After the failure of the House to override Governor Cooper’s veto of SB 359 (“Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”), we discovered why some House Democrats voted “no.”  These Democrats accepted faulty legal advice.  There were three main legal errors.

1. Some Democrats thought that Lily’s Law applied to children who survive lawful abortions.  It does not.

The first error was propagated by Representative Queen.  In a memo dated June 12^th, 2019 to 14 Democratic Representatives, Representative Queen stated:

I voted against Senate Bill 359 because it is already law.  Infanticide is not happening in North Carolina.  We all agree that babies must be protected, however they are born.  And, as Governor Cooper said when he vetoed this bill, our current law reflects that belief.  In 2013, six years ago, I voted for Senate Bill 117, which codifies protections against murder for babies born alive.  That bill passed the House unanimously, and it is law in our state today, General Statute 14-17.  Senate Bill 117 was a clean bill to provide protections for born alive babies.  Senate Bill 359 was politically motivated, and it goes a step too far, threatening and criminalizing doctors who are trying to help mothers through absolutely terrible situations.

As the bill’s title (“An Act to Codify the Common Law That It Is Murder Where a Child Who Is Born Alive Dies As the Result of Injuries Inflicted Prior to the Child’s Birth”) shows, Lily’s Law (G.S. § 14-17(c)) is not about the survivor of a failed abortion.  Rather, it codified the common law rule that if an unborn child was injured by an unlawful act prior to birth, then survived until birth, but then died after live birth, that would be murder.  For example, an armed robber shoots a mother, with murderous intent, and also injures the unborn child.  The unborn child survives long enough to be born but then dies.  That is murder.

Murder of any degree is an “unlawful killing.”  E.g. State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335 (1983).  If Lily’s law had been interpreted to apply to a lawful abortion followed by a live birth, after which the child died of injuries from the abortion (with no intention or overt act after the child was born alive) it would have been clearly unconstitutional under Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey et al. That it was unanimously passed in 2013 shows that no sentient legislator thought that it had anything to do with the care required by health care professionals after a failed abortion.  Laws against unlawful killing do not apply to lawful abortions.

The Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Senate Bill 359, modified our murder statutes by setting out an alternative method of proving murder, that there was an intentional, overt act committed after the child was born alive.  Lily’s law offers no protection to the surviving child of a failed abortion attempt.  Representative Queen is not an attorney.  Whoever suggested that line of defense to him was clearly mistaken.

2. Democrats thought laws criminalizing murder and manslaughter are sufficient to protect children who survive an abortion attempt.  They are not.

The office of Representative Darren Jackson, the House Democratic leader, provided a memorandum on June 10^th, 2019, that said:

Additionally here are current North Carolina criminal statutes that make SB 359 unnecessary:

It is a Class D felony under current law to unlawfully cause the death of an unborn child (G.S. 14-23.1).  It is a Class F felony under current law to kill another human being by a culpably negligent act or omission (G.S. 14-18).  It is a Class B2 felony, second degree murder, to kill a child born alive, with malice (G.S. 14-17).  It is a Class A felony, first degree murder, to kill a child that is born alive, with malice and a specific intent to kill formed after premeditation and deliberation (G.S. 14-17)

Like Lily’s Law, G.S. §§ 14-23.1, et seq. protects unborn children from unlawful acts committed before birth.  G.S. § 14-23.7 makes it clear that the entire article of which G.S. 14-23.1 is a part does not even apply to lawful abortions.

Voluntary manslaughter laws are almost certainly not applicable to a newborn child—which is why Representative Jackson’s office did not cite them (although others did).  Involuntary manslaughter is “a culpably negligent act or omission” or an “unintentional killing” resulting from “an unlawful act not amounting to a felony nor naturally dangerous to human life.”  State v. Wingard, 317 N.C. 590, 600, 346 S.E.2d 638, 645 (1986).  Confusingly, “unintentional killing” requires some intentional act—just not one with the intent to kill.  State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 582, 247 S.E.2d 905, 918 (1978).  Under this definition, refusing to treat a child is not “unintentional killing” because it is an omission not an intentional act.

When a child survives a lawful abortion and dies because he or she does not receive treatment, that neglect of care is not a “culpably negligent act or omission.”  The word “omission” is also modified by the term “culpably.” To be culpably negligent, the abortionist must have a legal duty to the child.  The most relevant legal duty is a doctor-patient duty.  Generally, a physician-patient relationship is only created when the physician consents to treat the patient.  E.g., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984); Galloway v. Lawrence, 266 N.C. 245, 247, 145 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1966).  A child born to a woman whom a physician is treating is not the physician’s patient, unless there are circumstances establishing that relationship (i.e. the doctor provides treatment to the child).  Mozingo v. Pitt Cty.  Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 101 N.C. App. 578, 585, 400 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1991), aff’d on other grounds, 331 N.C. 182, 415 S.E.2d 341 (1992).  An abortionist could argue that his or her only duty to the child is to report the child to social services as neglected or dependent juvenile.  By the time social services is able to investigate, the child would likely be dead.  Without any duty to the child, an abortionist is not guilty of a “culpably negligent act or omission.”

Representative Jackson’s office cited class A and B felonies which are generally inapplicable. Most abortionists are not so foolish as to follow the Gosnell method and directly kill the child after it survives an abortion.  Neglect will generally accomplish the abortionist goal – death of the child.

To clarify this, the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” Senate Bill 359, requires doctors and other health care providers to provide medically reasonable care to children who survive an abortion and to report when a child survives an abortion.  This would make it clear to both doctors and other providers what their legal duties and liabilities are.

3. Democrats missed the importance of civil penalties.

While existing criminal law is inadequate, SB 359 would also have applied civil penalties to health care practitioners who refused to treat and report children who survive abortions.

In his 18 April 2019 veto message, Governor Roy Cooper said:

Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients. This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist.

Governor Cooper and Democrats’ talking points ignore the effect of civil remedies.

In addition to the criminal penalties the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” provides effective civil remedies.  Opponents of the bill completely ignore these.  They may be as effective, if not more effective, than criminal penalties.  A criminal penalty requires a unanimous verdict by 12 jurors based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the current cultural environment, it is not hard to envision many counties where support for infanticide is so entrenched that a unanimous jury cannot be found to convict.  Jury nullification is a real problem.

Civil remedies require proof by a preponderance of the evidence.  A civil case may require a unanimous jury.  But where there is no genuine issue of a material fact as to liability, many civil cases are resolved by summary judgment.  Liability is decided solely by a judge.

What are those remedies under the “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act?”  The woman may sue for money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical.  Since these all arise, by definition, from late-term abortions there are obvious physical injuries, not the least of which is the increased risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies with the possibility of the child’s death and the long term sequelae of brain injury, culminating in cerebral palsy. Psychological injuries from a failed abortion so late in pregnancy that the child survives will create in most women psychological trauma.

The “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” provides for statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion.  Since by definition these are all late term abortions, we estimate the cost at $3,000, which tripled is $9,000.  The Act also provides for punitive damages.  Punitive damages may be imposed for egregiously wrongful acts G.S. ID-1, such as willful or wanton conduct G.S. ID-(a)(3) and are limited to the greater of $250,000 and three times the compensatory damages G.S.ID-25(b). The “Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” also provides for attorney’s fees for the plaintiff if he or she prevails (or for the defendant if the suit is frivolous or brought in bad faith).

                                                                                                 Paul Stam

                                                                                                Dan Gibson

Executive Order No. 24 & the “Consent Decree”
September 21, 2018
Click here for Executive Order No. 24 Attachments & Executive Order No. 24 Additional Attachments

Governor Roy Cooper’s Executive Order No. 24 and the “Consent Decree” proposed by Governor Roy Cooper, Attorney General Josh Stein and the ACLU

What is to be done about the Governor’s Executive Order No. 24 and his proposed “Consent Decree” with the ACLU? A copy of each is attached to this memorandum. This is my opinion:

I. The “Consent Decree”

The President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are well represented in the pending federal civil case. Their attorney has moved to dismiss which, if successful, would moot the question of the “consent decree.” The Governor is trying to change the very law (HB 142, SL 2017-4 attached) which he promoted and signed March 30, 2017, by a collusive consent decree that will perpetually bind future governors to his radical new interpretation of the law. The brief of Governor Cooper, Attorney General Stein and the ACLU suggests that there is significant clarity (but some ambiguity) in current North Carolina law as to the regulation of access to multiple occupancy restrooms and changing rooms such that they are merely asking the Court to join them to clarify existing law. This is preposterous!

In his order of 2016, Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder rejected UNC’s position that HB2 could not be enforced because HB2 had no enforcement provisions. Judge Schroeder listed four different enforcement mechanisms.

1. Peeping GS 14 – 202(a) (d)[3] and
2. Second-degree trespass, GS 14 – 159.13. In the case of SMS 196 N.C. App 170 (2009) the Court of Appeals held that a 15 year old boy in the girls’ locker room was guilty of second-degree trespass.[1] The label on the door was sufficient notice to him that he should not be there. This is undercut in some school systems by principals (and chancellors) who give permission to students to violate the law. It is probably a good defense to trespass if the person in charge of a facility authorizes a trespass. Judge Schroeder referred to this as “openly defying the law.” By his Executive Order Governor Roy Cooper is “openly defying the law.” But he has possibly created a sufficient defense to a trespass charge by his role as custodian of the facilities within his jurisdiction.
3. Indecent exposure, GS 14-190.9(a)[2];
4. University discipline of students who violate federal, state or local law.

In addition to these four enforcement mechanisms, there are two others:

1. The state building code requires separate restroom facilities for each sex in most commercial buildings with signage “designating the sex” 2012 NC Building Code 101.2 (Intl Code Council, Inc 3d prtg 2014.)[4] “Sex” is biological. “Gender” is a literary concept with fluid meaning. Whatever ambiguity there is in the term “gender” there is no ambiguity in the state building code.
2. Under title VII it would create a “hostile work environment” for an employer to maintain restroom or locker room facilities that are not differentiated by biological sex. That would usually be enforced by a private claim for damages in civil court.[5]

II. Governor Roy Cooper’s Executive Order No. 24. of October 18, 2017

On page 8 of this memo I include a memo that I wrote on April 17, 2017 in the aftermath of House Bill 142 (SL 2017-4). There is little in Executive Order No. 24 that could not have been predicted from the Governor’s statements after he signed HB 142 on March 30, 2017.

On October 18, 2017 Governor Cooper issued Executive Order No. 24. The operative provisions of the Executive Order include the Governor’s false claim that “existing federal and state law” on discrimination include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” as protected classifications. Section IA. State law includes these classifications only in the context of K-12 bullying law. GS 115C-407.15(a). But that law specifically states that it does not apply outside that context. GS 115-C-407.18(f).[6]

Federal law on discrimination does not include these classifications but instead only race, religion, color, nationality and sex. Title VII and Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 USC 2000e et seq. There is a reference in the Prison Rape Elimination Act 34 USC 30301-30309, which does include these classifications, but that is limited to its context and recognizes that inmates have a constitutional right to not be observed by members of the opposite sex while using the restroom or changing clothes. There are also references to “gender” and “gender identity” in “hate crime” legislation, 18 U.S.C. § 249 (a)(2), campus crimes reports, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 (f) and the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13925 (b)(13), but these categories are NOT included in Title VII or Title IX. Congress knows how to designate “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” even though they lack a definition.

The Fourth Circuit (of which North Carolina is a part) has held that under Title VII and Title IX “sex” means biological sex and does not mean “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”.  Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138, (4^th Cir. 1996); see also Murray v. N.C. Dept of Pub. Safety, 611 Fed. App’x 166, 166 n* (4^th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Dawkins v. Richmond Cty. Schs., 2012 WL 1580455, at *4 (M.D.N.C. May 4, 2012). Kirby v. N.C. State Univ., 2015 WL 1036946, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2015).[7]

The Governor then uses his false premise to command the following: In Section 1C (1) he states that entities under his jurisdiction shall not discriminate, harass, or retaliate on the basis of these prohibited grounds in hiring. This is the only part of his order that is actually within his power and is similar to Governor McCrory’s Executive Order of April 12, 2016. As the hiring officer he “cannot discriminate” on whatever criteria he wants to not discriminate. When he finally realizes the breadth of the meaning of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”, which he never defines, he may realize that he has seriously overstated his case. See page 12-14 of this memo.

Under Section IC2 he states that these “prohibited grounds” may not be the basis of discrimination in the provision of government services or in the administration of government programs, including, but not limited to, programs and services concerning public safety, health and welfare. As a consequence he will have to immediately change the policy of his Department of Public Safety, Adult Corrections and Juvenile Justice and let correctional officers require inmates of the opposite sex to expose themselves to the correctional officer or to each other when the officer or the inmate claims a new “gender identity.”

The first sentence of Section 2 of House Bill 142 (SL 2007-4), attached, specifically preempts the “office” of the governor from “regulating access to multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities” except in accordance with an act of the General Assembly. Section IC2 of his Executive Order contradicts this statute.

The Order cites as authority (Section IIIA) and indeed is subject to Article III, Section 5(10) of the Constitution which states that:

“The General Assembly shall prescribe the functions, powers, and duties of the administrative departments and agencies of the State and may alter them from time to time, but the Governor may make such changes in the allocation of offices and agencies and in the allocation of those functions, powers, and duties as he considers necessary for efficient administration. If those changes affect existing law, they shall be set forth in executive orders, which shall be submitted to the General Assembly not later than the sixtieth calendar day of its session.”

 The governor did not submit this Executive Order within the first sixty days of a session. If he had, either the Senate or House could have disapproved this order by a simple resolution.[8] This constitutional provision is entitled “10 Administration Reorganization” but captions and titles do not control over the text. This constitutional provision was recently cited in the October 31, 2017 Order of the Three Judge Superior Court in Cooper v Berger. 17 CVS 5084 (Wake).

Section IC3 provides that the entities under the Governor’s jurisdiction shall not “discriminate” on the basis of these “prohibited grounds” in awarding state contracts and state grants. This has the same statutory and constitutional defect as stated above. The rules concerning the awarding of state contracts and state grants are set out in full in GS chapter 143- 48 et seq. Article 3, Purchases and Contracts, and in the Current Appropriation Law, SL 2017-57. The Governor has no authority to unilaterally change criteria set by statute.

In Section IC4 the Governor prohibits the entities under his jurisdiction from adopting policies and regulations “barring, prohibiting, blocking, deterring or impeding any individual who lawfully uses public facilities under their control or supervision and in accordance with an individual’s gender identity.”

Setting aside for the moment the inherent ambiguity in the fluid concept of “gender identity,” this portion of the order violates the constitutional provision stated above and Section 2 of HB 142, SL 2017-4. To understand the constantly changing terms of reference for “gender identity”, see page 12-14 of this memorandum.

Section II of the Executive Order addresses Access to State Services. It elaborates on the preceding and takes it down to sub-grantees. This contains the same constitutional and statutory defects as stated above.

In Section III the Governor addresses “policy development.” The Office of State Human Resources is ordered to adopt internal policies to effectuate the same anti-statutory and unconstitutional provisions stated above. He charges OSHR with adopting measures that would identify what consequences state agencies may impose on grantees and sub-grantees … based upon prohibited grounds, “including grant revocation and exclusion from consideration for future state grants” and to take any additional steps necessary to prevent and stop discrimination.

In his Executive Order, Section V, the Governor addresses counties, municipalities, political subdivision, local government agencies. In subsection 1 the Governor states that, “consistent with existing federal and state law” local governments are free to establish their own policies regarding discrimination. But this is directly contrary to Section 3 of HB 142 SL 2017-4 which prohibits ordinances regulating private employment practices and regulating public accommodations until December 1, 2020. And after that date they are beyond the statutory power of local government, Williams v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of N.C., 357 NC 170 (2003).

In Section V(2) of his Order he encourages private entities to adopt his policies. He is entitled as a citizen to freedom of speech. But he is encouraging actions which in many cases will create a hostile work environment by private entities, violations of the state building code and other laws of the state.

What to do?

1. The General Assembly should support a legal challenge by a contractor, grantee, sub-grantee or taxpayer either by intervention, amicus curiae brief or otherwise.

2. If the contractor has religious objection to compliance with the Executive Order, and if the contract or grant is funded in part with federal funds, then the challenge may include the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 bb et seq. The relevant portions of the United States Attorney General’s Memorandum providing guidance on Federal Law Protections of Religious Liberty are included at pp 6-7. The entire memorandum may be found at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download.

—–

[1] In re S.M.S., 196 N.C. App. 170, 675 S.E.2d 44 (2009), held that evidence was sufficient to show that juvenile committed second-degree trespass when he entered girls’ locker room at high school so as to support adjudication of delinquency.  The Court noted that a sign marked “Girl’s Locker Room” was reasonably likely to give the boy notice that he was not authorized to go into the girls’ locker room, and that his admission that he violated school rules by entering the girls’ locker room supported a reasonable inference that he knew he was not permitted in the locker room.

[2] § 14-190.9.  Indecent exposure details several crimes related to exposure of private parts in both public and private places (with varying elements).  A claim brought under this statute may depend on the facts of the case.

[3] 14 202.  Secretly peeping into room occupied by another person – prohibits secret peeping into rooms (including bathrooms and restrooms).  One of the elements of the crime is that the “peeping” is “secret”, though that term is not defined by statute, so, the facts of the case may determine if the elements of the statute are met.

[4] See also https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/getpdf/2012_NC_Plumbing.pdf – Sec. 403.1 Minimum number of fixtures. In new construction or building additions and in changes of occupancy as defined in the North Carolina Building Code, plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of occupancy and in the minimum number shown in Table 403.1. Types of occupancies not shown in Table 403.1 shall be considered individually by the code official. The number of occupants shall be determined by the International Building Code. Occupancy classification shall be determined in accordance with the International Building Code. The Plumbing Code uses the terms male and female and requires that a certain number of toilets be provided for males and a certain number for females, based on the type of facility.

[5] The elements for an employment discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment are 1) unwelcome conduct 2) based on a legally protected characteristic 3) that the conduct was so severe or pervasive it affected the terms of employment.  Sex is a legally protected characteristic under Title VII.

[6] GS 115C-407.15, describes types of bullying behavior: “Bullying or harassing behavior includes, but is not limited to, acts reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, socioeconomic status, academic status, gender identity, physical appearance, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, developmental, or sensory disability, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or more of these characteristics.” G.S. 115C-407.18(f) “(f) Nothing in this act shall be construed to create any classification, protected class, suspect category, or preference beyond those existing in present statute or case law.”

[7] North Carolina is within the Fourth Circuit.  Other circuits have split on how to interpret the term “sex” in Title VII and Title IX cases.  Until recently, most jurisdictions that reviewed this issue had held that discrimination because of sex means on the basis of being male or female, but does not extend to cover transgender or gender identity status, or to cover sexual orientation.

Some other jurisdictions have applied the analysis first presented by the US Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) to allow claims to be brought on the basis of sex stereotyping, that is, discrimination based on deviation for gender norms for that sex, that would not otherwise be recognized solely on the basis of discrimination because of sex.  Some courts have noted, however, that the line between discrimination based on sex stereotyping and discrimination based on other categories not recognized as a basis for a claim, such as sexual orientation, is blurry at best.  See Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., 2016 WL 951581  (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016).

Although the United States Supreme Court has not recognized claims based on sexual orientation as a protected classification under Title VII, the Court in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex included discrimination by members of the same sex as well as discrimination by the opposite sex.

Cases from other federal circuits around the country are collected in the Appendix at pages 15-23.

[8] There is limited case law regarding the Governor’s authority to issue executive orders.  The November 1, 2017 decision of the Louisiana Court of Appeals (First Circuit) No. 2017 CA 0173 in “The Louisiana Dept of Justice vs. John Bel Edwards, Governor” held that a remarkably similar Executive Order violated separation of powers and was properly enjoined. A copy of that case is attached.

Friends,

I would like you to help LINDA DEVORE in her bid for election to the North Carolina House of Representatives.

For decades Linda has been a stalwart champion of the principles that we hold dear.  She has been very effective. For about 20 years I have relied on her to lead the conservative movement in Fayetteville.

When I ended my 16 years in the House in 2016 I was concerned. Would there be sufficient numbers of committed conservatives to prevail on critical issues? If Linda is there she  will be one of them.

Linda’s district is much of Fayetteville down to Hope Mills. If you have friends or relatives there, please forward this to them. Her opponent is Billy Richardson.

Please send her a campaign contribution.  All the information that you need from her is attached here.

Best regards,

Paul Stam

P.S.  I am sending Linda my own contribution today. If hundreds of us do the same Linda will be in the House of Representatives to help lead the conservative team.

Have you visited www.paulstam.info lately? I have continued to add content to the Articles section. One of the most informative items is 432 pages of transcripts of debates in the General Assembly for 2009-2016. This collection is available online at www.paulstam.info/debate-transcripts. And the 2018 Articles are timely.

RIGHT TO FARM?
An Analysis of Senate Bill 711, Section 10

By Paul Stam
June 13, 2018

Section 10 of Senate Bill 711 is a serious and direct threat to the private property rights of homeowners throughout the state.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 incorporates the common law as of 1776 into the law of North Carolina.  That common law was stated by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:

Also if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, so near the house of another, that the stench of them incommodes him and makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive him of the use and benefit of his house. A like injury is, if one’s neighbor sets up and exercises an offensive trade; as a tanner’s, a tallow-chandler’s, or the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule is, “sic utere tuo, ut alienum non loedas:” this therefore is an actionable nuisance. So that the nuisances which affect a man’s dwelling may be reduced to these three; 1. Overhanging it; which is also a species of trespass, for cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum: 2. Stopping ancient lights: and 3. Corrupting the air with noisome smells: for light and air are two indispensable requisites to every dwelling.  (Blackstone’s Commentaries – Book III, Ch. XIII, *739, emphases added.)

First, the principal effect of the bill, as now written, is to make punitive damages impractical in nuisance cases. In 1995 the Assembly passed tort reform, drastically limiting punitive damages. In recent litigation a jury assessed $50 million in punitive damages against Smithfield. The judge reduced these damages to $2,500,000.

Section 10(b), amending G.S. 106-702 adds (a1) that requires for punitive damages there had to have been a previous conviction or a state civil enforcement action by the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) within three years prior. But since N.C. Gen. Stat. § 106-701(a)(3) requires the nuisance action to be brought within one year of the establishment of the nuisance, this will almost never be the case. Convictions in criminal court or DEQ enforcement actions just do not happen that quickly.

The longstanding purpose of punitive damages is to deter and punish wrongful conduct, primarily when the state does not have the resources or the will to enforce its own laws. Within the last year a different federal court has had to order Smithfield to clean up operations that it had promised to do in 2006. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., No. 4:01-CV-27-H, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198537 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2017), at https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/Murphy_
Brown_hog_farm_order_enforcing_consent_decree.pdf. Since the purpose of punitive damages is deterrence the financial picture of the defendant is relevant. In May 15, 2018, Bloomberg released a report on the highest compensated man in the entire world in 2017. Bruce Einhorn, This Chinese Pork CEO Was Paid More Than Tim Cook or Elon Musk, Bloomberg (May 25, 2018, 12:00 PM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/this-chinese-ceo-got-paid-more-than-tim-cook-or-lloyd-blankfein.

Second, it is imperative that the law protect “accrued” claims for relief rather than only claims for relief “commenced” on or before the effective date. It is settled state constitutional law that accrued claims for relief for compensatory damages (but not punitive damages) are vested property rights and cannot be taken by legislation. Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 258 N.C. 160, 594 S.E.2d 1 (2004) (citing Osborn v. Leach, 135 N.C. 628, 47 SE, 811 (1904)). As a consequence, Section 10(c) is unconstitutional as applied to landowners who already have an accrued nuisance claim (but not yet filed).

Third, one of the oddest provisions is the deletion of subsection (a2) of 106-701 on lines 19-21, and similar language deleted in subsection (d). The effect is that negligent operation of the agricultural operation does not prevent it from claiming the right to farm protections from a nuisance claim of a private owner, nor of a local government.

Fourth, the first, fourth, and fifth whereas clauses are not true and, if passed, will reflect badly on the integrity of the Assembly. They will not have any operative legal effect except to irritate the judges of the Fourth Circuit who will handle appeals.

Fifth, I recommend completely deleting Section 10 as it is a direct attack on the private property rights of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinian property owners. Failing that, amendments are essential.

The basic rights of private property include the land, the air above it and the earth below. No matter how well-intentioned, Section 10 is partially not constitutional and is completely unjust. It is a serious matter when legislation deprives homeowners of their property rights to own and enjoy their homes.

MYTHS and FACTS about the CORPORATE INCOME TAX
and
Why the Rate Should Be Zero!

June 9, 2018
Paul Stam

INTRODUCTION

On New Year’s Day the corporate income tax rate at the federal level dropped from 35% to 21%. The corporate income tax rate in North Carolina is 3%. It will drop to 2.5% in 2019. As recently as 2011 the North Carolina corporate income tax rate was 6.9%. This article explains the reasons for these reductions. Several of these reasons have been discussed extensively at the national and state level and these reasons are discussed very briefly in section C and D. But there are other important reasons stated in sections A and B.

BACKGROUND

In North Carolina this tax began in 1921 at a rate of 3%[1] and in the United States in 1909 at a 1% rate.[2] In Fiscal Year 2011-12 the corporate income tax was only 6.1% of the N.C. general fund. Despite the significant reductions in the rate over the years, in Fiscal Year 2016-17 the corporate income tax was 3.5% of the N.C. general fund, which is about 1.75% of the total state budget.[3]

Corporations only collect taxes which they then pay on behalf of shareholders. A corporation is an aggregation of individual humans (or other businesses that are aggregations of individual humans) that invest their money for profit.[4] Many, if not most, businesses do not pay corporate income tax at all because they are “pass through” entities like Subchapter S corporations, Limited Liability Companies, partnerships, trusts, or estates. These entities report information to the IRS, but the income is “passed through” to the owners who then pay income tax on the income that is passed through. Forty million American taxpayers report “pass through” income.

MYTHS AND FACTS

A. It is a myth that the corporate income tax, state or federal, is a tax on the wealthy that helps to “Level the Playing Field.” Cutting the corporate income tax rate to zero would put those who invest in these businesses, not in a preferred footing against “pass through” business entities but, almost on an equal footing with those who invest in other businesses. Most businesses in America are “pass through” entities and their profits are taxed once. The corporate income tax is double taxation. The same economic activity is taxed once at the corporate level and then taxed a second time when distributed to shareholders as dividends.

Consider a taxpayer before 2017 tax reform at the federal level and before 2011-2017 tax reform at the state level. Compare two investors in different income brackets for 2011 and 2019.[5]

In 2011 a wealthy North Carolina taxpayer whose economic investment in a corporation earned $1000 would have paid or accrued a combined tax of over $600 on those earnings. In 2018 that will drop to about $500.

In 2011 a working poor North Carolina taxpayer whose investment in her retirement fund earned $1000 would have paid or accrued a combined tax of $350. In 2018 that will drop to about $200.[6]

Whether you are rich or poor, earnings from a corporate investment are taxed to the individual human at a higher, not lower, rate.

B. It is a Myth that Wealthy People are the Ones Who Bear the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax. The effect of the corporate income tax is not even predominately on the wealthy. Those opposing reductions in rate argue that the tax paid by a large corporation is a tax on wealthy individuals. For several reasons this is not true:

First, a reduction in the rate is partially a reduction in the price of goods and services to those who consume them. If I bought a cheeseburger in 2011 for $5.00, say 35 cents of that is used to pay the federal corporate income tax and about 7 cents to pay the North Carolina corporate income tax for a total of 42 cents per cheeseburger at the previous higher rates. Under the new rates the share of that 2018 cheeseburger for federal corporate income tax is say 21 cents and 3 cents at the state level for a total of 24 cents. It does not matter whether the person who eats that cheeseburger is rich or poor. It is the same tax embedded in each cheeseburger. That is an extremely regressive tax. It is also a tax that is hidden from the burger buyer. The 18 cent reduction in that hidden tax on each cheeseburger means more to the poor than to the rich.

Second, to the extent that there is a competitive market for labor (which is now the case) wages and other compensation can rise faster to the extent that the corporate income tax is reduced. Immediately after tax reform passed Congress, several major corporations announced bonuses or other significant benefits for employees: Bank of America, Comcast, AT&T, Boeing, Fifth Third Bank, BB&T, PNC and Wells Fargo, each crediting the tax reform bill. A new OECD study found that between thirty percent (30%) and seventy percent (70%) of the corporate income tax is effectively paid by workers.[7]

Most public utilities are provided by privately owned, regulated utilities that pay corporate income tax. The North Carolina Utility Commission has required lower utilities rates for consumers as a consequence of tax reform. Lower utility bills for electricity, water, and sewer mean more to the poor than to the rich.

Third, a part of the effect of a corporate income tax rate reduction is on the distribution of net profits. Some of that net profit of the corporation does go to the wealthy. If the corporate income tax rate is reduced, then, all other things being equal, dividends will increase. Half of American households are invested in mutual funds, retirement funds, or otherwise in the stock market. The largest corporations have millions of shareholders, both rich and poor. Dividends ultimately are taxed at the individual’s own tax rate, a high rate for the wealthy, and a low (or even zero) rate for the working poor.[8] The corporate income tax is not a progressive tax. It is a regressive “add on” tax to the progressive individual income tax rates.

C. Competitiveness. Effective January 1, 2018, the nominal federal corporate income tax rate went from 35% to 21%. 35% was the highest in the industrialized world; 21% is in the middle of the pack. Opponents of reductions often state that the nominal rate is not the same as the effective rate. True, but irrelevant. See Section D.

Money flows easily across national and state borders. While the United States has many inherent competitive advantages, its extremely high corporate income tax rate was a major impediment to investment here. Many Americans were prompted to invest overseas and investors from abroad were discouraged from investing here.

Similarly, when North Carolina’s corporate income tax rate was 6.9% in 2011 its rate was the highest of all our bordering states. North Carolina’s rate of 2.5% in 2019 is the lowest in the nation (of the states that impose a corporate income tax). This change has been a major competitive advantage for North Carolina for economic development and is one of the reasons why North Carolina ranks at the top in national business rankings (e.g., # 1 by Forbes and Site Selection magazine) and near the top in tax rankings. As the National Tax Foundation stated in its introduction to the 2017 State Business Tax Climate Index:

North Carolina continues to phase in reforms from its successful 2013 effort. The corporate income tax was further reduced this year, raising the state to 4th on its corporate tax component ranking. North Carolina now ranks 11th overall, an astonishing improvement from 41st just three years ago.[9]

The Tax Foundation also cited a study to the effect that “a state’s corporate tax rate is the most relevant tax in the investment decisions of foreign investors.”[10]  As of April 15, 2015, six states had no corporate income tax: Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

D. Targeted Tax Incentives. The incessant competition of big firms with each other and with state governments to receive special treatment on their tax bills impose significant costs on the economy. I have written on that extensively at www.paulstam.info (see Articles for 2005). To the extent that the corporate income tax rate is very low or zero then targeted tax expenditures are less costly and less of a distortion to the economy in the making of business decisions.[11]

While reducing the corporate income tax rate, the reforms at the federal and state level also eliminated many unjustified deductions, credits and exemptions that made the nominal corporate income tax rate so high, complicated, unfair, and rife with political gamesmanship.

Much of the rhetoric at the federal and state level attacking these reforms mentions the elimination of a deduction, credit or exemption without mentioning, in the same sentence, paragraph, or article, that the taxpayer also pays at a much lower rate. This sophomoric rhetorical device is unfair and deceptive.

CONCLUSION

The corporate income tax rate should be zero. Elimination of this tax or reductions in its rate do not favor the wealthy over the poor. Lowering the rate, while eliminating some deductions, credits, and exemptions, helps the economy by reducing distortions and improving the economic competitiveness of the State and nation.

________________________________________

[1] Revenue Act of 1921, https://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/jhsfctr/Meeting%20
Documents/4-7-2010%20Meeting/Corporate%20Income%20tax.pdf
[2] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
[3] https://www.ncleg.net/FiscalResearch/budget_summaries/budget_summaries_PDFs/2017_Annotated_
Committee_Report.pdf
[4] Nonprofit corporations may pay high salaries but do not pay dividends. They are not the subject of this paper.
[5] The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 at the federal level includes a deduction for business owners of 20% for some “pass through” income. That deduction complicates the comparison shown below and is ignored for this paper.
[6] In each case this is a higher amount of tax than the same earnings achieved from a “pass through” investment.
[7] http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/legal-tax-liability-legal-remittance-responsibility-and-tax-incidence_e7ced3ea-en
[8] Ordinary dividends are taxed at the individual’s own rate. Qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates of 0%, 15%, and 20%, still progressive. For purposes of the calculations in Section A, I have assumed some dividends of each kind.
[9] https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170302120920/TF-SBTCI-2017-Final1.pdf
[10] Id. at 20.
[11] Some incentives are credits against other taxes.

Questions, challenges and nuances arise after Kirby v. NC DOT, 368 NC 847 (2016) construing the Map Act, Article 2E of Chapter 136. While the Map Act had the goal of reducing excessive cost of land acquisition for future highway projects, it ran afoul of fundamental constitutional rights.

I address some of these issues in my recent article, which was published by the Real Property Section of the North Carolina Bar Association. The full article is available at: https://ncbar.org/media/858286/rpmay2018map.pdf.

This story begins and ends in Mongolia, a landlocked country between Russia and China. One third of its people are nomads. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan exploded out of Mongolia several centuries ago.

In 1921 the USSR was on the march. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics absorbed Mongolia into its political orbit, imposing its political and religious ideology, Communism and atheism, upon Mongolia. In consequence Mongolia severely persecuted all religious activity, burned monasteries, killed monks and ended the open practice of the Buddhist religion in Mongolia. For millennia Mongolia had been a Buddhist society (along with occultic shamanism). Even though Mongolia and Tibet are separated by thousands of miles of the mountains and deserts of western China, the Mongolian variety of Buddhism is the same as the Tibetan variety – Vajrayana Buddhism, sometimes called Lamaism.

Buddhist monks of Mongolia who were not killed fled. Many of them went to Tibet, which is southwest of China and just north of India, Nepal, and Bhutan. For more than a thousand years the Dalai Lama has been the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet. The Panchen Lama wielded some political power, including a role in selecting the next Dalai Lama.  When the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama died his associates would select a child to be trained as the new Lama and would declare that he was a reincarnation of the previous one.

The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14^th Dalai Lama. He was vested with full powers as head of state in 1950 at the age of 15. The center of power was at the Potala Palace in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.

Chinese Communists, led by Mao, won their civil war against the Kuomintang (Nationalists) and proclaimed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1950 at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Chinese Communists (CCCP) were aggressively atheistic and wanted to stamp out all “superstitious” religion, along with the “landlord” class and anyone else who stood in their way. About 30 million Chinese were killed by the Communist Party and government from 1950 through 1975 under pogroms, purges and government-induced famine.

The Chinese Communist also aggressively asserted rights to all the lands around the core of the PRC: Xinjiang, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and especially Tibet. In 1950 the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded Tibet, asserting that Tibet always had been a part of China and demanding subservience. Tibet had been an independent sovereign state from 1912-1950 but was overwhelmed by the PLA. Persecution of Tibetans was intense and immediate, especially of Buddhist monks. 6,000 monasteries were destroyed. From 1950-1980 about one million Tibetans lost their lives to the Chinese and about 100,000 escaped over the Himalayas to northern India.

The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama continued to function in Tibet until 1959. Persecution became so intense that the Dalai Lama and many of his followers fled at night over the Himalayas to Dharamshala, the location of the Central Tibet Administration, the Dalai Lama’s government in exile. Refugees from Tibet to India in 1959 included Buddhist monks who had previously fled from Mongolia to Tibet in 1921.

China and India have had violent border wars several times in the Himalayas.  One of the grievances of the Chinese government is that India harbors the Dalai Lama and his “government in exile”, which claims autonomous rights for Tibetans, especially in matters of religion. In 1989 the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Let’s leave the geopolitical story there for a while. We will come back to it later.

In 1925 Ruth Lois Stam was born to Harry and Alma Stam. Three brothers were Paul Jacob Stam, Jonathan Stam, and James Cornelius Stam, and a sister, Rachel, who died as a child. Ruth’s parents were missionaries with the Africa Inland Mission at Rethy in the northeastern corner of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then the Belgian Congo). They spent 40 years in that area evangelizing and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ruth knew that her uncle and aunt, John and Betty Stam, had served in Anhui, China until 1934. She knew the need for Christian missions in China and set her heart on following that call. To complete her education she attended Wheaton College (Illinois) from 1943 to 1947. By the time she graduated from Wheaton, Christian missionaries were being expelled from Mainland China. Those who were not expelled were severely persecuted. She decided to minister to some of the refugees from China so that they could bring the gospel back to China.

Ruth Lois Stam served with TEAM, The Evangelical Alliance Mission, in northern India to work with Tibetan refugees. Her particular assignment was to help the refugees at Dharamshala get a good education, and a Christian education in particular. She was able to have some of her students admitted to universities in Europe and America. She maintained friendship and communication with them for decades. One of her students was the sister of the Dalai Lama. For a time this sister lived with Ruth Lois. Ruth Lois was a friend of the Dalai Lama and talked often with him about the education of Tibetan children.

Ruth Lois Stam had been in India for 23 years and was still single. Because of the political sensitivity of the government of India to the status of the Dalai Lama and his government in exile, and because of the sensitivity of the Indian government to American missionaries, the security services monitored Ruth’s activities. One investigator was Sam Thiagarajan, a Christian man from the city of Bangalore in South India. The legend is that the apostle, Thomas, had traveled to South India and founded the Church of South India. Today that church has approximately 2 million members. The population of India is 1.3 billion and the Christian population of India is about 6 percent (74 percent is Hindu and about 15 percent Muslim).

Sam Thiagarajan had several adult sons and was a widower. Sam told Ruth that he had investigated her for a long time and that he liked what he saw. He proposed marriage. Shortly after their marriage they emigrated to New York City. They worked for ISI (International Students Inc.), a Christian missionary organization for college students. Ruth and Sam’s assignment was evangelization of Buddhist and Hindu students in New York City.

Back to the geopolitical situation: In 1989 the Berlin wall fell. The dissolution of the 16 republics of the USSR followed quickly. By 1990 Mongolia had been freed from domination by the USSR and was relatively open. In 1989 there had been only four known Christian believers in Mongolia. All other Mongolians were either Buddhist, shamanist, atheist, or a few Muslims. One day Ruth received a call from one of the students whom she had placed decades earlier in a university. She was the daughter of one of the Buddhist monks who had fled from Mongolia to Tibet in 1919 and had then fled again in 1959 from Lhasa to Dharamshala, India. Her former student invited Ruth and Sam to come with her to Mongolia. Ruth and Sam spent several summers in Mongolia. They took the “Jesus Film” with them. The “Jesus Film” has been translated into 1500 languages and is almost verbatim the book of Luke.

The capital city of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. Half of all Mongolians live there. A large part of the country is the Gobi Desert. There are no other large cities. Nomads roam the rest of Mongolia carrying their “yurts” (tents) on horseback. Ruth and Sam followed the nomads with their film. I do not know the result of their individual work. The latest version of Operation World estimates forty-six thousand Christians now in Mongolia with 200 churches in Ulan Bator and tiny groups of believers in every province. The Jesus film is widely used.

God took the preparation of a girl who grew up in the Congo, redirected her vision for China, and her ministry in India, to the people of Tibet. Along with a Christian man whose lineage in the faith dated back two thousand years. Ruth and Sam helped to evangelize Mongolia, then one of the least Christian nations on earth. Ruth and Sam are not listed in any book of heroes, but should be.

Paul Stam
Apex, NC
919-362-8873
paulstam@stamlawfirm.com
www.paulstam.info

Please advise the author of corrections or additions

            All errors of fact are my own. Thanks to Ruth Stam Stevens, Mary Stam and Doris Perry Stam for reading this and correcting some of my errors. Other sources include:

Operation World (2010)
Perkins, Tibet in Exile, (Chronicle Books, 1991)
www.carlstam.org
www.jesusfilm.org

Enforcement of the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (HB2) S.L.2016-3

I have received inquiries about enforcement of Part I of this law. These inquiries echo media and pundits who completely misunderstand and claim that the law is unenforceable.

Most new laws do not contain within themselves their own enforcement provisions. If they did, the General Statutes would require twice as many volumes on the shelf. Confusion would reign. New laws typically integrate change into existing enforcement provisions.

Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder rejected the argument of the President of the UNC system, Margaret Spellings, that UNC would not enforce HB2 because it had no enforcement provisions. Judge Schroeder cited four different enforcement mechanisms. (1) second-degree trespass, GS 14 – 159.13. In the case of SMS 196 N.C. App 170 (2009) the Court of Appeals held that a 15 year old boy in the girls locker room was properly adjudicated of second-degree trespass. The label on the door was sufficient notice to him that he should not be there. This is undercut in some school systems by principals (and chancellors) who give permission to students to violate the law. It is probably a good defense to trespass if the person in charge of a facility authorizes a trespass. Judge Schroeder referred to this as “openly defying the law.” (2) the indecent exposure statute, GS 14-190.9(a); (3) the peeping statute GS 14 – 202(a)(d) and (4) university discipline of students who violate federal, state or local law.

In addition to these four enforcement mechanisms which Judge Schroeder mentioned, there are two others: (5) The state building code requires separate restroom facilities for each sex 2012 NC Building Code 101.2 (Intl Code Council, Inc 3d prtg 2014.) (6) I contend that under Title VII it would create a “hostile work environment” for an employer to maintain restroom or locker room facilities that are not differentiated by biological sex. That would be enforced by a claim for damages in civil court.

Representative Paul Stam
Speaker Pro Tempore
919-362-8873

This online publication is unlike any you have ever seen. It consists of transcripts of many of the debates in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 2009-2016. Some debates in the Senate and some debates in committees are included. I have prefaced each section with my comments for context.

I enjoy primary sources. When an historian or analyst tells me what somebody said, I am not as convinced unless I can actually read or hear the words.

Aside from the public interest in the subjects of these debates there is also a bit of legislative history here from which lawyers might argue legislative intent. For rules on how legislative debate is used in law you might want to see pages 5 – 9 of a law review I authored, 28 Issues in Law and Medicine 3 (2012), entitled “Woman’s Right to Know Act: A Legislative History” and an article that I co-authored with Amy O’Neal entitled “The 2011 Tribal-State Gaming Compact: A 2012 North Carolina Legislative History,” 6 Charlotte Law Review 17 at 20-27 (2015).

It is no surprise that my own debates are featured in this collection and that House debates predominate. Beginning in 2009 House floor debates have been archived electronically on the Internet at www.ncleg.net. For House floor debates we provide links to the audio. Senate debates are recorded but they are not archived on the Internet. House Committee debates are recorded but they are not on the Internet and the recordings are usually discarded after the minutes have been prepared.

These debates cover the waterfront: Budgets, Incentives, Property Rights, Criminal Procedure and the Death Penalty. They include extensive debates on each of the pro-life bills that have been passed since 2011. Since there are always threats to sue over every pro-life measure, see this article for the legal end result on each. I also include parts of the debates on the marriage amendment, SB 2 (magistrate recusal) and HB 2 Privacy and Security Act of 2016.

Opponents of legislation will often say there was little or no debate or that there was no separate vote. In the Opportunity Scholarships litigation, opponents told the Superior Court there had been little debate and no separate recorded votes. The full transcripts of those 2013 debates were ninety-eight pages with four separate recorded votes–two in committee and two on the floor–on the precise issue of Opportunity Scholarships.

Grammar: I did not realize until beginning this project how different grammar and syntax are for oral speeches than when the same thought is written. Few members speak from a written text. After a sentence is begun we often change our mind as to where it is headed. Those sentences are difficult to diagram. I have made grammatical corrections so that the transcripts will be clear and so that those who taught us English in “grammar school” will not be ashamed. These “corrections” have not changed the meaning. Check the audio.

Enjoy,

Rep. Paul Stam
North Carolina House of Representatives
Speaker Pro Tem, 2013-2016
House Republican Leader, 2007-2012
Member 1989-90 and 2003-2016

Last week CoStar Group announced that it chose to locate a 730-job expansion in Richmond, VA instead of Charlotte, NC. The Charlotte Observer reported on October 28^th that the incentives package for Virginia totaled $10.6 million, while North Carolina’s was $9.7 million. CoStar CEO Andrew Florance was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that HB 2 was “more controversy than we want to engage in right now.”

Published articles imply that CoStar’s decision was made primarily because of HB 2. For whatever role HB 2 played in the decision against Charlotte, we offer the following comparison between Charlotte, NC and Richmond, VA. The company has chosen a venue where the actual laws relating to discrimination are no more “protective” of LGBT rights than those currently in effect in Charlotte.

Left-wing groups claim that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are also discriminatory for legalizing denial of service. Remember Indiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. We do not agree that this claim has any validity. We note that North Carolina has no Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Virginia does: Virginia Code Ann. § 57-2.02 (2009).

For the reasons stated under Legends #5 and #6 of Legends vs. the Truth about HB2, we do not agree that “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are reasonable categories for special legal rights. But for discussion purposes we offer this comparison of anti-discrimination laws in Charlotte, NC and Richmond, VA.

In 2013 the media claimed that SB 353, “Health and Safety Law Changes,” was passed with trickery in the dark of the night. This article refutes those nonsensical claims.

Greensboro vs. Four New Locations

A Policy Comparison

Introduction

 “The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of the NCAA” was distributed on September 13th, before the NCAA (and ACC) chose alternative locations for championships. In several cases the boycott of North Carolina resulted in the relocation of championships from Greensboro, NC to other venues where the actual laws relating to discrimination are the same, virtually the same, or even less “protective” of LGBT rights than those in effect in Greensboro. This demonstrates why these sports organizations’ boycotts will have to take on much of the nation.

Left-wing groups claim that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are discriminatory for legalizing denial of service. Remember Indiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. We do not agree that this claim has any validity. But for the NCAA and ACC we note that North Carolina has no Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Both South Carolina and Virginia do: South Carolina Code Ann. § 1-32-40 (1999) & Virginia Code Ann. § 57-2.02 (2009).

 The policies of North Carolina are reasonable. Boycotts by the NCAA and the ACC are harmful to athletes (especially women) as was shown in the original “Breathtaking Hypocrisy” article.

The City of Greensboro has now lost several tournaments. As shown in these charts, Greensboro has provisions for non-discrimination in government employment at the state, county and city level that include the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. These policies are expressly not preempted by HB2. House Bill 2, Section 3.1(c) amended G.S. 143-422.2 to preempt local requirements on employers “except such regulations applicable to personnel employed by that body that are not otherwise in conflict with State law.”

In conclusion: The boycott of North Carolina by the NCAA and the ACC is:

1. Unreasonable as shown in Legends vs. the Truth;
2. Destructive of Women’s Competitive Sports, as shown in “Breathtaking Hypocrisy;” and
3. Misdirected even on its own terms as shown in “The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of the NCAA (and ACC) – Part II.”

Planned Parenthood recently posted this video on YouTube ominously claiming that the Governor is stockpiling women’s sonograms in his filing cabinet in Raleigh. The claim is nonsense. See this advisory for the actual facts about the reporting requirements in House Bill 465, “Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015.”

Dear Friends,

On Tuesday, September 27^th I received a very special package in the mail containing my new North Carolina “Choose Life” license plate! It is now proudly displayed on my car. I want to express special thanks to Rep. Mitch Gillespie whose tireless work for so many years made this possible. Planned Parenthood fought it for five years in the courts.

If you would like to get your plate, an application is now available from DMV online. Just search for “Choose Life.” $15 of the fee goes to support Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPC). Last year CPC distributed money to 28 different pregnancy support centers around the state and will continue to do so. The new revenue from license plate sales may be used for counseling and other services that meet the physical needs of pregnant women.

Thank you for your support for pregnant women and unborn children in North Carolina!

Sincerely,

Rep. Paul Stam

Citing a commitment to “fairness and inclusion,” the NCAA announced September 12 that it will move seven championship events out of North Carolina during the 2016-17 school year.  The hypocrisy of the NCAA’s “commitment” is breathtaking.  The organization selectively boycotts North Carolina for policies it claims are unique to our state-but actually are common throughout the nation-and for daring to disagree with a sweeping federal mandate by the Obama Administration-a mandate that is currently being challenged in court by 24 other states.  The NCAA is in violation itself of the civil rights provision of Title IX as interpreted by the Obama Administration.  See this analysis for a good look at the facts…

Teacher compensation packages are a combination of a teacher’s state salary, benefits and local supplements (where applicable).  Check out this detailed analysis of teacher compensation in 39 counties across the state.

Pro Life Legislation & Litigation

in North Carolina

SL 2011-60: Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law: Creates criminal offenses for acts committed against pregnant women without consent that cause the death or injury of an unborn child.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.

SL 2011-145: Appropriations Act of 2011, Sec. 29.23(a)-(c): Limits state abortion funding in the state health plan. No state funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Previously funding was only limited for welfare abortions on a year-to-year basis.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.

SL 2011-392: Authorize Various Special Plates (Choose Life): Division of Motor Vehicles to issue “Choose Life” plates. The money raised will go to Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship. The injunction has been dissolved and license plates are now available online through NC DMV.
CHALLENGED IN COURT BUT UPHELD.

SL 2011-405: Woman’s Right to Know: Requires a 24 hour (now 72 hour) waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed.
CHALLENGED IN COURT. LOST ONE SECTION CONCERNING ULTRASOUND. THE REMAINDER OF THE LAW WAS CHALLENGED BUT UPHELD.

SL 2013-307: Health Curriculum/Preterm Birth: Requires instruction in school health education on preventable causes, including induced abortion, of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT.

SL 2013-360: Appropriations Act of 2013, Sec. 12J.1.(a): Maternal and child health block grants provides $250,000 to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (Sec. 12J.1.(a)). Increased to $300,000 in 2014 and continued through 2016-17.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT

SL 2013-366: Health and Safety Law Changes: Limits abortion coverage to rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother under the federal health benefit exchange or insurance offered by a county or city. Prohibits sex selection abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services is directed to amend rules pertaining to abortion clinics. Prohibits abortions if a doctor is not present. Conscience Protection extended to all health care providers, not just doctors and nurses.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT

SL 2015-62: Women and Children’s Protection Act of 2015: Changes the 24 hour waiting period to 72 hours for informed consent before an abortion. Protects health care providers who object on moral, ethical or religious grounds in situations not covered in 2013. Increases statistical reporting requirements to the Department of Health and Human Services and enhances clinic standards and inspections. Abortionists must be an OB-GYN or equivalent. Tightens standards for post 20 week abortions.
20-WEEK PROVISION HAS BEEN CHALLENEGED IN COURT. CASE WAS FILED NOV. 30, 2016. (BRYANT ET AL. V. WOODALL ET AL.)

SL 2015-265: Disposition of Unborn Childrens’ Remains: Prohibits the sale of the remains of an unborn child resulting from an induced abortion. In the case of a miscarriage, the mother may donate the remains for research.
NOT CHALLENGED IN COURT

In addition to these laws passed since Republicans took a majority of both the House and Senate, the courts upheld two other pro-life laws enacted when Republicans had a majority only in the House in 1995:

• In Rosie J. v. N.C. Department of Human Resources, 347 N.C. 247, 491 S.E.2d 535 (1997), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that there was no state constitutional right to state funded abortions. In 1995, the General Assembly restricted eligibility for the state abortion fund to cases where the pregnancy resulted from “cases of rape or incest, or to terminate pregnancies that, in the written opinion of one doctor licensed to practice medicine in North Carolina, endanger the life of the mother.”
• In Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254 (4^th 1997), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the position of that State and the amicus brief submitted by Stam & Danchi PLLC, for North Carolina Right to Life in support of North Carolina’s Parental Consent law.

CONCLUSION:

• Eleven significant Laws.
• Five court challenges.
• One partial loss in the ultrasound section of one law. The ultrasound provision not allowed in North Carolina is almost identical to the Texas Law upheld by the federal courts and in effect since 2011.
• One case just filed that challenges a single provision of the 2015 legislation.

A PDF version of this article is available HERE.

Check out this article for an update on the General Assembly’s 2015-2016 Property Legislation.

Prayers in the North Carolina House of Representatives – 2015 to 2016

This link takes you to the collected prayers offered in the North Carolina House during the 2015-2016 biennium. The impetus for this project was not spiritual but legal. With the legal reasons for this collection no longer relevant I share them with you as a review of the heartfelt prayers of my colleagues in the North Carolina House.  I hope you enjoy them.

With best regards,

Paul Stam

Rep. Stam recently spoke on Voter ID laws at the Annual American Bar Association Meeting in San Francisco, CA on Saturday, August 6th, 2016.  Below is a glimpse of some of the information he provided during his talk.

US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit

Voter ID Brief by Rep. Stam

POLLS and PHOTO ID

A recent poll (April 19, 2016) out of Elon University confirms that North Carolinians “overwhelmingly support” voter ID legislation- 75% support voter ID provisions and 80% think it is fair. The breakdown reveals that 89% of white voters and 68% of African-American voters support voter photo ID while 96% Republicans, 86% unaffiliated voters and 73% Democrats support voter photo ID. Here is the link for the full article and polling data.

RACIAL POLARIZATION

 Racial polarization means “a consistent relationship between [the] race of the voter and the way in which the voter votes, or to put it differently, where black voters and white voters vote differently.” United States v. Charleston County, 318 F. Supp. 2d 302, 308 (D.S.C. 2002).

A state cannot have racially polarizing laws if by those laws, minority candidates receive more than 50% of the votes.

In 2006, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson was elected to the state Supreme Court over a former judge and white male candidate, Eric Levinson. Each candidate was equally qualified.

In 2012, NC Court of Appeals Judge Wanda Bryant, a female African American, won by 56.5% over a white male candidate, Marty McGee. Each candidate was well qualified.

In 2012, Linda Coleman, a female African-American candidate for Lieutenant Governor received 49.92% of the votes. Although she did not win, it was statistically tied.

In 2014, NC Court of Appeals Judge Cheri Beasley, a female African American, won a seat on the State Supreme Court by 5,410 more votes than a white male candidate, Mike Robinson. Each candidate was well qualified.

All of this data is available here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/123365/Web01/en/summary.html

In 1986, African American Bill Freeman defeated Paul Stam for the State House in a district which was by memory, about 20% African American.

VOTER ID BILLS IN NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE 2013

*Indicates that the bill did not pass chamber

• 2003, House Bill 100, Voter Identification*

Sponsors: Allred; (Primary) Barnhart; Blust; Capps; Gorman; Gulley; Hilton; Justus; Mitchell; Moore; Pate; Sauls; Setzer; Walend; K. Williams;

This bill provides a means of identification for all voters parallel to that required of some voters by the Federal Help America Vote Act; to require voters to sign before voting at the polls and at early voting sites; and otherwise to bring North Carolina into compliance with the Help America Vote Act.

• 2005, House Bill 794, Voter Identification*

Sponsors: Allred; Moore; Current; Hollo; (Primary) LaRoque;

This bill requires that voters provide identification before voting.

• 2007, House Bill 185, Voter Identification*

Sponsors: Moore; Current; (Primary) Almond; Avila; Barnhart; Blackwood; Blust; Boylan; Brown; Cleveland; Folwell; Frye; Gulley; Hilton; Justus; Killian; Langdon; Neumann; Pate; Setzer; Starnes; Steen; Walend; Wiley;

This bill requires that voters provide identification before voting.

• 2009, House Bill 430, Voter Identification*

Sponsors: Moore; Current; Stam; Killian; (Primary) Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blackwood; Blust; Boles; Brown; Brubaker; Burr; Burris-Floyd; Cleveland; Daughtry; Dockham; Dollar; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Grady; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holloway; Howard; Hurley; Johnson; Justice; Justus; Langdon; Lewis; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; Mills; Neumann; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Setzer; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stiller; Tillis; West; Wiley;

This bill requires that voters provide identification before voting.

• 2011, House Bill 351, Restore Confidence in Government

Sponsors: Lewis; T. Moore; Killian; (Primary) Avila; Blust; Burr; Cleveland; Cook; Current; Dockham; Dollar; Folwell; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; LaRoque; McComas; McCormick; McGee; Moffitt; Randleman; Sager; Setzer; Shepard; Stone; Torbett;

This 2011 bill passed each chamber, but was vetoed by Democrat Governor Perdue. It would have required all eligible voters to present a photo ID before voting. The House failed to override the veto.

• 2011, Senate Bill 657, Voting Integrity*

Sponsors: Davis; Daniel; Hise (Primary) Brock

This bill, filled by Republican Senators, would have amended G. S. 163-227.2, providing that one-stop voting occur no earlier than the second Thursday (currently, the third Thursday) before the election. Clarifies that a county board of elections may not conduct one-stop voting on any Sunday. Clarifies that a county board of elections may provide for one or more locations offering one-stop voting in the county, provided all sites other than the county board of elections office are open at the same time for voting. Also prohibits the State Board of Elections from approving a plan that provides for one-stop voting sites to be open at different times. Repeals GS 163-82.6A, which allows in-person registration and voting at one-stop sites, and makes conforming changes to various provisions in GS Chapter 163.

• 2013, Senate Bill 428, Voting Reform Act*

Sponsors: Tilman; (primary) Brock; Daniel; Hise; Randleman

This bill, filed by Republican Senators on March 26, 2013, would have repealed in person registration and voting at one-stop sites and established that no earlier than the second Thursday before an election can a person appear in person to request and file an absentee ballot (the current law was no earlier than the third Thursday).

• 2013, Senate Bill 235 and companion House Bill 253, Voter Protection Integrity/Every Vote Counts*

Sponsors: Republicans and Democrats

Enacts new GS 163-166.13 providing that a legally registered voter may certify his or her identity by one of two methods: (1) by signing a voter photo affidavit or by (2) presenting proper photo identification. Proposed subsection (b) provides that a voter photo affidavit is a photograph taken by a designated election official that is signed by the voter to affirm that the voter is in fact the registered voter in whose name the ballot is requested.

Read more about their incredible lives by clicking below:

Paul Stam Sr.

Jane Levring Stam

Click below to see legislation that Rep. Stam has been involved in this 2015-2016 Biennium.

2015-2016 Legislation

What Could Be Wrong with SB 817 Limiting Income Tax to 5.5%

Representative Paul Stam

July 2016

The NC GOP platform (Article II) states, “The government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions. We support a thorough review of expenditures each year, and we support a tax payer’s bill of rights.” “Tabor” is the usual acronym for a “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” A goal I share with proponents of Senate Bill is a mechanism that will restrain state government from overspending.

But does SB817 proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the rate of state income taxation effectuate these principles? Does it expand taxpayer rights or constrict them? And why is it a constitutional amendment?

Let’s See HERE

What do these 24 states have in common?

Each of them has filed suit against the United States of America because of President Obama’s bizarre interpretation of the word “sex” in Title VII (employment) and Title IX (education funding) relating to “discrimination.” The first was North Carolina Governor McCrory and Secretary Perry v. USA and U.S. Department of Justice and Senator Berger and Representative Moore v. U.S. Department of Justice, 23 other states have joined the battle. In addition, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board of Virginia in on appeal in the Supreme Court, whose issue is the same. We now have 24 states plus North Carolina, to total 25.

Be sure to read this newsletter HERE from North Carolina Family Policy Council.

For more information on this issue see Legends 2, 6, 12, 14, 15 in Legends v. the Truth about HB2.

The “Bill of Particulars” Refuted

Gene Nichol, a “Distinguished Professor” at UNC Chapel Hill, recapitulated his published rants against the Governor and the General Assembly on June 25, 2016, in The News and Observer. He refers to actions of the Governor and the General Assembly as “insanity,” “tragic,” “cruel and indefensible,” “Foundational un-American,” “stealing,” “Totalitarianism,” “threatening,” “coercion,” “degradation.,” and perjury.” He is quite a wordsmith. His charges are so many that to answer them all would take a book. A sample of his charges will demonstrate his reckless disregard for the facts and the law. Read more HERE.

Legends vs. the Truth about HB2

By: Rep. Paul Stam, Speaker Pro Tem

The narrative of the mass media is that HB 2, (Session Law 2016 – 3, “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act”) was a big change, an outrageous overreach which denies rights and is unenforceable. Let’s take these 16 legends one by one and explain the law.

Read it HERE.

Read below to see:

No Loss of Federal Funding

Title 9 Myths & Facts

The Impact of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board

Gaming the System: Lottery Ticket Discounting

Read the entire memo here: Lottery Ticket Discounting for Committee April 14

If you heard that one person had won 85-90% of the major-prize-value lottery tickets purchased at a specific convenience store, a red flag would likely go up. If you were then told that this extremely “lucky” person is the owner of that convenience store, another red flag would go up. Every time someone wins any significant-value prize, that person is beating the odds stacked drastically against them. But when one person is winning such a large majority of the significant prizes, there is cause for concern.

Such scenarios are not imaginative, but have actually occurred frequently across the US. In California, there have been several store owners who have been the holders of around 90% of the winning tickets purchased from their stores.^[1] Investigators are highly suspicious of this, as these store owners would have had to personally spend millions on tickets to get these sorts of results by chance.^[2] An NBC report points to this phenomenon happening nationwide, stating that:

“In Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia retailer cashed eighteen lottery tickets in three months for a total of $45,000. In New Jersey, a retailer cashed 105 lottery tickets for more than $236,000. In New York, another retailer has cashed 120 winning tickets for more than $500,000. In Illinois, we found one store where four employees and five of their relatives cashed a total of 556 winning tickets, for more than $1,600,000.”[3]

If it seems too good to be true, then it likely is. A Dayton, Ohio news source offers an explanation of a practice that could explain why some retailers seem to beat the odds so drastically and win so often:

“In the most obvious form of abuse that the Lottery Commission seeks to curtail, retailers have at times stolen prizes for themselves. In another method, not illegal but against Lottery Commission rules, store employees have at times turned in tickets for the actual winners when the real winners do not want it known that they have won in order to avoid paying child support or other debts. Those individuals can make a small profit by paying a discount for the ticket, allowing the real winner to avoid paying child support, taxes-owed or other debt. The practice is referred to as “discounting” by the lottery commission.”^[4]

Other news sources indicate that ticket discounting is a widespread practice, occurring in various states such as New Jersey[5], Georgia[6], and North Carolina[7]. This practice of ticket discounting is harmful for two obvious reasons. First, it enables players to avoid paying child-support and taxes. Second, ticket-discounting actually rewards retailers with monetary incentive for helping dishonest players avoid paying debts.

The NC Lottery Commission contractually prohibits ticket discounting. The Commission does investigate instances in which it suspects it is occurring. Sometimes lottery investigators catch the perpetrators and sometimes they do not. But this points to a significant problem in our state: the prohibition is simply contractual. Violators would typically be subject to some sort of temporary suspension from selling lottery tickets. If the Commission so chose, it could permanently prohibit the retailer from selling lottery tickets. This type of enforcement is the common practice across various State lotteries.

The State of Indiana, however, is different:

From the Indiana Code: Discounting Tickets

IC 4-30-13-1 Violation; misdemeanor      Sec. 1. A person who knowingly:         (1) sells a lottery ticket and is not authorized by the commission or this article to engage in such a sale;         (2) sells a lottery ticket to a minor; or         (3) sells a lottery ticket at a price other than that established by the commission; commits a Class A misdemeanor. As added by P.L.341-1989(ss), SEC.1.

The State of Indiana has made it a Class A misdemeanor to sell tickets at any rate other than the established one.

There are a couple advantages to Indiana’s system. First, having ticket-discounting specifically classified as a misdemeanor provides further deterrence so retailers will avoid using this practice to make extra money off customers’ winnings. Second, making it a misdemeanor opens up the issue to law-enforcement. The Lottery Commission on its own has been unable to prevent ticket discounting and properly enforce its contractual agreements. Law enforcement agencies have much more resources and investigative personnel. Ticket discounting is a significant problem that compromises the integrity of the NC Lottery and intra-state commerce. This would be a clear and effective first step in addressing the problem. A second possibility is to make the perpetrating ticket retailer secondarily liable for the child support and taxes owed by the original ticket buyer.

[1] See http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/cbs-2-investigates-lottery-retailers-cashing-in-at-surprising-rates/

[2] One owner would’ve had to spend about $2 million on tickets in order to get his reported $304,000 in prizes; and another owner would’ve had to spend about $600,000 in order to bring in their $59,000 in prizes.

[3] See http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30550956/ns/dateline_nbc-the_hansen_files_with_chris_hansen/t/how-lucky-can-you-get/#.VwUePpwrLIV

[4] See http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/frequent-lottery-wins-defy-odds-prompt-suspicion/nhLnW/

[5] See https://www.lotterypost.com/news/232537

[6] See http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/lottery-overlooked-highly-improbable-win-patterns/nhPr8/

[7] See attached report

I WANT TO HELP PAYPAL

Find a Suitable Place of Service

On March 16, PayPal announced that it would gladly receive $3.6 million from the state of North Carolina to locate a new facility near Charlotte. Then on April 5^th, PayPal President & CEO, Dan Schulman, announced that it would not move to North Carolina because of the passage of SL 2016-3. Certainly, this was not because of the bathroom/locker-room situation since the bill did not even apply to private business facilities. PayPal was incensed at the so-called failure of the legislation to include extra special protections for sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity. Read my response HERE.

Liberal groups have been claiming that North Carolina schools and universities will lose around $4.5 billion in Title IX funding due to SL 2016-3, Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. This claim is false.

Title IX ensures that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”20 U.S.C. §1681(a).

Under current law, neither states nor school districts will lose Title IX funding for enacting laws and policies that require students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their biological sex. Find out why HERE.

Liberal groups have been circulating the claim that SL 2016-3, Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, discriminates against Veterans. CLICK HERE to see a list of benefits, protections, or preferences that the State and federal government offers for active military and veterans.

Deceptive Advertising in the North Carolina Education Lottery

By: Representative Paul Stam

Speaker Pro Tem

March 10, 2016

Table of Contents:

“No Advertising may be Misleading, Deceptive…”

“Fools will play the lottery and now if we can attract more fools to play the lottery and they choose that, I’m not sticking a gun to their head.”NCGS § 18C-114 Powers and duties of the Commission

8 Little Rules the House had to Break to Pass a Lottery

Deception in the NC Education Lottery

8 pages previously presented to members of the Lottery Oversight Committee on February 11, 2016, featuring Powerball and its advertisements

Memo by the Fiscal Research Division addressing the Powerball jackpot of January 2016.

Memorandum from Rep. Stam on October 24, 2014, “New Lottery Ad is Extremely Misleading: “All or Nothing.”

Exhibits of the “All or Nothing” logo and advertisement

“What is N.C. after? Bucks, bucks, bucks!” Charlotte Observer, May 27, 2011

Advertisement revealing the top prize of $200,000 with the odds of winning at 1 in 3.9.

Letter to Senators Brown, Harrington, Hunt and B. Jackson on July 14, 2014 concerning SB 744/Lottery Advertising Component

Specifically responding to statements from the transcript of the Senate hearing on June 12, 2014.

Transcript of the Senate Appropriations Committee Meeting on the Lottery on June 12, 2014

Lottery Studies

Selling Hope State Lotteries in America, by Charles Clotfelter & Philip Cook

Do Lotteries Hurt the Poor? Well, Yes and No By: Charles Clotfelter

Transcription of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Meeting, March 19, 1999.

Duke Professors’ contact information

Honest Lottery Act

House Bill 156 (Second Edition) and Fiscal Note

Internal Memoranda

Memorandum from Dylan Finch (Legislative Intern) to Representative Paul Stam on December 3, 2013 concerning “An examination of Lottery Funding and Sales for Six Counties in North Carolina.”

Memorandum from Brian Miller (Legislative Intern) to Representative Paul Stam on February 24, 2016 “Lottery Corruption” concerning Eddie Tipton.

Memorandum from Brian Miller (Legislative Intern) to Representative Paul Stam on February 24, 2016 concerning “NC Lottery: A Case of Subtle but Sure Injustice”- picking a winner before paying for the ticket.

Attached Report: Investigation by NCEL

Click HERE to see a condensed version of the handout.

Thursday, February 11, 2016, the Staff of the Lottery Commission made a pitch to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on the North Carolina State Lottery to increase lottery advertisement in an effort to increase profits payable to the State. Please see HERE and HERE for some of the negative consequences of this action.

For further information, please contact Rep. Paul Stam at 919.362.8873.

Lottery Officials Talk State Proceeds via Time Warner Cable RALEIGH — Lottery numbers in North Carolina continue to be on the rise. Last year contributing over $520 million into education in the state. But when compared to neighboring states, North Carolina makes substantially less in profits per capita.

“I am determined from North Carolina, to hit these numbers,” says Alice Garland, executive director of the NC Education Lottery. “I mean Virginia is 26 years old, they are older than Georgia. I am determined we are going to hit these numbers way before Georgia and Virginia did.”

Lawmakers questioned the reason for the lower proceeds.

“When I go down to Virginia, I notice that they are substantially higher in their advertising and produce a pretty significant difference in their operating profits,” says Sen. Rick Gunn, a Alamance County Republican.

Lottery officials say advertising does have a lot to do with sales.

“A lot of that goes to marketing, our budget’s restrictive and what we can say in our ads is restrictive,” says Garland.

“They would get more people to gamble,” says Rep. Paul Stam, the House Speaker Pro-tem. “But why do you want to hoo-doo your own citizens?”

But some lottery opponents say they believe lottery advertising is deceptive, and that is what should be changed not how much money is given toward.

“You could have a lottery that’s honest and bring in about 400 million a year,” says Stam.  “Or you could have a lottery that is dishonest and bring in about 500 million.  So why not just bring in the 400 million.”

Meanwhile, lottery proceeds are likely to be on the rise again this year. That is following the record jackpot for Powerball earlier this year, which already exceeded proceed expectations from that game, as well as how much is contributed to the education fund.

Remarks to the Civil Justice Reform Study Group on April 20, 2010 By Rep. Paul Stam, North Carolina House Republican Leader

I hate joint liability. By joint liability I mean making a person possibly pay all the damages when that person was only partially at fault. Excluded from this discussion of joint liability is a case where two people are consciously acting together.

Issues of joint liability or vicarious liability have been around for a long time. Let’s start at about 5,000 years ago with the Code of Hammurabi from Mesopotamia.

“If a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death (Sec. 229)”

“If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death (Sec. 230)”

“If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house (Sect. 231)”

Hammurabi was engaged in tort reform, but failed to remember justice.

Some think that the Mosaic law “evolved” from the Code of Hammurabi. I think that is nonsense. While some of the subjects of the Mosaic law are understandably the same, in many instances the Mosaic law is an emphatic rejection of the Code of Hammurabi. For example Deuteronomy 24:16 repudiates the sections quoted above: “Fathers shall not be put to death for the sons nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers. Everyone shall be put to death for his own sins.”

At Nuremberg Count Three of the Indictment charging War Crimes included this specification:

“(F) The Exaction of Collective Penalties – The Germans pursued a systematic policy of inflicting, in all the occupied countries, collective penalties, pecuniary and otherwise, upon the population for acts of individuals for which it could not be regarded as collectively responsible; this was done at many places, including Oslo, Stavanger, Trondheim, and Rogaland.”

Similar instances occurred in France, among others in Dijon, Nantes, and as regards the Jewish population in the occupied territories. The total amount of fines imposed on French communities add up to 1,157,179,484 francs made up as follows:

A fine on the Jewish population 1,000,000,000

Various fines 157,179,484

“These acts violated Article 50, Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed and Article 6(b) of the Charter.”

Through the ages bad people have wanted to be reimbursed in full even when they cannot find the real culprit.

Justinian had codified (through Trebonius and Corpus Juris Civilis – 529 AD) the Mosaic law on this subject in Institutionum Sive Elementorum. The very first title of the first book states:

“Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens. Iurisprudentia est diuinarum atque humanarum rerum notitia, justi atque iniusti scientia.”

“Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render everyone his due. Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human; the science of the just and the unjust.”

In latin “scientia,” from which we presumably obtain the word “science” was then used as a term to distinguish justice from injustice.

“The maxims of law are these: to live honesty, to hurt no one, to give everyone his

due.”

Since about 529 A.D. in this Corpus Juris Civilis, (with Tribonium as the editor and Ulpian as the source), Emperor Justinian thus codified the learning of the Roman World.

This phrase from Corpus Juris Civilis is the first principal of justice – that the goal is that each individual be treated as an individual and not as part of a group.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his Ethics noted:

“The most general formulation of rights given with the natural is, in the words of Roman law, suum cuique, to each his own.”

But in a footnote Bonhoeffer noted the irony that in the Third Reich this phrase, “to each his own” is translated in German “Jedem das Seine” and was part of the wrought-iron inscription on the gate of the Buchenwald concentration camp.

Those who wish to distort justice need to deal with the innate knowledge of all people that treating individuals as a group is wrong.

This was not just known in the Eastern Roman Empire. The Spanish epic work of Las Siete Partidas, (The Seven Parts) Part 3, Title One, Law III:

“What Justice Means, and How Many Precepts She Has.

According to the precepts of the ancient sages justice means something in which are included all rights of every description whatsoever. The commands of justice and law are three in number; first, that every man should live honestly, so far as he himself is concerned; second, that he should not do wrong or injury to another; third, that he should give to each one that to which he is entitled. He who complies with these precepts performs his duty to God, to himself and to the men with whom he lives, and renders and maintains justice.”

This principle passed from Roman law through the Middle Ages and has been adopted as the motto of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The question arises whether the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted “cuique suum tribuere” from Justinian, or directly from Revelation 22:12:

“Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to what he has done.”

In a lecture by Russell Kirk (1993 Heritage Foundation Lecture #457) the preeminent philosopher of conservatism elaborates. “This is a species of “distributive justice” as in the Book of Romans:

“Render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor, owe no man anything but to love one another.”

Russell Kirk tells us that this Christian concept of justice (which came through Moses) comes to us through Plato, Aristotle, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine of Hippo and notes that Aristotle gave a specific slant on it:

We know it is unjust to treat equal things unequally. But it is also unjust to treat unequal things equally.

Application: North Carolina has doctrines in tort of joint and several liability – that is all those who help cause the harm are jointly liable for it all. So if the main culprit, the one who is 90% at fault, can’t pay, (he is insolvent or has flown the coop), the one who is 10% at fault gets to pay all the damages. This is unjust and wrong. Reminds me of Babylon or of Oslo.

Note: This is not a verbatim recount but by memory, and as revised for clarity.

HB 4 (Extra Session 2007)

PAUL STAM’S SPEECH – GOOD YEAR INCENTIVES

September 11, 2007 – edited for clarity

I opposed the $40 million bill (HB 1761 and vetoed by the Governor) and I certainly oppose this $60 million bill and I would like to give a few of my reasons.

First of all there are no additional safeguards in the bill to speak of. All of the safeguards talked about can be imposed by the Governor’s Economic Investment Committee as part of the contract.

Secondly, the underlying argument here for most of the proponents is that people will suffer if we don’t pass the bill. Of course they can’t know that because that is an unknowable, and a predicate to that assumption is that this bill is actually enough to change the behavior of these firms and corporations. Within a reasonable degree of certainty (maybe 99%) we know that is not true for a couple of reasons:

First reason, Firestone. We were told in committee that a couple of years ago Firestone was turned down for this type of grant and they made the investment anyway. The bill is retroactive to pick up the investments they have already made of $60 million. How a grant to Firestone can possibly induce an investment that is already in the ground just boggles the imagination. I don’t fault the people from Wilson who got Firestone in the bill because Firestone was being treated unfairly, as are all other businesses in this state that are being treated unfairly by the resulting bill. Read full speech.

Lawyers Group Proposes Innovative Incentive Program

March 2, 2007

The Lawyers Improvement Association of Beltline Legal Experts proposed a new economic development tool for the state.  It is guaranteed to boost the economy by creating and retaining high paying jobs.

First, a little background:  Historically North Carolina had the fewest attorneys per capita of any state in the nation.  But a strong and vibrant legal community is absolutely necessary to the 21^st century litigation economy.  In December, 2003 the General Assembly spent $214 million (or $214,000 per job) to induce Merck to bring 200 jobs to the distressed areas of Treyburn in Durham and for RJR to bring 800 jobs to distressed areas of Winston-Salem (after RJR had just laid off 2,500 workers).  That deal was criticized by some Neanderthal Troglodytes who were unenlightened as to modern American business practices.  Now we realize that this incentive package for RJR/Merck in December should have been twice as rich when we found out that RJR reduced its tobacco buy by 50% for 2004.  And just last month Google responded to our states offer of $260 million to place 210 wonderful jobs in Caldwell County (only $1,200,000 per job – a steal at half the price).  Apparently, the more we spend on each job the better the economy will be. Read the full proposal.

For a look at the 1989-1990 Biennium in the North Carolina General Assembly, see this report from my first term in office.