope that future polls can be worded so that an accurate determination can be made as to the level of support for our candidates.  That way, we can see if we are being treated fairly by the media and the Debate Commission.  Minor parties have a real role to play in an election campaign.  While our candidates are not likely to be elected, we can and do bring new ideas to the debate, and we change minds and bring about change in public policy.  the Libertarian Party, for instance, has supported "marriage equality" since 1971.  We did not have to "evolve", but instead, we brought that issue before the people, and they did evolve to the point where public policy did change.  We would hope that those who make the decisions as to which ideas are heard by the people will not shut us out of the important public forums.<br><br> I note also that polls have been published this week on the races for President, Governor and  4th District Congress.  We are anxious to know whether there may yet be results coming for other congressional races and for the Attorney General's race (in which I am the Libertarian Party candidate).  If you can tell me anything about any of that, I would also greatly appreciate it.   Once again, it will be important to us to know if there was an adequate chance for someone to express preference for "other" candidates, and so help qualify us for debate participation.<br><br> Thank you for any consideration you can give.  ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/2471048901483533490/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=2471048901483533490";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2471048901483533490";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2471048901483533490";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2016/06/letter-to-hinckley-institute-of-politics.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-350553642403301350";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-04-21T18:55:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-04-21T18:55:37.992-07:00";s:5:"title";s:48:"Andrew McCullough for Utah Attorney General 2016";s:12:"atom_content";s:5014:"April 21, 2016     Everyone knows that Utah is basically a one party state. The full weight of that knowledge, however, did not occur to me until I recently started working on my first financial report for the elections office for the 2016 election season. As I prepared my own report, showing very little financial activity so far, I had occasion to look at the financial situation of my Republican and Democratic opponents. The current attorney general, Sean Reyes, has received many multi-thousand dollar campaign contributions from large corporations and large law firms. He also reported $250,000 left over from his previous campaign two years ago.<br><br>   Our Democratic opponent, Jon Harper, filed a report showing $20,000 in contributions, mostly from his own family. Mr. Harper does not yet have a web site; and his Facebook page was started on April 14.  I am not criticizing or making fun of the Democratic candidate.  I am merely pointing out, that at least at this early date, the disparity in resources and the level of effort makes it very clear, at least at this early stage, that there really will not be an election for attorney general in Utah this year, but simply a coronation. Mr. Reyes will spend whatever is necessary, and nobody else will be heard.<br><br>  That is a sad situation. The democratic process thrives on an open debate and a free exchange of ideas. There will be none of that in the 2016 election cycle. Nobody really has much of a choice. The die is already cast.<br><br>    So, if you have read this far, you are wondering why I even bother to be a candidate. I don’t have a lot of resources, and I don’t have any illusions of victory. In the past, organizations who might otherwise support my view on the issues have automatically endorsed the Democratic candidate on the assumption that he has a better chance of winning. It should be perfectly clear at this point that Mr. Harper does not have a better chance of winning. His lack of activity so far signals that he is aware of that himself. But there is still substantial value in doing what we can to give the people a choice, and making an effort to be heard. The current attorney general is a strong religious conservative. During the recent Court actions over same sex marriage, he made that most obvious. At great expense to the taxpayers, he hired a team of LDS attorneys from out of state to make the argument that marriage is not about individual love, but is designed for raising children. In making that argument, he appeared to discount the value of marriage between older people who cannot raise children, as well as those who might have medical problems.  He simply failed to recognize the whole concept of enduring love between two individuals of whatever sex. That just didn’t seem so important.<br><br>    The current Attorney General wants to preserve the drug war, and apparently thinks that putting more people in jail will actually remove drugs from society. He ignores the fact that the whole thing has been a total failure since Richard Nixon first declared it.  The continued arrest and detention of marijuana users in particular is a travesty of justice.  Our side will win this war.  The days of marijuana prohibition are numbered.  But I am the only candidate for Attorney General who will say this.  Possession and use of marijuana needs to be decriminalized, and it needs to be done now.  Not only does the current Attorney General vigorously defend this irrational criminal scheme, but he regularly uses it as grounds to remove children from their parents.  Nobody with any common sense still believes that this is good policy.  But, once again, I am the only candidate who will come out and say it.<br><br>       In the recent legislative session, the current Attorney General opposed civil forfeiture reform, endorsing “policing for profit” which deprives people due process of law. His general support for “Law and order” brings us closer to a police state.<br><br>    At the very least, it is important that those who dissent from the 19th century views of the current administration make as much noise as possible. Marriage equality is here to stay, and nobody can stop that. Legalization of marijuana, at least for medical purposes is inevitable. Change will come, despite what the current attorney general and his allies may do to try and stop it. We can encourage change, we can help it move along and we can change the nature of the debate. Please join me in doing what we can to be heard. Make a contribution if you can. Tell your friends and neighbors the good news. Help us put up signs, pass out literature, and use social media to spread the word. The Republican Party’s immense financial and organizational advantage can be slowly eroded, if we work at it. We cannot expect anyone else, such as the Democrats, to do it for us. Utah Democrats don’t promote much of an alternative view anyway. Do what you can. We have nothing to lose but our chains.<br><br>";s:12:"link_replies";s:152:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/350553642403301350/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=350553642403301350";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/350553642403301350";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/350553642403301350";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2016/04/andrew-mccullough-for-utah-attorney.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-2156144702999403978";s:9:"published";s:29:"2016-03-07T15:50:00.000-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2016-03-08T16:18:32.231-08:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"Marijunana laws in Utah";s:12:"atom_content";s:945:"I spent the morning listening to the Utah House of Representative committee hearings on medical marijuana. The less inclusive bill passed committee, after two substitutions. The more inclusive bill did not. As I listened to the long-winded explanations and debate, it became even more clear to me that they were debating the wrong thing. Much of the debate was on how to make sure this is not a step towards "recreational" legalization, and the sponsors dutifully reported on all of the regulations to avoid that. As a Libertarian, however, I do support full legalization. My clients should not be pulled over, searched arrested, convicted of a crime, and possibly have DCFS take their children away, for smoking pot, which is perfectly legal just to the east. Perhaps it is time to dump the talk of tightly regulated medical use, and just tell it like it is. They can't stop people from smoking it, and they should stop ruining lives by trying.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/2156144702999403978/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=2156144702999403978";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2156144702999403978";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2156144702999403978";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2016/03/marijunana-laws-in-utah.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-1625550607062238525";s:9:"published";s:29:"2015-06-23T17:27:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2015-07-02T11:23:08.144-07:00";s:5:"title";s:17:"The flag must go?";s:12:"atom_content";s:6573:"I have been meaning to write something about the Confederate Flag controversy, and time is so limited.  Below is something I posted to a friend's Facebook Page.  It is a beginning.  Hopefully I can come back and "flesh it out" a bit.  I have a Confederate Flag in my office.  I have had a few comments on it.  Most pay no attention.  It is not the version in the news, which was never official.  It is the last official version of the flag, before the surrender, officially the flag of the "lost cause.  As someone who defends lost causes in court for a living, I am inspired by it.  I hope that I am not a racist.  I try not to be.  I am a lover of freedom, and I try and make that my cause.  <br><br> The question is not so much about the flag, but about the "cause". If you see the civil war as a "crusade to end slavery", that ends discussion. I don't. I cannot imagine that the "Founding Fathers" had it in mind that a State could not leave the union; and the efforts by the central government to force its will on them were wrong. Huge parts of the South were burned to the ground, Thousands of people were killed. Wives and sisters of "rebels" were imprisoned simply for their relationship. Members of the Maryland legislature were arrested to avoid secession. A US Congressman was imprisoned because he made a speech saying that peace should be made.   General Order No. 11, issued in Missouri in 1863, ordered four counties in western Missouri where pro-Confederate guerillas operated, depopulated - all residents outside of larger towns were ordered to leave, so they could not provide support to the rebels.  Many innocent civilians were ruined.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_%281863%29  I do not read that history with pride. When parts of the USSR and Yugoslavia seceded, we went to their aid immediately. Anyone who has seriously read the history of the War Between the States would have serious doubts about what Lincoln did to "preserve the Union." Thus, the current effort to obliterate references to the history are, in my opinions, misguided. The two biggest military training camps in the South are named after Confederate generals. I expect they will be targets next. I do not agree with that. That being said, I do understand wanting to do something to prove the worth of black citizens. I do not think obliterating or whitewashing history is the right thing.<br><br> My "disconnect" here is that the Civil War (whatever you may want to call it) brought us the Fourteenth Amendment which gave us all rights against oppression by the States.  It is the Fourteenth Amendment that gives us the right to seek redress of injuries by police officers and other officials of our own state government.  I can hardly imagine life in the United States without these protections.  But that does not mean that I support the violence used to obtain them.  And it does not mean that I must disavow those who did nothing but resist what they saw as tyranny.  the Sesqui-Centennial of the Civil War just ended.  It was sad that there was little in the news about it.  Many people have decided that any references to the Confederacy are just too "offensive", so we ignore it. I think important lessons of history were lost with such decisions. <br><br> A friend pointed out in a FB post today that several States pointed to slavery as the main reason for leaving the Union.   Yes, that is what they said. But allowing it to be our main point is missing the main point. If a State has the right to secede (and I am convinced that they did before the 14th Amendment), the reason that they give for doing so does not cancel that right and give other states the right to kill them and burn their cities. Slavery was doomed by the march of human progress. This method of eliminating it was not justified.<br><br> Another friend quoted with disgust a passage from the Texas Secession Ordinance:<br><br>  "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"<br><br> At the start of the Civil War, Texas had been a State less than 15 years.  It was admitted to the Union as a "slave state".   Did Congress not know what it was doing when it admitted Texas? Should they have refused to admit a slave state? Obviously, at the time, it was an accepted practice; and the agreement made as part of the admission was that they could continue this practice.  Someone who looks at this from the view of the 21st Century has a hard time justifying or even understanding it; but things were not the same in 1860.  So, Texas decided that the central government in Washington had violated the contract under which it entered the Union.  I am at a loss to understand on what basis it became legitimate to kill them for this. Did we not know that several Southern States allowed slavery way back in 1776 when Independence was declared?  Did we not know that such great Americans such as Thomas Jefferson (and ten other Presidents) owned slaves?  On what basis do we now seek to go back 150 years and impose out moral viewpoint on them? <br><br> This next week celebrates the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in NY.  At that time, in 1969, everyone knew that gays were just criminals and needed to be locked up.  So, once a month or so, the NYC police raided their hangout and arrested them for lewdness (cross-dressing being the main "crime").  One night, they fought back and refused to go quietly.  The social change that came from that movement is no less amazing than ending slavery.  But no cities were burned, few people were killed or imprisoned.  Slavery was abolished peacefully around the civilized world.  We are a very much more enlightened society than existed in 1861.  But those who defended their homes and families against what they saw as an invasion should not be demonized.  I do not approve of what the Union government did in the 1860's; and that does not make me a racist or a bigot. <br><br> More soon?   P";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/1625550607062238525/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=1625550607062238525";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/1625550607062238525";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/1625550607062238525";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-flag-must-go.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-6221986392253561788";s:9:"published";s:29:"2015-06-05T16:11:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2015-06-05T16:23:45.582-07:00";s:5:"title";s:29:"From the New York Law Journal";s:12:"atom_content";s:6162:"    Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal<br>    June 8, 2015<br>    ALBANY - Pole dance routines by exotic dancers in an Albany-area juice bar are an expression of artistic merit, but the private couch dances performed for individual patrons are not, a state tax department administrative law judge has ruled.<br>    The distinction drawn by ALJ Joseph Pinto Jr. is an important one for the outcome of the state Division of Taxation's latest attempt to collect sales taxes from the Nite Moves club on couch dances. Of the $4.9 million in sales reported in a state audit of Nite Moves between 2005 and 2010, just over $3 million came from the private dances performed in small rooms off the main stage of the nightspot.     Auditors contend that the club and its proprietors owe the state just under $530,000 in unpaid taxes on the private dances and on cover charges for the period.<br>    The same club challenged its tax bill for 2002-05, also on grounds it was due the exemption for artistic performances on First Amendment grounds. That bid was ultimately denied in 2012 in a 4-3 ruling by the state Court of Appeals in Matter of 677 New Loudon Corporation v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 19 NY2d 1058 (NYLJ, Oct. 23, 2012).<br>    Pinto rejected the claim of Nite Moves' owners that the couch dances, being artistic in nature, fall under the same state sales tax exemption that state Tax Law §1105(d)(5) provides for admissions to a "theater, opera house, concert hall or other hall or place of assembly for a live, dramatic, choreographed or musical performance."<br>    Nite Moves owners Stephen Dick Jr. and Stuart Cadwell provided sufficient evidence to make their case that the admission fee, $4 before 5 p.m. and $11 after that, is not subject to sales tax because it provides access to the pole dance routines offered on a continual basis by a changing cast of dancers.<br>    Those, Pinto wrote in Matter of 677 New Loudon Corporation, 824333/824334/824335, are sufficiently choreographed, costumed, illuminated and practiced by dancers to represent a dramatic or artistic presentation.<br>    He cited the testimony presented by several dance experts about the artistic merit of the pole routines, but said he found most persuasive the testimony of two Nite Move dancers, identified of "Alize" and "Taylor," "who, without pretense, provided a more visceral description of the business and their art, in contrast with the theoretical opinions of the more erudite experts."<br>    Both performers have backgrounds in formal dance, Pinto noted, and both told him of efforts they made to practice and perfect their pole dances, including studying other dancers in person and on YouTube and the hours they spent practicing their multiple routines.<br>    "Taylor had a repertoire of about 40 songs and planned movements that she used for her stage routines," Pinto wrote. "She invested heavily in her costumes and shoes and they were integrated into her dances. She described in detail at the hearing while her videos were played and told of how she utilized repetition, pole movements and the use of a fictional character of her own creation to interact with the audience."<br>    Pinto held that the just under $1 million in cover charges Nite Moves collected for the 2005-10 period are exempt from sales taxes under the exemption for admissions to artistic or dramatic performances.<br>    The dancers and the experts submitted far less evidence about the private dances, and those do not have the artistic merit to justify the state sales tax exemption, Pinto said. Nite Moves' dancers generally charge $20 for each three-minute lap dance they perform topless and $30 for a nude dance, according to the ruling.<br>    Among the factors that distinguish the private dances from the pole dance is that they were performed in a confined space, they were not choreographed and the music was chosen by the club, not the dancers, Pinto said.<br>    He cited the testimony of the supervisor of the Nite Moves audit who said the "private dance was essentially a full body rub" and far different than the pole dances the supervisor observed in his 10 to 15 visits to the club.<br>    "The overriding preoccupation of both management and dancers was luring patrons to small rooms for the ultimate in physical contact with the performers and having them remain there as long as possible to maximize revenue, not the performance of a choreographed dance or artistic performance," Pinto concluded. "The components necessary for a theater ... are absent from the private dance rooms."     Pinto rejected the club's attempt to have the tax statute declared unconstitutional, noting that the Tax Appeals Tribunal or its hearing officers lack the jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to tax statutes.<br>    Nite Moves was represented by W. Andrew McCullough of Midvale, Utah.<br>    McCullough said Pinto's determination is "much better" than the outcome of the earlier litigation.     "Instead of one expert, we brought in five this time," McCullough said Friday. "Instead of half a day for a hearing, we took two days. We are relatively pleased."<br>    However, McCullough said he has not had a definitive discussion with the club's owners of whether they will want to appeal Pinto's decision to the state Tax Appeals Tribunal.<br>    "There was some discussion of maybe this is the best we are going to get," McCullough said. "But there was also some discussion that we may want to keep doing this. For me, this is a great case: It may never end."<br>    Division of Taxation attorney Osborne Jack argued for the tax department.<br>    Nite Moves' owners failed in their attempt to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the Court of Appeals' ruling in their previous litigation (NYLJ, Oct. 16, 2013).<br>    The administrative law judge who initially heard Nite Moves' earlier tax challenge case, Catheine Bennett, found that the club's dances qualified for the sales tax exemption, but her determination did not distinguish between the artistic merits of the pole dancing and the private couch dances (NYLJ, March 26, 2009).   ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/6221986392253561788/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=6221986392253561788";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6221986392253561788";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6221986392253561788";s:4:"link";s:75:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2015/06/from-new-york-law-journal.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-2485455741652550807";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-10-25T11:46:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-10-25T11:46:37.610-07:00";s:5:"title";s:21:"A Debate Breakthrough";s:12:"atom_content";s:742:"After being excluded from the "official" debate sponsored by the "Utah Debate Commission", I was invited to an hour long debate with my Democratic opponent, Charles Stormont, on Thursday.  The invite came only one day in advance, and was the result of the refusal of our current Attorney General to participate.  Why should he?  He is ahead and has all of the money.  I thank the current Attorney General for his courtesy in deferring to me.  It was an enjoyable experience.  I wish I had more time to flesh out answers, but it was a big opportunity to be heard, after the media declined to admit that I exist.  The streaming version is below. <br><br> http://img.ksl.com/audio/2014_10_23_doug2.mp3 <br><br> We are on a roll.  Tell a friend. ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/2485455741652550807/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=2485455741652550807";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2485455741652550807";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2485455741652550807";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-debate-breakthrough.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-3684140889984700034";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-10-12T19:04:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-10-12T19:04:51.273-07:00";s:5:"title";s:40:"Salt Lake Times Article on my Candidacy.";s:12:"atom_content";s:4839:"This is the rough draft of an article to appear on the Salt Lake Times legal newspaper in the next week or so.<br><br>  Utah Libertarian Makes His Case To Be Attorney General of Utah<br><br> By Alicia Knight Cunningham, Esq.<br><br> The Intermountain Commercial Record asked Libertarian Candidate W. Andrew McCullough to respond to questions regarding his party’s platform, why he’s running, his priorities if elected and his views on his chances of winning.  His responses are highlighted below.<br><br>   Why are you a member of the Libertarian Party?  What part of the party’s platform resonates with you?<br><br> I am a freedom lover.  I do not like the government telling me what to do.  The Libertarian Party works for me.  I was the Treasurer of the Young Republican Federation when I was young -- and naïve --  and I was active in Barry Goldwater’s campaign.  I am a disaffected Republican because the Republican Party has become the party of the religious right.  Republicans are on a moral crusade, and I do not agree with that.  I am still a conservative on economic matters.  I just want a more free society.<br><br> Why are you running?<br><br> I have been practicing law since 1973.  I have seen over and over again attitudes in the Attorney General’s office that I think are unreasonable.  For example, I had a beautiful young friend that had a slight speech impediment.  She spoke a little slowly.  She was stopped for a minor traffic violation and the officer wrote in her report: “The lights are on but no one is home.”  The officer charged her with using drugs and took her down to the police station.  He suspected marijuana test and inflicted her with a blood test.  It took two weeks to get the result so he put her in jail.  He tore her car apart looking for drugs.  He demanded that they do a full body cavity search looking for drugs.  I screamed bloody murder and the Attorney General’s office said: “To hell with you.”  In the end, we got a small settlement, but it was not enough. I became a windmill tilting politician that day.<br><br>   Again, four or five years ago I was sitting in my office. A man came into my office.  He had just been released days before from prison where he was serving time for a crime he did not commit.  He wanted compensation, and there was a new Utah law that allowed him to seek compensation.  I talked to the Attorney General’s office and said, “You know and I know that he did not do it.  He has an alibi.  He has witnesses.”  They said, “We do not care.  We can block this on a technicality.”  The District Court did rule against us, but the Court of Appeals granted the compensation.  When I got the call that they were writing the check, I cried.<br><br>   In both cases the Attorney General’s office should have represented the interest of the people. I do not think that the Attorney Generals we have had understand the proper role of their job.<br><br> What are your priorities if you win?  Will you follow the platform of your party?<br><br> I do not deny that on a given day the majority of the people may disagree with what I might do.  Last week the majority of the people in Utah wanted same sex marriage to be illegal.  The majority lost.  What won was individual freedom.  It is in the interest of personal freedom for the state to stand aside and say ‘We do not care who you marry.’<br><br> We incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. Iran, China – those countries we think of as being oppressive -- we put more people in prison than they do.  It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.  We should not spend millions of dollars putting people in jail because of a moral judgment.<br><br> Last weekend I spent a few hours at the rally against police violence.  The police have become militarized.  They have machine guns to use against their own citizens.  Too many people have died.  It must stop.<br><br>   What do you think of your chances?<br><br>   When I was in high school Social Studies was my thing.  I remember studying class was Eugene Debs.  He ran repeatedly for President of the United States as a Socialist.  Obviously, he did not win.  Someone asked him, why do you keep doing this?  You never win. You’ll never win.  He answered: “But I am winning.  I am the one who suggested the 40 hour work week.  My ideas are winning.”  And if you look at same sex marriage and marijuana – we’re winning. They cannot stop us.  I hope that I am part of the group that changes the future.<br><br> When my friend was strip searched, I realized that I was not doing enough.  So I took out the soap box and stood on it. I will not win.  But perhaps I can change some minds and help people realize that things can be changed.<br><br>      Reply, Reply All or Forward | More Click to reply all  ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/3684140889984700034/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=3684140889984700034";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3684140889984700034";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3684140889984700034";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/10/salt-lake-times-article-on-my-candidacy.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-8546630720064498505";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-10-02T12:08:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-10-02T12:09:13.501-07:00";s:5:"title";s:22:"A Change is Gonna Come";s:12:"atom_content";s:5934:"An article in the Salt Lake Tribune last week contrasted the positions of the “major party” candidates for Utah Attorney General.  Mr. Reyes, the appointed incumbent, believes it is his job to defend the laws of the State of Utah as far as he can, including seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Stormont, on the other hand, believes that it is not in the interests of the State to continue to appeal a case that is very expensive, and is hopeless.  The difference is indeed important, but the Tribune did not ask the really important questions, and did not get the important answers.<br><br> Mr. Stormont is a career State employee.  When he inevitably loses his race for Attorney General, he will go back to being as assistant Attorney General, and doing what he is told.  Today, while on leave of absence, he talks about changes in the office; but he does not talk about the changes that are really necessary.  Because the important issues have not been addressed by the “major party” candidates, I have chosen to make one more effort to put the important issues before the public.<br><br> The Attorney General is an elected position, in the Utah Constitution.  Some have suggested he (or she) should be appointed by the Governor.  The U.S. Attorney General is appointed, and he serves at the pleasure of the President.  In Utah, the Attorney General is independent and makes policy for the legal department.  He often files “friend of the Court” briefs in cases around the country, to support legal positions he believes are important and correct.  He makes important decisions as to how to interpret and enforce the law.   He can decide what civil actions to file, and what appeals to take.  He has “Prosecutorial discretion” as to what criminal charges to bring, and when to make “plea bargains” in the interest of justice.  In most of these cases, it will make little difference which of the “major party” candidates might be elected.  It will be business as usual, either with the Republican politician or the career bureaucrat.<br><br> I am the consummate outsider.  I have never worked for the government, and I am not influenced by what government employees think is good for the government.  I prefer to look at the job as legal counsel for the people of the State of Utah, and will work to promote their interests.<br><br>    The “war on drugs” has become a war on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  The police have been trained to see this important right as a “technicality”, to be dodged when possible.  If there is a suspicion of drugs, they WILL find a way to get into your car or your house or wherever they think they are.  And the basis for their suspicion can be weak.  They might say they smell the odor of marijuana.  It is hard to deny that, because there is no physical evidence left over from that smell.  Or, they may say there is an air freshener in the car, in an effort to prevent them from smelling the drug.  In a recent case, a client was held on a minor traffic case, while dogs were brought in, because a check of her driving record showed a previous drug violation.  If I am elected, one of the first things I will do is insist that all police officers receive training on the Fourth Amendment, and why it should be important to them as well as those who are suspected of wrongdoing.<br><br> Separate from the Fourth Amendment implications, the whole question of putting people in jail for nothing other than possessing a small amount of marijuana (or other drug, for that matter) for personal use, should be re-examined.  It is a terrible policy, and it is making a whole generation of young people into criminals. I would do my best to stop the “war on marijuana users”.  I am the only candidate who would do so.<br><br> There are other examples of our major differences.  A few years ago, I represented a man who spent over 4 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.  We filed a legal action to collect compensation, as set out in law, for such situations.  To my dismay, the Attorney General fought us tooth and nail; and they won at the trial level.  I appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, and I won.  The day the State issued the compensation check, I cried, because I knew that my efforts had brought justice for one person, despite the best efforts of the Attorney General to prevent it.<br><br> I am now involved in a couple of cases where regulatory agencies have asserted authority far in excess of what the actual legislative act gives them.  Without exception, the Attorney General pushes for the most oppressive interpretation of the law.  If I am elected, I will expect regulatory agencies to rein in their tendencies to over-regulate.<br><br>    In 2004, the people of the State of Utah voted to eliminate most “civil Forfeiture”. This is done by filing a civil action against the PROPERTY of someone who may be suspected of a crime, and the property has no constitutional protections.  The property is then taken by the police for their own use, even without a criminal conviction.  I have had several cases where people have carried more money than the police think is reasonable.  The money is taken from them, and it is up to them to show that they were not going to use it to purchase drugs, or for other illegal purposes.  This should never happen, and I will work to change the policy of the State back to what the people voted for by ballot in 2004.<br><br> I have more experience in the legal system than either of my opponents; and I have seen first hand the kinds of things that the State has done to increase its power at the expense of the individual.  If I am elected, you can count on a wholesale change of attitude in the Attorney General’s office.  Tell a friend.<br><br> The revolution is here.  You have nothing to lose but your chains.  ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/8546630720064498505/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=8546630720064498505";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8546630720064498505";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8546630720064498505";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-change-is-gonna-come.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-3116590807325372554";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-09-19T13:01:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-09-19T13:10:56.017-07:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Utah Family Magazine";s:12:"atom_content";s:2044:"My responses to questions sent from Utah Family Magazine.  I do not know if the magazine has published them.<br><br>    <p><strong>1. In relation to functions of the office for which you are running, what do you see as the 3 issues most pressing to families? How will you address those issues?</strong></p> <p>The state interferes with parents too often and too quickly. &nbsp;I will work to make DCFS and other agencies more respectful of family ties and authority, and less likely to take children from the home or otherwise interfere with the family. &nbsp;Only if a child is in real danger, the State should act</p> <p>The state should try to keep families together when drugs or alcohol problems are present, emphasizing treatment over jail, which separates and destroys family units. &nbsp;Addiction should be treated as a health problem, rather than a criminal one. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>The state should not impose its moral values on families which do not meet its definition of &quot;traditional.&quot; &nbsp;The state should not use mean spirited arguments to oppose the formation of family units (marriage) or to oppose adoptions into loving and supportive families.</p> <p><strong>2. How is your strategy different from those running against you?</strong></p> <p>I cannot speak for other candidates except to say that the present administration interferes far too quickly into very private family matters, and purports to impose an outdated moral code on &quot;family values&quot;. &nbsp;If I am elected, families will be more free to be who they are, and will not fear government interference.</p> <p><strong>3. What experience/qualifications do you possess that will help you in your efforts?</strong></p> <p>I have practiced law for over forty years, and have done much family law, including divorces, adoptions, juvenile court work and other work affecting families. I think I have gained a perspective that will help make some real changes in outlook in the relationship between the state and individual family units.&nbsp;</p> ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/3116590807325372554/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=3116590807325372554";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3116590807325372554";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3116590807325372554";s:4:"link";s:70:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/09/utah-family-magazine.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-8125275095757137291";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-09-15T18:07:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-09-15T18:07:19.081-07:00";s:5:"title";s:40:"The "Utah Debate Commission" poll for AG";s:12:"atom_content";s:2239:"Today the Utah Debate Commission published its poll results.  They took a poll in August of the major races in Utah, and determined who they would invited to their televised debates, using the results.  They have already sent some letters out to candidates telling them that they will not be invited, based on the results, even though those results were withheld until today.<br><br> The Debate Commission previously promised to publish the results by September 15.  One can easily tell why they waited until 4:57 PM today to do it.  The results  show that only 53.5% of their sample voters are willing to commit to one of the "major party" candidates, and that the Democratic candidate has less than 13% support! Their website disclaims the poll as a predictor of the election results.  Obviously!   Over 31% of voters remain undecided, and there was a whopping 14.5% support for an alternative other than the two candidates who will appear at the debate.  Since it is obvious that the voters want something other than the two "major party" candidates, why doesn't the Debate Commission invite everyone, so the voters can decide for themselves?<br><br> This is just laughable.  The debate set a threshold designed to include only two candidates.  KSL radio and TV have long used a threshold of 15% for their debates.  It is a very good thing for the Democrat that they did not do that this year.<br><br> Join me in protesting this stupid "Debate Commission".  I start from a decent base of support, over 5%.  I need people to help my campaign with contributions; and I need people to put up signs, "share" the news on Facebook, and otherwise help spread the word.  This could be the year of total embarrassment for the two "major parties".  Now, wouldn't that be fun?<br><br> Read my previous blog posts to see my stands on the legal issues in this race.  If you agree, do something to help.<br><br>   "You have nothing to lose but your chains."<br><br>     Candidate  Party Affiliation  Percentage Polled<br>Charles Stormont  Democrat  12.6%<br>Gregory Hansen  Constitution  3.9%<br>Leslie Curtis  Independent American  5.3%<br>Sean Reyes  Republican  40.9%<br>W. Andrew McCullough  Libertarian  5.3%<br>Other   0.3%<br>Undecided   31.7%";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/8125275095757137291/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=8125275095757137291";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8125275095757137291";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8125275095757137291";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-utah-debate-commission-poll-for-ag.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-5713687103362022180";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-09-02T18:30:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-09-02T18:30:59.654-07:00";s:5:"title";s:22:"League of Women Voters";s:12:"atom_content";s:4747:" I received a message from the League of Women Voters this past week that they had published their annual voter guide without a response from me to the three questions they had sent all five candidates for Utah Attorney General.  Well, out of those five candidates, one did respond, so I have to assume they did send out the questions, though I have no record of having received them.  Apparently, neither did Attorney General Reyes (or he chose to ignore them because he sees no need to engage in a campaign).  shortly after that, I received a message from an individual voter asking me why I had not responded, and giving me the questions again.  So, I am going to post my response here.  <br><br> 1. If elected, what is the single most important thing you would do to gain back the public's trust in the Attorney General's Office?<br><br> Answer:  I still don't know if either of the two previous Attorneys General broke any laws.  I would like to hope not, as I rather like Mark Shurtleff as a person.  He has always been friendly and decent with me. Nevertheless, he and his successor left the impression that they had favors for sale  in return for large campaign contributions and/or vacations, use of expensive cars and airplanes, etc.  Pictures of Mr. Shurtleff in the private jet and the Lamborghini car owned by a businessman who was under suspicion for illegal business practices were everywhere on the internet.  I have no favors for sale, and I will not have my photo taken showing "conspicuous consumption".  It is not my thing.  If I am elected, I will strive to treat all those I deal with with equal fairness.  My approach to prosecution will not be as aggressive as some.  I have little interest in putting people in jail for being sick (using drugs) and engaging in other activity which essentially is none of the State's business.  But I will deal firmly and fairly with those who hurt and abuse others.  It will not matter if they are "party faithful" or other privileged people.  If the law is too harsh, we will work to make it lees so.  As one might expect, I have no large contributors, so I owe nobody any favors. That will not change.<br><br> 2. Do you think the Attorney General's office has a responsibility to advise the Utah State Legislature and/or the Governor's office against lawsuits posing a great financial burden to Utah's tax payers? Please explain your position.<br><br> Answer:  In Utah, as in many other states, the Attorney General represents the interests of the people, not the Governor.  I intend to take that responsibility seriously.  I will not defend the unlawful actions of State employees; and I will not encourage the State to believe that it should throw great resources into lost causes.  It is certainly the responsibility of the Attorney General to defend a law passed by the Legislature.  But endless appeals and the use of mean spirited and untenable arguments are neither necessary nor appropriate.  Specifically, I would do my best to end the State's defense of the prohibition of same sex marriage.  After the appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Attorney General has certainly done his duty.  Anything further is not only a waste of resources, it is an insult to many citizens of the state who do not march in lockstep with the majority on this very personal question.<br><br> 3. What solutions will you pursue to prevent fraud/abuse in issues such as payday lending and business opportunity enterprises (Biz-Ops), as well as to combat identity theft.<br><br> Answer:  There is nothing inherently unlawful or fraudulent about the payday lending business or those businesses which "sell" business opportunities.  Obviously, if they do engage in unlawful or fraudulent practices, they should be prosecuted and shut down to protect our citizens from their practices.  I have personal concerns about payday lenders.  There seem to be so many of them, and they appear to make such high profits.  Certainly, they must be fair and honest with their customers, who tend to be those who can not afford the high interest rates that they are charged.  I am not sure the answer is to prohibit or tightly regulate them. Utah previously had a usury statute, which was repealed by the legislature.  Perhaps these enterprises fulfill a real need.  But I am certainly open to looking carefully at their practices and doing what is necessary to stop abusive practices.  For one thing, I will take no large campaign contributions from them, and I will owe them no loyalty when complaints come in that need to be reviewed.<br><br> If you agree with my positions, tell a friend.  This is not a campaign that will spend large amounts of money.  I need those who like what I stand for to pass the word.       ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/5713687103362022180/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=5713687103362022180";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/5713687103362022180";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/5713687103362022180";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/09/league-of-women-voters.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-3878134123115051496";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-08-16T16:33:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-08-16T16:35:41.364-07:00";s:5:"title";s:13:"A Fair Debate";s:12:"atom_content";s:4533:"August 16, 2014<br><br> There has been a lot of discussion, and some anguish, this week over the fact that the Facebook Political Action Committee made a contribution of $10,000 to the election campaign of Sean Reyes.   Supporters of the Democrat, Mr. Stormont, mounted an on-line petition to get their candidate a similar contribution, and pointed out Mr. Reyes' staunch defense of Utah's prohibition of same sex marriage. After fuming for a time myself, and after some thought, I sent the following letter to the Facebook Political Action Committee earlier today:<br><br> Ladies and Gentlemen:<br><br>  By now, you may be aware of the controversy caused by your sizable donation, in May of this year, to the election campaign of our present Attorney General, Sean Reyes. I thought it worth this effort to inform you of some things of which you may not be fully aware.<br><br>  First, Utah has become a “one-party State”, in which Democratic candidates rarely win major office, and are in a tiny minority in the State Legislature.  Part of the dominance by the Republican Party is due to a huge financial advantage enjoyed by their candidates, who are regularly the recipients of large contributions from corporate interests.  You may not be entirely aware that our last two Republican Attorneys General, Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow, are currently facing a number of felony counts for “influence peddling” charges, arising in part from those large contributions.  Many in the state are discouraged and disgusted by what they have seen in this regard.<br><br>  So, Mr. Reyes was temporarily appointed at the end of last year, and required to run for office this year in a special election.  He most likely will win easily, despite the bad taste left by his two predecessors, because of the dominance of his party.<br><br>  As you might guess, he is raising substantially more money than either the Democratic candidate, Charles Stormont, or I, the Libertarian Party candidate. Your contribution is one of his largest, and it just looks and feels like “business as usual” from special corporate interest groups.   He doesn’t need your money, but you are certainly free to offer it.  Nevertheless, to many people in this State, it looks and smells bad, especially in light of the ongoing legal battle over same sex marriage rights, which Mr. Reyes has recently appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  While he says he is just doing his job, many think he has gone overboard in his mean spirited arguments that marriage “means nothing” if it just serves the adults who engage in it; and that marriage should be centered around procreation.  I only wish your people had read his filings before they sent this contribution.<br><br>  Well, we all know that “what’s done is done”.  I, however, have a suggestion and a request.  Mr. Reyes will win no matter who does what from here on.  But it is important to the State of Utah to have a healthy debate.  Please consider a contribution to Mr. Stormont, and also to me.  I am running a serious campaign, and I have championed a more free society.  The “war on drugs” has made criminals of a whole generation, and the militarization of our police has made us all less free.  The State has no legitimate interest in who we love, or what we smoke in our own homes. Contributions to me and to Mr. Stormont will encourage a real debate over important societal issues.  And, if you were to act to “level the playing field” a little, you would be winning a great deal of good will from those who “do not march in lockstep” in our one-party state.<br><br>     I am not suggesting a contribution for my own campaign in the same amount as that given to Mr. Reyes.  But it would certainly be reasonable to suggest $500 or $1,000.  A like amount to Mr. Stormont would make all Utahns believe in our system a little more, and would act to remove the suspicion that “big corporate money” owns our state.<br><br>  Thank you very much for any consideration you may give.  By the way, I ran for this office in 2012 as well, and I received 53,000 votes, or 5.4%.  I am not running to win, but to change the nature and the quality of the debate.  In order to do that, I must make myself heard.  It would be good for our state in general if this debate were encouraged.<br><br>       W. Andrew McCullough<br>                                                Libertarian Party candidate<br>                                                  for Utah Attorney General";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/3878134123115051496/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=3878134123115051496";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3878134123115051496";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3878134123115051496";s:4:"link";s:63:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-fair-debate.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-4665635368171090593";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-08-06T18:53:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-08-06T18:54:00.592-07:00";s:5:"title";s:16:"Equality For All";s:12:"atom_content";s:1799:"August 6, 2014<br><br> Here is my letter to Equality Utah concerning their upcoming "Allies Dinner":<br><br> A friend reposted your announcement of the Allies dinner in September. I would love to go, except of course, that I can't, because I do not see your organization as politically fair. I am the Libertarian candidate for Attorney General. Our party fully supports equality, and we announced it both at Pride and in an ad this month in Q Salt Lake. But I am cut out completely from the possibility of an endorsement, or even an acknowledgment that I exist. I understand that your organization claims to be looking for "viable" candidates, but that almost invariably means Democrats. The irony of that decision is that there are very few "viable" Democratic candidates in Utah, for major office. I concede that the Democratic candidate for AG will likely get more votes than I will; but he has no better chance than I do to win. It seems to me that a candidate who cannot get more than 35% of the vote is not really viable. I have been an active supporter of the cause for many years, as the Chair of the Libertarian Party and a long time board member of the ACLU of Utah. I stood on the capitol steps on that June day in 2003 when the Supreme Court announced its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and I celebrated freedom. I have contributed money to the current litigation, and I have previously given money to your organization. It makes me sad that I cannot do so now.<br><br> I look forward to the time when my party is recognized as a strong supporter of the cause of equality, and we are at least acknowledged for that support. When that happens, send me an invitation to your dinner, and I will see you there.<br><br> W. Andrew McCullough<br>Libertarian candidate for Utah Attorney General ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/4665635368171090593/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=4665635368171090593";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/4665635368171090593";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/4665635368171090593";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/08/eqaulity-for-all.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-2726817599279345592";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-08-05T23:24:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-08-05T23:29:38.933-07:00";s:5:"title";s:43:""Reforming" the process for choosing our AG";s:12:"atom_content";s:2808:"August 5, 2014<br><br>     My Facebook friend Robert Gehrke wrote an article in Sunday's Trib about suggestions for changing the AG election to being nonpartisan, or appointing him, to take the politics out of it. I wrote him a letter telling him why we should not do either of those things. Here it is:<br><br>  Just read your article on "reforms" suggested for the Utah Attorney General, including appointment of non-partisan election. As you well know, I have been a candidate for this office several times. It all started when a close friend was arrested and strip searched over an allegation of driving under the influence of marijuana. My beautiful friend actually had a speech impediment, which caused her to speak a little slowly, and caused the officer to write in his report: "The lights are on, but nobody's home." After the drug tests came out negative, they sent them back to the lab and told them to try again. Only at the last minute did they drop the DUI charge for lack of evidence. We sued, and the AG fought tooth and nail to protect the incompetent and vindictive officers. It seemed so simple to me that a serious mistake had been made, my client had been strip searched in a misguided attempt to find the drugs that were not there, and that the state should pay compensation. The AG did not agree. the very small settlement we got in the end only made me more angry, and I decided to run for the office myself.<br><br>  Why? Because I wanted to make some major changes in the way the office operates. I want the AG to represent the people, not law enforcement. I want them to stop the mean spirited attacks on gays, and I want them to stop trying to fill our prisons with marijuana users. The way justice is administered is indeed political. A criminal prosecutor has the discretion to either prosecute to the fullest or to show mercy (and sometimes common sense) in being more reasonable. The AG has great influence in the legislature on adopting laws which may result in long prison sentences, or to suggest alternatives like rehabilitation. Many people may see me as a bit of a kook for running for this office several times without a real chance of winning. but one thing continues to motivate me in doing so: the way things are run now needs change. The war on drugs is a disaster and needs to end. Militarization of police is a terrible mistake that needs to stop. Somebody needs to say these things, and give people alternatives. It would be a serious mistake to make the office "nonpartisan" on the assumption that all we need is a good lawyer at the helm, and that it is not important to know that lawyer's philosophy concerning the use of force by the State.<br><br>  Thanks for listening.<br><br>  Andy<br> W. Andrew McCullough<br> Libertarian candidate for Attorney General ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/2726817599279345592/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=2726817599279345592";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2726817599279345592";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2726817599279345592";s:4:"link";s:88:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/08/reforming-process-for-choosiong-our-ag.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-6202115486365398413";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-07-27T11:52:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-07-27T11:53:31.408-07:00";s:5:"title";s:26:"The Utah Debate Commission";s:12:"atom_content";s:2407:"July 27, 2014 <br><br> Following is the text of a letter I sent this morning to the Utah Debate Commission, which has announced that there will be a debate between candidates for Utah Attorney General who show 10% support in an august poll.<br><br> To the Utah Debate Commission:<br><br>  Thank you for sending me information on the Utah Debate Commission. Obviously, the debate format is designed to exclude "minor party" candidates, and will almost certainly exclude me.  I received 5.4% of the vote two years ago, which is a decent showing for a "minor party" candidate.  I may do better this year, but it is not likely that I will have reached 10% by August (a time when few people pay much attention to politics).<br><br>  So, I will not participate in further interaction with your commission.  I will leave you to stock your debate with "viable" candidates - Democrats who can reliably expect 25% to 30% of the vote, but will not come close to actually winning. <br><br>    I learned something important in a high school social studies class many years ago.  Eugene Debs ran for President 5 times on the socialist Party ticket.  He did not come close to winning. A reporter asked him why he kept doing it when he had no chance of getting elected.  He said his job was not to get elected, but to put new ideas into people's minds, and to "change the nature of the debate."  I will not get elected this November, but Libertarians are changing the nature of the debate.  On important legal issues such as the disastrous "war on drugs", marriage equality, and the militarization of our police, my party has been in the forefront of demanding change.  And, on these and other important issues, we are winning.  The GOP, with their religious morality, is a true dinosaur.  Yes, they will win again in Utah this year; but they will lose the fight to prevent freedom.<br><br> Your guidelines simply make sure that only the old, tired, and discredited ideas of the past will be heard.  The debate for Attorney General will not address the important issues and give people the opportunity to embrace real change.  Shame on you and those others who work to throttle real debate.  Your debate will have little merit except to give Mr. Reyes further opportunity to trumpet his intolerance and support for oppression.<br><br>   Andy<br> W. Andrew McCullough<br> Libertarian candidate for  Utah Attorney General    ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/6202115486365398413/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=6202115486365398413";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6202115486365398413";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6202115486365398413";s:4:"link";s:83:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/07/july-27-2014-following-is-text-of.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-3804177911797840725";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-07-03T11:55:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-07-03T11:55:17.698-07:00";s:5:"title";s:46:""Dark Money" in race fo Utah Attorney General?";s:12:"atom_content";s:1112:"July 3, 2014 <br><br> Here is an article just published about financing the race for Utah Attorney general this year.  Kind of rolling my eyes about the tag "perennial candidate", but I guess I have been doing this for a while.  I have written about this before: that a candidate for a smaller party does not run to win, but to change minds on the issues.  And we are winning on the issues.  We have supported "marriage equality" for 40 years. It will not be stopped now.  We have supported an end to the "war" on marijuana users for just as long.  And we will win this one also.  Now we must fight back on the "militarization" of our police and against the "surveillance state."  So much left to do.  <br><br> This weekend will be my 66th birthday.  No, I really can't keep doing this much longer.  This would be a great time to make a small donation to my campaign against the police state.  See my website at www.andrewmccullough.org for instructions.   And tell a friend.  "You have nothing to lose but your chains." <br><br> http://utahpoliticalcapitol.com/2014/07/03/dark-money-rules-in-reyes-ag-run/#     ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/3804177911797840725/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=3804177911797840725";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3804177911797840725";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/3804177911797840725";s:4:"link";s:85:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/07/dark-money-in-race-fo-utah-attorney.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-816029237182319311";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-05-26T17:27:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-05-26T17:27:42.948-07:00";s:5:"title";s:17:"Just a brief note";s:12:"atom_content";s:447:"May 26, 2014 <br?<br> As my campaign goes forward this year, I intend to write her from time to time.  I admit, however, that I find the format of Facebook easier to use for short notes.  If you use facebook, "like" me there at www.facebook.com/andy4utahag <br><br> Here is a link to an interview just published with Q Salt Lake Magazine.  Pass it on to a friend.  http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2014/05/24/conversation-andrew-mccullough/ <br><br>   ";s:12:"link_replies";s:152:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/816029237182319311/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=816029237182319311";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/816029237182319311";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/816029237182319311";s:4:"link";s:65:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/05/just-brief-note.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-1482649939053035796";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-04-26T14:06:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-04-26T14:35:33.493-07:00";s:5:"title";s:19:"The Battle of Ideas";s:12:"atom_content";s:4842:"April 27, 2014<br><br> I have spend the last week in Albany, NY, working on a longstanding tax dispute with the State of New York.  My client runs a "gentlemen's club" featuring exotic dancers.  NY law imposes a sales tax on admissions to places of entertainment, but not those that feature "choreographed performances".  It seems obvious to us that this is exactly what we are doing, and we won a tax hearing a few years ago over this question.  The State appealed that decision, and it was reversed.  We were told that we had not presented adequate proof that this is what we did; but we were welcome to try again for a new "audit period.  So instead of presenting one expert witness, we presented four, in addition to several dancers and other evidence. We will not know for a few months how it went; but we feel we did make our proof.  The State, of course, is expressing moral disapproval of what we do,  even though one of their  two auditors admitted that he has been to the club several times, to hang out withy the pretty young women.  The Constitution  guarantees freedom of expression; and it also requires the State to treat all of its citizens  equally, even those who do not meet government approval.  As the Supreme Court said in  the early 1800's, "the power to tax is the power to destroy", and the State is using this power to censor us.<br><br> My law practice is pretty much dedicated to fighting the State's attempts to prosecute those of whom they do not approve.  I represent several "adult entertainment" businesses; and the State constantly uses its tax, regulatory and police powers to express its disapproval.  Much of this exercise of power is over reaching, evidenced by the fact that I regularly beat them in court.  Nevertheless, the fight is constant.<br><br> I also spend a lot of time fighting with the state over pot smoking.  When someone is stopped for a minor traffic offense, an officer may declare that he "smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana".  The odor is invariably "strong".  and, of course, there is no real way to contest his statement, even if no marijuana is found in the ensuing search.  Much of the country has moved away from treating this like a major crime; but not in Utah.  Cars are impounded and people are jailed for what often turns out to be a Class B misdemeanor.  But the damage is done.  The driver's will likely be suspended, and he will have a "drug offense" on his record.  This continues in the face of increasing evidence that smoking pot is not a danger to the public.<br><br> At the same time, a major battle is going on over Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.  The newly appointed Attorney General claims that same sex marriage is destroying the family and harming children, though he does not show proof of this. He also says that marriage is not really about adults, but is about children.  He appears to maintain that those who actually marry are secondary in importance, and that their happiness is not important. As an older adult, I find the State's position both ridiculous and insulting.  It makes me angry, and I want to be heard to say: "this is just stupid". <br><br> So, I am once again a candidate for Utah attorney General.  I am not campaigning for gay marriage, pot smoking or exotic  dancing.  I am campaigning for a society in which people can be free to live as they choose, without the State interfering with very personal choices.  This year I have several opponents, all of whom, at least to a substantial degree, favor more government control over your life than the government should have.  As I have said before, candidates from smaller parties are not necessarily in the race to win, but more to introduce and support new ideas, and to change the direction of the debate.  And speaking of debate, Utah now has a new "debate commission" which will hold televised debates for major offices, featuring "viable candidates".  I have not yet been able to find out how a viable candidate is measured.  I suspect they may claim that this means a candidate who has a realistic chance of being elected.  We know, of cour4se, that in most major Utah races, only the Republican has a realistic chance of being elected.  this standard should disqualify all the but the Republican candidate.  but that would cut off the debate entirely.  Some radio and TV stations have set a 5% cutoff in some reliable poll.  Well, I poled 5.4% for this very office only 2 years ago, and that should be reliable enough.  So, if you believe in a more free society, help me get heard, and help us spread our ideas. In the war of ideas, we are winning.  We will win on same sex marriage, and we will win on legalizing marijuana.  IN doing so, we will decrease the outrageously high proportion of our population who are in jail or prison for non-violent crimes.  Tell a friend.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/1482649939053035796/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=1482649939053035796";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/1482649939053035796";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/1482649939053035796";s:4:"link";s:69:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-battle-of-ideas.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:57:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-73236196709501384";s:9:"published";s:29:"2014-04-16T22:37:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2014-04-16T22:37:23.347-07:00";s:5:"title";s:19:"Salt City Throwdown";s:12:"atom_content";s:510:"April 16, 1014<br><br> Rather than write very much this evening, I am going to post a link here to a recent interview I did with the Salt City Throwdown, a podcast in Utah.  We spent an hour talking about politics, my campaign, and my law practice.  So, if You can find some time to listen, you will learn a lot, I hope.  And then tell a friend.<br><br> Thanks, and I will post more here soon.<br><br> http://www.saltcitythrowdown.com/ep-27-better-know-a-utah-candidate-andrew-mccullough-edition/<br><br>  Andy";s:12:"link_replies";s:150:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/73236196709501384/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=73236196709501384";s:9:"link_edit";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/73236196709501384";s:9:"link_self";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/73236196709501384";s:4:"link";s:69:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2014/04/salt-city-throwdown.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-8557140630801354078";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-12-25T21:14:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-12-25T21:14:30.519-08:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Wild ride Continuied";s:12:"atom_content";s:2578:"Today is Christmas.  It is a day of quiet in a sea of turmoil.  Last night, as I got ready to go to church for Christmas Eve service, I heard the news that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will not issue a stay of the District Court's ruling over same sex marriage.  So far, Utah County (and I think a couple of others) have refused to issue same sex marriage licenses.  The Utah County clerk indicated that he was waiting to see that the Tenth Circuit did about the request for a stay.  Now we know; and we will see what happens tomorrow.  There have been long lines of those who wish to marry.  They have been very anxious, because the privilege could be taken from them at any moment.  Now it appears that this will not happen.  By the time the Tenth Circuit issues a ruling, there will have been thousands of weddings.  It will be difficult to put the genie back into the bottle. <br><br> Meanwhile the Governor has appointed a new Attorney General, Sean Reyes, an attorney who lost in the primary election last year to John Swallow.  He is, of course, going to run in the special election next year.  And he will certainly put all possible efforts into overturning the two recent marriage rulings by the Federal courts.  So, I watch the amazing events with great interest. If I were Attorney General, I would do what I could, within my authority, to abandon the appeals and to allow those who wish to marry the freedom to do so.  I remember what Mildred Loving said regarding her ground-breaking appeal to the Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia, regarding the right to marry someone of a different race) - that she just thought people should be able to marry the one they loved.  Seems simple enough to me.<br><br> There were many who thought that the Governor should appoint someone as Attorney General who would not immediately start campaigning for election, and could give full attention to the mess in that office.  He chose not to do so.  Hopefully the new Attorney General will be a bit more up front with how he finances his campaign.  Nevertheless, for the people of Utah, the change of direction will not be as substantial as we would hope.  We will still have someone in that office who will spend taxpayer money defending State efforts to tell us how to live our private lives.  He will not only fight the marriage appeals, but he will fully prosecute the "war on drugs" and put many more people in prison.  I offer a change in direction, where the State is not our "big brother", and where there is more freedom.  Help me pass the word.  And let freedom ring!";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/8557140630801354078/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=8557140630801354078";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8557140630801354078";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8557140630801354078";s:4:"link";s:70:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2013/12/wild-ride-continuied.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:21;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-6523125973287594776";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-12-20T23:22:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-12-25T21:15:45.398-08:00";s:5:"title";s:16:"What a Wild Ride";s:12:"atom_content";s:3997:"December 20, 2013<br><br> December 2013 has brought such changes to the legal landscape, in Utah and elsewhere, it leaves me almost breathless.  Several years ago, an independent polygamist named Tom green was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of bigamy.  Tom did not do anything more than many others had done without arrest, except that he refused to be quiet.  An overzealous small town prosecutor went after him and won; and Tom went to prison,.  The prosecutor was rewarded by defeat for re-election.  My firm filed a "friend of the court" brief in Tom's support, claiming that Tom and his wives were protected by guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of speech,.  The Utah Supreme Court ruled against us.<br><br> More recently, Cody Brown and his three wives, living in my hometown of Lehi, starred in a reality show.  They were not arrested, though they were actively investigated by the Utah County Attorney, making them very nervous.  They sued the State in Federal Court, once again claiming that they were protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion.  a couple of weeks ago, the Federal Court ruled in their favor.  The Judge (a law school classmate of mine) did not formally legalize plural marriage in Utah.  He simply pointed out that, in the Twenty-first century, people do live together without being married in the eyes of the State.  The fact that these people all each other husband or wife does not prohibit them from living as they please.  Only if they wrongfully obtained multiple formal marriage licenses will they be  subject to prosecution.  It is a decision that is very much in line  with common sense.  Needless to say, however, there are those who have been very upset about this decision, saying it sends the state back to the dark ages of polygamy,  They also claim that it gives comfort to those polygamists who abuse children and commit welfare fraud to support their large families.  The decision does not do those things, but certainly, some see it as an attack on "traditional marriage."  So, there has been a lot of discussion of it, and a lot of criticism.  <br><br> Well, today the roof really fell in on the advocates of "traditional marriage".  another Federal Judge invalidated the Utah law, and a State constitutional Amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.  The lawsuit, brought by three same sex couples, claimed that recent Supreme Court decisions, as well as a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, made Utah's ban on the practice unconstitutional,.  The Court agreed.  Sometimes a court making such a momentous decision, will delay implementation of the ruling until the state considers and appeal and attempts to obtain a stay  of the ruling.  This decision did not do that, and was effective immediately, by its terms.  County clerks in four counties started issuing marriage licenses within hours, and marriages have taken place.  The temporary Attorney General is seeking an emergency stay, but it is not likely to be heard until after many more marriages are performed,  Wow!  The internet was ablaze with the news today, and I pretty much lost my ability to get any meaningful work done at the office. <br><br> Meanwhile, our elected Attorney General has resigned, and new information of his possible wrongdoing is released daily.  The temporary Attorney General is faced with multiple crises; and he does not know if he will still be in office next week.  Three Republicans picked by their party, are vying to be appointed for a year until the next general election.  They all support appeals of these earth-shaking decisions; and the litigation is likely to go on and become ever more expensive.  Personally, of course, I am thrilled by both of these Court decisions.  The State has interfered with out personal relations for too long.  If I were Attorney General, I would do my best within my authority, to end the appeals and to allow the rulings to be implemented.<br><br>           ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/6523125973287594776/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=6523125973287594776";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6523125973287594776";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/6523125973287594776";s:4:"link";s:64:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-wild-ride.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-632403656153974673";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-11-24T21:03:00.001-08:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-11-24T21:08:39.658-08:00";s:5:"title";s:17:"The Game is Afoot";s:12:"atom_content";s:3832:"  November 24, 2013 <br><br> Almost from the day he was elected as Utah Attorney General, John Swallow was very controversial.  He was accused of various acts of misconduct in his personal finances, his campaign finances, and his dealings with those under investigation by the Attorney General's office.  People stopped me on the street to tell me that, if they had only known what he was like, they would have voted for me. My personal opinion tended to be that he was a bit sleazy, but that I had no evidence of the kind of misconduct that should result in his removal from office.  But for a guy who often openly displayed his credentials as an active member of the LDS Church, he did seem to be lacking in  moral character.  <br><br> Nevertheless, I was stunned to turn on my computer last Wednesday evening and receive a "heads up" from my Facebook friend, Robert Gherke (who writes for the Salt Lake Tribune), that criminal charges might be coming soon.  And then an updated message that a resignation was possible in the next 48 hours.  It all came so fast.  By the time I woke up on Thursday, it was all but over.  The resignation came on Thursday afternoon.  On Friday, a report from special counsel to the Lt. Governor suggested several campaign violations which could be charged as crimes. Wow!  And then the radio started to talk about an interim appointment and a special election.  So, I got out my election code, and found that there will be an appointment by the governor, until the next general election, which will be next November. The appointment must go through the Republican State Committee, as Mr. Swallow is a Republican.   Until Thursday, I had given no thought whatsoever to running for office again next year.  But all of a sudden, it appears I am once again a candidate for Attorney General.  I have run before as a Libertarian candidate.  Last year, I received 53,000 votes, or 5.4% of those cast.  My party supporters seemed to assume that I would run again; and so far I have not come up with a good reason not to run.  Yesterday, the friend who supplied me with campaign signs last year, called to discuss making some new ones. <br><br> I have explained here before that I see the role of a "minor party" candidate to be that of changing the nature of the debate. Last year, my two opponents campaigned for "family values" and promised to be tough on crime. I campaigned for smaller government and more freedom.  Utah is a traditional, conservative, state.  We are not going to be in the forefront of change.  But anyone who is observing our society can see that major changes are coming.  The "war on drugs" that has put thousands of our young people in jail, is a total failure.  Colorado has now legalized the sale and possession of marijuana.  I have never tried it (nor have I ever tried a cup of coffee).  But it seems obvious beyond debate that putting people in jail for smoking it is a disastrous policy.  Marriage equality will come to this country no matter how hard the battle to stop it may be.  The State simply must step back and admit that there are some areas of human activity that are not properly regulated or prohibited by the state.  And rather than making plans to build a huge new prison, we should be working to downsize the ones we have.  So, the game is once again afoot.  We have been given a major new opportunity to make our voices heard for more freedom, and less oppression. If you agree that this is an opportunity that we should make the most of, get involved.  Make  a small contribution ($50 or less remains confidential), tell your friends, put a bumper sticker on your car (they are magnetic and will come right off).  Find me on facebook and "like" my page (McCullough for Attorney General).  Together we can "change the world", even if only a little.         ";s:12:"link_replies";s:152:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/632403656153974673/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=632403656153974673";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/632403656153974673";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/632403656153974673";s:4:"link";s:84:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-game-is-afoot-november-24-2013.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:23;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-2448147354455382560";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-10-13T15:07:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-10-13T19:57:11.134-07:00";s:5:"title";s:16:"Doing what I can";s:12:"atom_content";s:5689:"October 13, 2013<br><br> I am going to start on this while I have a few minutes, and see how far I get.  Have been doing a lot of thinking about where I am in life and what I am doing, lately.  My law practice is basically my life.  I am in the office almost every day.  When I am not, I am thinking about what I need to do when I get there.  My practice is, of course, unusual.  I do my fair share of regular criminal defense, but mostly I represent various aspects of adult entertainment.  And, of course, I delight in battling "the establishment" (or "fighting the man").  Without such activity, I often say that I would have little reason to get up in the morning.<br><br> So, this weekend is perhaps a major crossroads.  while I have several cases pending that are worth fighting, there are two that have claimed the lion's share of my time, efforts and passion over the last several months (in one case, years).  On Tuesday morning, the United States supreme court will decide whether to hear our appeal of a 4-3 decision of the New York Court of Appeals to the effect that it is "not irrational" to treat exotic dancers in a club differently than those who dance in other settings.  There is no law in New York which mandates different treatment, just the opinion of an auditor in the sales tax department, who thinks that we should not be treated the same as dancers who are "artistic".  And, while an administrative law judge in the Tax Department agrees with us, the appeals tribunal and the courts have not been kind to us.<br><br> There is a line of case law that says that government cannot use taxes as a way to treat disfavored expression (and yes, another line which says that exotic dancers are engaging in expressive activity). We should have won this case in the New York courts; but we didn't, because judges there, as in other places, did not like what we do.  Just being before the Court of Appeals was a lifelong dream come true.  My mother's best friend was a clerk there; and she would be so proud of me.  But, in the court of Appeals, one judge asked me to concede that our dancers were not very much like the Bolshoi ballet.  I did, but reminded him that pole dancing is being considered for status as an Olympic sport.  I was shocked and horrified when his point of view prevailed on a bare majority.  that leaves us in the "court of last resort".  The Supreme Court, of course, does not hear a lot of cases.  It is an uphill battle to get them to listen to a case.  And obviously Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are not interested in people like us.  So, while I am on pins and needles, I am depressed that I am counting on a court filled with "establishment" judges who do not see my point of view worth serious discussion.<br><br> And, in an interesting but chilling coincidence, I will be in court a bit later on Tuesday to hear the judge's decision on my legal action  against the Utah division of Professional Licensing (DOPL).  In that case, we are challenging the validity of a RULE adopted by the division particularly to prevent licensed escorts and others from touching their clients.  This same rule was before the legislature last year, but did not pass.  so, DOPL enacted it on their own, we believe without authority to do so.  This RULE transforms the profession of massage therapy into a tool used to harass entertainers.  The actual law passed by the legislature describes massage therapy as just that, a therapeutic healing technique.  The rule, however, requires a professional license for "touch plus movement".   those who are reading this, please take a moment and contemplate this.   If an entertainer puts her hand on her client's arm, she must not move it, or she has committed a Class a misdemeanor.  And, yes, I have had several clients prosecuted for this.  This would be laughable, if it were not so serious.  And, while the judge seemed to understand and sympathize during oral arguments, I cannot help remember on this long and dreary weekend, that he gets his paycheck from the same government that employs the agency we are fighting.<br><br> So, Tuesday could be a day of celebration.  It probably won't be.  Even if the Supreme Court turns us down, it will not be the end of our fight in New York.  And certainly the decision in Utah will not be the end of that case, no matter what happens.  The loser will appeal; and the case will go on for a while.  And I have another appeal to be filed later this week on another adult entertainment issue.  But Tuesday is that rare day that threatens to crush my spirit.  It seems that I work so hard, and so often I do not achieve what I hope to achieve.  I do not practice law just to make money.  In fact, I am not very good at that part of it.  I do it because I have a vision of a more free and more just society; and sometimes I wonder if it is worth the pain. This is one of those times.<br><br> But then I remember that there are good times.  A couple of years ago, I received word that my client who had been imprisoned for 4 years for a crime he did not commit, would receive payment from the government for his imprisonment, despite the best efforts of the Attorney General to stop us.  In tears, I walked out to my secretary and told her the news.  And then I said "Next time I want to quit because of the constant frustration, please remind me of this day."  Yes, there are times when it appears worthwhile.  Tonight I am struggling to keep that in perspective.<br><br> Maybe things will look brighter on Tuesday.  and, despite it all, I probably won't quit. I do hope, when it is all done, there will be enough good days to have made it worth the fight.  We will see.   ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/2448147354455382560/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=2448147354455382560";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2448147354455382560";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/2448147354455382560";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2013/10/doing-what-i-can.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:24;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:59:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222.post-8278400785777784097";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-08-04T11:02:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-09-02T12:17:16.664-07:00";s:5:"title";s:38:""Shouting the Battle Cries of Freedom"";s:12:"atom_content";s:4968:"August 4, 2013<br> I have not written a blog here since the election last November.  Just too busy with other things.  This one is going to be a work in progress.  It likely won't be finished in one session.<br> <br> Our nation is in the middle of commemorating the Civil War Sesquicentennial, noting 150 years since that war.  I am old enough to remember the Centennial in the 1960's.  It was much bigger.  It seems that now it is not politically correct to remember the southern heritage, or to "glorify" the Confederacy.  That puts a damper on things.  Almost everyone now assumes that Mr. Lincoln was a great hero who did what had to be done to end slavery and bring freedom to all.<br><br> This view, however, ignores a dark side of the Union war effort.  We forget that Mr. Lincoln arrested southern sympathizers in the Maryland legislature to avoid them voting to secede; and that he imprisoned an Indiana Congressman who spoke out against the war effort.  When the Supreme Court ordered him freed, Lincoln refused to obey their order.  Now we see parallels in current history with the government doing things of which we disapprove, in the name of national security and safety.  In the words of John Dickinson, a dissenting member of Congress in the movie 1776: "No one approves of these things; but these are dangerous times."<br><br> A few weeks ago was the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg, generally assumed to be the point at which the southern cause became lost.  There was a lot of attention paid to this, and the postal service issued a commemorative stamp. This month marks the 150th anniversary of another incident which is far less known, and much less understood.<br><br> In Missouri, the people were very much divided in their loyalties.  The state militia tried to organize to fight for the south, but was quickly broken up and expelled from the State. In response, smaller bodies of southern sympathizers loosely organized into guerilla bands and fought Union troops in a bloody little war of their own.  The Union commanders tried to suppress this effort by making war on the southern-leaning population, including women and children. One such effort was General Order Number 10, which authorized the imprisoning of the wives and sisters of men known to be fighting for the south.  In August, 1863, there were several such young women in a makeshift prison in an old warehouse in Kansas City.  The old and unsafe building collapsed on their heads killing four young women and injuring several others, on August 14, 1863.  Among the dead was the 14 year old sister of a local guerilla leader known to friends and foes as "Bloody Bill" Anderson.<br><br> Needless to say, Bloody Bill and his friends were mad as hell.  Some 8 days later, on August 22, 1863, they struck back.  In the words of John McCorkle, another guerilla who also lost a sister and who later wrote a book about it: "We could stand it no more."<br><br> On the morning of August 22, Bill and his friends hit the pro-Union town of Lawrence, Kansas.  This city was the headquarters of the Jayhawks (and still is, famous for their basketball teams), a band of men who had raided Missouri slaveholders and burned them out of their farms.  It was also the home of their former leader, now a US Senator, Jim Lane.  They wanted to get him and hang him for his crimes.  When the raid hit, they made so much noise that Senator Lane jumped out of his bed and watched his home burn from a nearby cornfield.<br><br> Others were not so lucky.  Up to 200 men were killed.  Some were new army recruits in a local training camp.  Most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Much of the town was destroyed (but no women were harmed).<br><br>    The guerillas then took off, with local Union Militia trailing them.  They dispersed into the countryside and were never caught, except for one fool who got drunk and was left behind.  He was killed by an angry mob.<br><br> The Union government reacted to this by racheting up the violence another step.  You might see a similarity here to the police reaction to the Matthew Stewart incident: more guns and more armor.  General Order Number 10 was now followed by General Order Number 11, which essentially depopulated several western Missouri counties, driving out all the people, who were feared to be aiding the enemy.  So, it got worse.  More people died or lost their homes.  All in the name of freedom.<br><br> This month, give a little thought to our history.  Remember that the government's efforts to suppress "the enemy" are not new.  In fact, they are quite mild alongside the efforts of Mr. Lincoln and his minions.  So, it is now "politically correct" to see the Union war effort in the prettiest of lights - after all, the "enemy" kept slaves.  And if you can make the other guys seem bad enough, just about everything is justified.<br><br> RIP, Josephine Anderson and Charity McCorkle, Susan Vandiver and Armenia Gilvey..      ";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/8278400785777784097/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34430222&postID=8278400785777784097";s:9:"link_edit";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8278400785777784097";s:9:"link_self";s:71:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default/8278400785777784097";s:4:"link";s:82:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/2013/08/shouting-battle-cries-of-freedom.html";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"3";}}}s:7:"channel";a:13:{s:2:"id";s:34:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34430222";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2019-01-04T22:52:24.179-08:00";s:5:"title";s:24:"Andrew McCullough's Blog";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:56:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default";s:9:"link_self";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default";s:4:"link";s:37:"http://andrewmccullough.blogspot.com/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/34430222/posts/default?start-index=26&max-results=25";s:11:"author_name";s:17:"Andrew McCullough";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/11249919778123232776";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"159";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:70:"W/"8dc26107a02790aa1bf83cd286fd0c029e01687b9f701866212db021bae99c09"
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Sat, 05 Jan 2019 06:52:24 GMT
";}