Great. Good morning. And welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, February 26. And we're going to start with a quick walkthrough of H 195 use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement in cases involving sexual exploitation of children and attorney Michelle Charles is going to do a very quick walk through of the changes that we will be voting on. However, I will wait for the committee discussion and vote until later, most likely this afternoon, given I want to be able to get to H 183, and, and have attorney Charles walk us through that before, before she needs to go. So, good morning. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks. So, can everybody see my screen, the draft up there. Okay, so it is 3.1. And the two substantive changes here are it adds the word identified online 19. So that was something that witnesses Scott last hearing saying that they're more comfortable if when it refers to the suspect that you're talking about an identified suspect. And then the other change is that this only applies to cases involving investigations of sexual exploitation of children. So those other crimes, and you around with the concept of encompassing other crimes as long as the those other times were put through an initial investigation to sexual child sexual exploitation and so that's been removed. But the other elements of the proposal are the same as before so it's creating a carve out to the moratorium that was passed last year. Specifically, use of this technology in cases where there's an investigation into sexual education of children. The search has to be solely confined to locating images including videos of that individual within electronic media, legally seized by law enforcement in relationship to specific investigation. And you'll see also that I had changed the title there so after passage it will change to show that it's more limited than was introduced. Thank you. Thank you so much Michelle. Any questions for Michelle about the language. It's hard for me to see hands. Imagine that mindset. Yeah, Michelle. Again, it's one of those questions I know the answer to. So, with the new language. Of course, facial recognition can be used only with exploitation of children, but can a crime, another crime that is discovered while doing this can still be investigated.  Yes. Want to explore. Yeah, but I would I would say I would talk to the, to the folks who are the prosecutors who are working with us to see how they would handle that with regard to evidence discovered through the use of the technology. Okay, and say if that is permissible. So investigating that crime going forward facial recognition cannot be used. Yes, correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to switch over to the other draft if that's okay with y'all because I have just do you have 1130 but I can try to communicate with the chair and I'm in another committee this afternoon but I can maybe pop back and forth. If that works. So, look at the amendment to age 183. And, and a lot of these changes were made based on listening to the, to the discussion and the, the testimony last time and then also some discussion amongst prosecutors about potential refinement of some of the language. This is an individual instance of amendment, depending on where you want to go next time I could do a strike off it's easier for you but so we just start off with the first instance of amendment and it is amending the first three sections of the bill. The first one is in section one the definition section so you see the definition of consent. So the previous version said it added the word knowing, and it added the word and so it would be a knowing and voluntary agreement. So that has been changed to an or at the request of the state's attorneys and they general's and so, because I'm limited time are issues that they're going to discuss if we can just, they can, they're going to testify and so they can talk to you about why they would prefer this. That's okay. 183 is not. Yeah, yeah, it's not up what is that 195. Because I see 183 on my. Okay. Stop chair and then share again. Okay. I shall try that. It was a nice discussion. Well thanks for stopping me. I think I have it. Do you see it now. Yes, yes. Great. I think that's the thing is I think you have to stop she can't just switch document, you have to get out and share and start again. Thank you. Sorry about that. So we're looking at page one of the amendment draft 1.2. And so you'll see there on line 13 changing that to an or then on lines 15 through 18 I've added the definition of incapable of consenting and so when we go down to the other section I'll show you where that's used as an element of the crime. This definition is from type 10 the military, the federal military code that we discussed at the last meeting about a lot of this language is taken from there so incapable of consenting means that the person is using the nature of the conduct at issue, or physically incapable of declining participation in or communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual act at issue. So again that's taken directly from federal law. And then page two, the amendment here up section be. And so the subdivision be one of us is the issue that is in current law, which is in a situation where someone administers and a top and intoxicant to someone without their knowledge or consent and then engages in the sexual act, that's not changed subdivision subdivision to address as a circumstance where it's prohibiting a person from engaging in a sexual act with another person when the other person and here's the term and that was in the previous version in consenting so we go back up to that definition to the sexual act due to and we added the word substantial to the two impairment by alcohol drugs or other intoxicants. And that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person. So here we're adding the word substantial. There were concerns at the last hearing about what I by not have word substantial did could, could it be argued that if you engage in sex with someone who's, you know, had had a bit to drink but isn't necessarily incapable of consenting is it is it difficult to ascertain in those circumstances and so I think there were comfortable with adding the word substantial, and you'll see that up in the current law on be in the B words about impairment is that they do use the under current law substantial to define intonation, but that's been removed in the situation where you have somebody administering drugs to someone without their consent. The substantial is taken out there but then it's added in to subdivision be to something that's not here is there was in the bill is introduced a privilege here around engaging in a sexual act with someone who has a psychological or disability that has been taken out. And I think all the prosecutors will talk to you about why they would prefer that but is there after entitled 13, the provision of, of, of penalties for sexual crimes, vulnerable adults, and thought it might be a little too confusing to have those two there so they recommended that eliminating it here under subsection. So that is out for now. Section three, the change here is where section three is dealing with with what constitutes and doesn't constitute consent. So subdivision for the language that was addressed issues of that previous dating or sexual relationship or the way that the victim was done in a way affects the issue of consent. We have a provision we have a rape shield law and existing. And so I did include the previous language and subdivision for just kind of as belts and suspenders. But again, prosecutors felt as though they would prefer there just to be a reference back to the rape shield law so that's what we did here. So consent shown by evidence prohibited under section 35. And it for the criminal offenses. The last change is in section five and this is in the intercollegiate study, the intercollegiate sexual violence Council.  And then the other recommendation was that a prosecutor sit on the council and it could either be from the Department of State's attorney or the office of the attorney general but I wasn't sure who would necessarily be the appointing authority because as you know normally will say, you know a state's attorney appointed by the D or someone from the attorney general's office appointed by the attorney general so you'll have to think about who you would want to appoint since it's two different departments. And those are the only changes for now. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. So committee members. And I also see we have lead sponsor representative Sarah Copeland Hans is here so Sarah. Looking to you also as a honorary committee member today for purposes of questions. And it's hard for me to see because of a screen sharing so if I don't see your. Jumping to stop sharing. Okay, all right. Great. So, Tom your hand is up but I think that's probably from before. Bob. Yes, one quick question as I'm learning word or words seem to be very important as we go through our review of these things online 21 Michelle. Is there not the cloud issue under substantial. Is there a definition for that or is that just common sense substantial or what are we referring to. There is not a definition you would use a cop plane plain language meaning for substantial. And obviously there is some subjectivity built into that. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Michelle. I just had a further question on the building off of representative Norse's question on the addition of substantial is that something that has is that language that's been interpreted by courts that you're aware of in the in relationship to this particular provision. I want to look because it is used in the existing law with regard to drugging someone and then having sex with them I could look and see whether or not that was addressed but I think, you know, some of the practitioners might have some insight into that. Thank you. Martin. Yeah, that issue of substantial it. It seems like it's defined within that provision itself it's substantial if that leads to the person being incapable of consent right don't you have a whole provision there in its entirety. Right, right. So you're saying you wouldn't buy by requiring that the person be incapable of consenting that that implies substantial. Right, right. Certainly see your point I was trying to incorporate the recommendations of the state's attorneys and the Attorney General's office and so in terms of why they think it would be better to be in there I would direct that question to them. Thank you. Any other hands. That's seeing it. Okay, Michelle before I let you go Sarah make sure you don't have any questions or anything for Michelle before we let her go. Thank you so much for sharing the draft and thank you all to the committee for your great work on this bill. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, great. Well thanks Michelle. Let's turn to states attorney Rory Tico. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you for having me. It's a beautiful day here in barrier. I wish everyone could be outside and seven committee work but here we are. But it's an important topic and I appreciate Michelle flexibility and responding incredibly rapidly to some changes unfortunately. I know I had some issues with the board and I couldn't get together until later in the week to do a deep dive into what were some. None of the concerns but just ways that that we felt that would improve the overall bill. So I'll start right away and acknowledging that I think was represented not who raised the question about what's the distinction between two people who are drunk and having intercourse is that you know going to be illegal that be captured in the statute. the answer to that is no. And I think that's part of the reason why there's a rationale to include the term substantial. I agree with Representative Lalonde that it is to be read in the entirety of the statutory text and what that means. But I think the main effort is to ensure that courts and prosecutors who are applying this law to a particular charge are cognizant that it isn't elevated in a very high level of intoxication or impact from a drug or something else that really does impair or inhibit the ability to make a free conscious or voluntary choice. So that's reflective of the necessarily high standard that needs to be there. With that said, the incorporation of the additional definition section about including the term incapable of consenting also tends to clarify that as to what is implied or meant by that degree of impairment or incapacity in that circumstance. So I think that hopefully answers the question and one of our concerns of course is this. While we want to have a good solid statute that captures the right amount of criminal conduct, we also want to make sure that there is clarity and that we're not overreaching or creating an issue where the statute's overly broad and capturing people who should not be subject to criminal liability. I think that's paramount to confidence in the system that we strike the right balance in those definitions. So the next, let's go through the next change on page two in lines nine to ten. Initially consent had been the conjunctive knowing and voluntary. We recommended an or there instead based upon the statute now including distinct theories based upon someone being asleep or unconscious and not being able to consent. We felt that knowing and voluntary in that context could be a little bit confusing where volunteering is probably impossible when someone's asleep or unconscious. So it'd be somewhat surplus in that context and then of course someone can't know if there's proof that they're asleep or unconscious. So we felt that it was better to be able to have the charging document make an election between demonstrating a lack of knowing consent or lack of voluntary consent. Although those are two very closely related principles and David Chair might be able to speak to that as well as that was one of the issues that he flagged and we worked through. Next, sort of a big one. Recommendation two on the doctrine stops. This is a page two lines 12 to 14 and then page three lines 18 to 19 dealing with individuals who are suffering from a psychiatric or developmental disability. First, all three of us when we spoke recognize that this is an incredibly important protected class of people who are unduly exploited when it comes to sexual conduct and are particularly high risk group. However, the legislature several years ago when revising the vulnerable adult statutes, I think did a really good job of squaring up section 1379 when it discusses sexual exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Our concern was by the slight variation and difference in definitions that there'd really be two ways to charge the same conduct. The existing statute already accounts for both sexual acts which include an active penetration as well as sexual contact or conduct that is not penetrative. So groping, touching, things of that nature. So since that statute is already we think in good shape and captures what's necessary didn't necessarily make sense to embed that here. The military and federal laws from which this was derived don't have an analogous vulnerable adult statute in that way. So we felt that. I don't need to interrupt. I don't know where you are exactly. You said where you were and I can't seem to find where you are on that document. I apologize. Yeah, thank you. Are you working off of your recommended revisions, the summary as opposed to the actual amendment? Maybe. Yes, I was. I'm sorry. It was the original document that has the page lined up. I'll tell you right now where it is. Yeah, thank you, Martin. It would have been in the bill as introduced. It would have been under subsection B subdivision 2B. Is it not in this amendment? No, it was eliminated. That's why I can't find it in the amendment. That is true. When I submitted it, it was late last night when I submitted it and I had it highlighted and struck and then I sent it to editing and they took all that out, rightly so, because I didn't tell them not to. So for everyone's purposes, what used to be the subpart B said, quote, psychiatric or developmental disability and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person. And then the other impacted portion was Yeah, I mean, I see it now as introduced. That's page two, line 12 to 14, right? Correct. It was just the definitions which then cross-reference to the same definitions used under title 13, section 1375 with the treatment of vulnerable adults. Before I proceed on that, any other questions on that? The next recommendation, recommendation number four is in the new document. I apologize again, Rory. I'm a little slow in the uptake today. Just to summarize or confirm, you're fine with taking that out and you just gave us the rationale for why you're fine with taking that out, right? Correct. Okay, that's fine. You don't have to repeat yourself. I can go back and look at the YouTube if I need to hear it again. Thanks. No problem. Thank you. All right. So then turning to the fourth recommendation, which is under section three dealing with trial procedure consent, that's on page three, lines 20 to 21. Formally, it included a more robust definition that was described as such a current or previous dating, social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner addressed to the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue does not constitute consent. In speaking with both David and Domenica, that is well established in existing case law under the Rape Shield statute. And our concern was the legislature in the future may desire to add or modify Rape Shield in terms of what evidence is or is not allowed. This is maybe more of a construction and just keeping everything in one place argument for lack of a better way to put it. It would make sense to spell out things within the Rape Shield statute rather than having it laid out both in the consent definition itself for in trial procedure and then in the Rape Shield statute. So we felt comfortable that just direct cross reference to remind that evidence that is prohibited under the Rape Shield cannot be used for purposes of demonstrating consent. And so nothing too radical there is just a function that it would make sense if the legislature intends to modify or clarify Rape Shield evidence that should probably be done under section 3255, the Rape Shield statute itself. And the final recommendation we made was with respect to the advisory committee concerning Title IX and campus sexual assault issues. And in that sense, we did feel that both for the technical expertise that a sexual assault nurse examiner would be helpful to contribute to that. My personal experience with the multidisciplinary team of our special investigative unit in Washington County is that the same nurse contributes a really great voice about what is being seen on the front line of an emergent sex assault crisis and evidence collection issues. And then we also felt that a prosecutor either drawn from the Department of State's attorneys to chair us or representative from the Attorney General's office would be appropriate. And I say that just to characterize there are some things that are concerning, particularly about college sex assault. So we have from an investigative standpoint, really two standards, if you will, public universities and state colleges. Incidents that occur on campus are investigated exclusively by the Vermont State Police. That's not the same for private institutions where it's typically the local department or whoever has jurisdiction. So in some cases that may be Vermont State Police and others, it's going to be a municipal department. That said, from my standpoint in Washington County, there's sometimes a little bit of difference in communication flow and the formality of reporting. And we have concerns that sometimes I'll just be direct. There have been several occasions where victims who have made delayed reports to law enforcement made a near or contemporaneous report to Title IX and were under the mistaken belief that law enforcement would be informed, would be involved and was part of that process. Ultimately, cases such as sex assault become increasingly difficult to prove at trial as physical evidence is lost or as individuals outside the criminal justice system begin questioning, speaking with or contacting witnesses or even directly the alleged offender. So from that standpoint, we view that there's a role to be had of a prosecutor's voice in that going forward to identify some of the ways in which cooperation can be approved and ultimately a better, better investigative services and better services to victims offered up front and early. Thank you. Any questions? Not seeing any. Michelle, do you want to add anything before you go? Can you? I just emailed everybody the link to the sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult statute. So you could see what is in current law. And then I sent you the language that was removed at the recommendation of prosecutors because of that existing statute. So you can kind of see that language. And then I think the rape shield one is pretty explanatory. I think they feel as though that's already covered and you don't need to necessarily restate it and you just reference back. I think Rory did a good job of explaining the or instead of the and, specifically as it applies to folks who may be asleep or unconscious. And I don't know were there a question or just confusion about any of the other provisions or a question. You have your hand up, right? Yes. Yes, I do this time. And I don't know if it's for Michelle if she has to go. I'm sure Rory could answer it. But so in a situation where somebody's drug and say they're they don't rise to the level of a substantial impairment that they there would still be a charge available under drugging somebody. Yes, and that's actually an important distinction is the language in subpart B one remains just simple impairment versus substantial impairment. And that's premised on one that's existing law and two it's premised on the notion that you know intentionally trying to drug someone in order to advance a sexual act is somewhat different. That's a specific design to achieve that versus the second theory which is taking advantage of someone who on their own accord has potentially become intoxicated or in that vulnerable state. Right. Great. Thank you. Okay. Great. Not seeing any other hands. Thank you so much Rory. I'll check back in. Okay. Great. Appreciate your work on this. Thank you. David Chair, Attorney General's Office please. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee for the record David Chair with the Attorney General's Office. I don't have a lot to add to what States Attorney Tebow just testified about. I think you did a very nice job summarizing the changes in the intention behind them. I'll add really only one small point around the or versus the and on page one around the definition of consent. One of the concerns coming from our criminal division there was that when you add a term to a definition it may require a prosecutor to plead and prove another set of facts or another fact. And this would specifically be relevant when a prosecutor is trying to show in a sexual assault case say one that's just charged under A1 meaning just simply a sexual assault without the consent of another person to take the to take an example. Prosecutor may now have to prove under the prior proposal that that there was you know there was some that they had indicated that there was both not only was there not in voluntariness there was also not knowingness. And so there is a concern that all of a sudden instead of having to show one of these levels of intention or states of mind the prosecutor would have to plead and prove that there was the absence of both of these states of mind. And it was not entirely clear what that would mean. It's not entirely clear that that would happen. I acknowledge but it was a concern that our criminal division had in terms of unintentionally making a prosecution more difficult than it is currently. So that was just a technical aspect and we certainly agree with changing the and to and or because of that concern. And that was the only addition I had again I think since Tony Tebow did a nice job summarizing the changes and the reasons for them and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions? No? Okay. Not seeing any at this point. All right. Great. Thank you David. Thank you so much. Sarah Robinson from the network please. Good morning. Sarah Robinson deputy director at the Vermont network. Thank you again for taking up this very important bill. I just want to say that largely we are supportive of the recommendations that were brought forth by the state's attorneys association and the attorney general's office this morning. Certainly very supportive of the language to in section one lines nine to ten to move to knowing or voluntary agree that we don't want to raise the current burden that the prosecutors face regarding the suggestion to remove the language related to psychiatric or developmental disabilities because the vulnerable adult statute fulfills the intended purpose of that section. We don't have any significant concerns based on what we've heard in witness testimony this morning but I would also say that I would defer to the disability and mental health rights community to possibly weigh in on that suggestion and whether the vulnerable adult statute is currently sufficient and that the language ought to be in fact removed. And on the proposed modification to section three to reference Vermont's existing rape shield law we support this change and recognize that the rape shield statute is the product of many years of careful crafting and so we certainly agree that it makes sense to reference that there. And finally supportive of the recommended additions to section five regarding the composition of the higher education sexual violence prevention council and we're what those are welcome additions and happy to have those those folks participate in that process. The last item I just wanted to note for the committee I just want to respond briefly to some of the testimony that was received the last time the committee discussed this bill regarding section four on data requirements. Just wanted to highlight why this section is of particular importance to the network. What is abundantly clear in hearing from sexual violence victims is that despite some good outcomes the criminal legal system often does not meet the needs or contribute to a sense of justice nevermind healing or resolution for many victims and this data will really help us understand how cases are moving through that system not simply to point to future reforms which are important but also to potentially help us consider where alternatives to the traditional criminal legal response most might be most useful to victims of crime and I know that there was some witness testimony that you all heard about whether there needed to be additional clarity in section four about the data requirements. I just wanted to note that I'd be happy to discuss these concerns with the other witnesses and determine whether there ought to be any language recommendations that we could potentially make to the committee together. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Tom. Is section four listed as section five in this bill? Sorry I was looking at the as because I'm going as I was scrolling through I went by section three and then and then on page five it came this says in section five. It is let me I'm just pulling up that draft is introduced where. Yeah yeah I'm looking at draft 1.2. Yeah I know 1.2 are instances of amendment and so it's a little tricky going back and forth so I I wonder if next time we should do a strike all and with highlighting or something because then have it all in one yeah yeah I appreciate that yeah section four in the bill as introduced right all right thanks okay thank you I I think this was a people were working as quickly as as they could and Michelle wanted to get us get us something and get something to the editors and so I do appreciate what we have here but I think next time around it would be helpful to do a strike all. Any other questions for Sarah? Okay great thank you so much Sarah. Appreciate it. Rebecca Turner from the Defender General's Office. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me back on this bill. I previously testified about the for the record Rebecca Turner from the Office of the Defender General's Office. So I previously testified about the Office of the Defender General's objections to an earlier draft of this bill. The current draft that I've looked through today doesn't address the concerns that I raised at the earlier testimony and therefore we continue to object and I just want to highlight for this committee this morning again the two primary areas where our concerns lie with this bill. First and again we I raised this earlier the concern here with this bill is that removes the mens rea requirement from a life imprisonment offense and I just want to pause there because I just want this committee to realize that in the in this bill it has removed the mens rea from a life imprisonment offense. I'll go into that more in a second. The second area of concern is the definition of consent and how this bill effectively establishes a standard for proving consent by requiring an affirmative yes burden and I'll go into that a little bit more. So first removal of the mens rea requirement I am looking specifically at every section of this draft which uses the word should have known reasonably should have known and I can go through that now so that you can highlight it with this current latest draft five pages and starting with page two line 10 we see our first reasonably should have known and in line 10 section four it's established no person shall engage in a sex sexual act with another person when the person knows there's your mens rea followed by the disjunctive or or reasonably should have known that the other person on and on and on so by establishing the disjunctive or reasonably should have known you have left it to the optional discretion of law enforcement to charge a life imprisonment offense based on not whether an accused actually knows there was no consent but whether a reasonable person should have known and so I just want to highlight there because it's not just page two line 10 it's also occurring page four and this is subsection six and this is where it outlines through a through he all of the situations when a person shall be deemed to have acted without the consent of the other person new or there's your mens rea but or writes it out effectively or the least amount of conduct required the least amount of proof that the law enforcement has to show a reasonable person should have known so again it doesn't matter whether an accused knows now why this is a concern not just that it effectively makes it removes a burden on the prosecution it's a fundamental principle and criminal law that we punish based on the criminal culpability of the person who stands charged particularly when the penalty here is is an extreme one life imprisonment we do not have effectively strict liability offenses with life imprisonment and that's what's happened here and in this situation I think that if the legislature would have passed this legislation it would be an excessive exercise of this legislature's policing powers to create offenses it would be an access to the violation of due process the second basis and turning to the definition of consent concerns and how and what that translates to I'm looking at page three and let me get there because I've just flipped through my page three lines 1415 we can start there this is about defining consent and the definition of what we understand consent is now presented in the negative and there are lots and lots of lines describing in the negative what consent cannot be and 1415 establishes lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent so it's just pausing there under this bill a sex partner's silence is not enough for consent a person merely reading the moment and believing knowing believing your partner is actually consenting to having sex is not enough for consent instead how I read this bill and and I don't see how you can read it any other way the it would establish an affirmative continuous yes requirement all the way through the sexual act and then if the complainant were to later claim that there was actually no consent the charge would be filed and at trial the defendant the person accused would have to prove that there was actually consent now what I've just described as is set up for in this bill is an effective burden shifting and criminal trial where they're accused who's otherwise presumed innocent where the state otherwise has the burden approving beyond a reasonable doubt of lack of consent that this sets up a flip of those fundamental presumptions and again that's a violation of due process third staying with this understanding and this requirement of consent is requiring affirmative yes in real life I'm not sure how we can ever be completely sure under this bill whether the consent was sufficiently affirmatively yes yes now is still yes now is still yes now and this is why in our criminal law it's been required to have some affirmative evidence of a lack of consent no means no clear when the spill which flips those evidence to be proving yes means yes now we've turned every encounter and to sort of this forced situation where a person has to be detached thinking with a lawyerly lens right whether or not this moment is is is clearly unequivocally a yes and then continuing on so and so I think that where the stakes are life imprisonment where we cannot understand what an affirmative yes means under this what is this efficiently affirmative yes under these consist in these circumstances it's insufficiently providing notice to a person who stands accused and overbroad and vague so putting this context then in what we know about how and the problems of overly vague overbroad laws is that we give too much discretion to the prosecution to the police to enforce this law when we give too much discretion to law enforcement to interpret these otherwise vague vague terms what do we do we exacerbate exactly what we already know is a problem in our trying to fix xs elsewhere disparities in our criminal juvenile justice system we know that black men black boys stand particularly vulnerable to being subject to prosecution and when you throw on these labels that are just open to interpretation by police by prosecutors I think the changes here while I understand the underlying good motive behind this bill doesn't actually help the situation finally turning to the last part of this bill which is the creation of a council I'm just saying I oops Martin your hand went I'll wait until that goes on okay thank you um and my final comments as to the council the latest draft has made changes to the membership of that council my previous testimony raised concerns that the membership failed to provide fair and balanced membership by the suggested addition of just a prosecutor and and of course the nurse the expert examiner that doesn't solve or address even a token gesture of a single seat towards someone who could represent the interest perspectives of someone who stands accused the black men black boys who are disproportionately accused of these offenses these circumstances newly arrived Americans or immigrants and so again just stress the recommendation that there be if there is a council to be created that representation from these BIPOC communities public defenders others who would represent these these people's interests should be included thank you thank you Martin so so going going back to your issue page three line 1415 was the language as it was previously any better it seems a little bit different it seems like it's gone a little further with the change from the lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance that that language seems that there's has to be something more than just a lack of verbal verbal or physical resistance or is it not really any different in your view representative along I'm going through my my pages will you tell me again I'm sorry page three line 14 to 15 page three line the amendment of the current bill yeah of the amendment right yes it was the bar it was a part about lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent that that seems a little different than the language that was struck out and and do you have the same issue or different issue with the language that was struck out uh no I it's it is the same issue it's does it's not a substantively significant improvement after I don't think it's any improvement if I'm seeing the rate drops no I was and I'm saying that the language that was struck is that an improvement over the language that we have that this new language in your view or or is it yes no I think this right yes I'm striking lack of consent to be shown without proof of resistance yes I think that that is still sorry that I do think that the addition of clarifying physical lack of verbal or physical resistance it's it's they're both problematic right again again it's going back to this this definition of consent resting on an affirmative yes versus evidence of no right and the negative of consent being proven and again I understand like there's there's the public policies and interests in terms of avoiding non-consensual circumstances and sexual encounters I'm coming from the perspective of the criminal system where we're facing and this is about life imprisonment and so the the level of of of notice that is required so that we do not inadvertently commit these these this most serious offense uh is why we need to change and be detailed so no I don't think it's it it it substantively addresses either the original version or this new the concerns I appreciate that um I guess the other questions I have probably are for the witnesses we've already heard from rory and david I appreciate what you were saying about the reasonably should have known that does seem to put it into a a different category that's not your normal criminal offense but but I'll save that question for rory and david shear if we can if if uh madam chair we can go back to them after yes okay uh Barbara thanks uh so rebecca I'm wondering um two things one is what if it weren't a life imprisonment a guaranteed life imprisonment sentence it you know I was in preparing for my remarks this morning I was reading a case that just came out of the washington supreme court I think yesterday where they invalidated a statute a felony statute involving uh drug possession yeah and and the reason they invalidated was because there was an amends reya requirement and the reason the basis was a due process excessive exercise of policing powers because they're the lack of amends reya for I think it was a five-year maximum felony was was found uh unacceptable and an excessive exercise so there's an example uh even if the sexual assault statute had a maximum uh sentence of five years not life imprisonment that wouldn't have been enough and have you seen another state statute that you've thought was um sort of well put together I haven't done a survey and and come up with that uh from that perspective um but I appreciate the the question and I am sure I and I don't have the numbers in terms of how uh how many how few jurisdictions are an affirmative yes uh are proposing that I I do have a sense that we that's in the minority that that's the general the majority and again I hesitate but I do think uh it requires an affirmative evidence of no right no means no versus for pina to yes means yes right well you you raised some interesting points so I appreciate that thank you okay I realize that um it's noon and I know there are other things going on I do just want to um I don't see pepper here so I'm going to ask if uh Rory if you wanted to um to respond please sure so I'll keep the comments brief knowing uh stand between you and the lunch hour again for the record this is Rory Teeba Washington County State's attorney um I'll start with this just general premise so I think why there's a lot of friction with the issue of affirmative consent versus um the more traditional view if there needs to be some sort of active no uh on the part of somebody I think recognition is this in human nature there are several responses to a traumatic event we all know the probably from kids were taught that there's a flight fight or flight response so try to evade or or fight back but more commonly I think we see the third one that is West frequently spoken about which is freeze some people will stop and be unable to react in a highly stressful or traumatic situation and that is been one of the issues that is continually bedeviled successful prosecution of these cases um and that it's particularly exacerbated when someone's under the influence uh war is incapacitated by a drug or an intoxicant so to that end um I would also note I don't share the same due process concerns um that Ms. Turner does and I would note that both federal and military jurisdictions have used the standard for upwards of 10 years without it being challenged or overturned by either the court of appeals for the armed forces which is the equivalent and has equal standing to a circuit court in federal system supreme court has not taken opportunity to overturn these uh the minimum standard we're dealing with here of reasonably should have known with respect to intoxication is really equivalent to deliberate ignorance or willful blindness courts routinely and especially in the federal realm have continually found this to be the equivalent to a willful decision when someone outright ignores what would be obvious to a similarly situated person in the circumstance there is criminal liability for that and it is in excess of what we consider reckless or wanton disregard which is underpins our second degree murder statutes underpins reckless endangerment and recklessness is already embedded as a mens rea and things such as domestic assault or other other crimes so that said one of the materials that I provided to the committee was the set of what effectively is jury instructions used by the military it answers a lot of questions about how these things are actually applied I think it's important to note that the statute is the starting point every single criminal statute we have is backed by the Vermont criminal jury instruction committee generating pattern instructions for courts to apply that's a combination of both the statutory language and definitions and also existing case law so I trust that the professionals on those committees which includes representation from the defense bar prosecutors and is chaired by a judge will work through these issues successfully and adopt definitions that ensure the due process rights of offenders while also meeting the intent of the legislature to ensure we have an effective statutory regiment to respond decisively to instances of sexual assault final point that I would make today there is no direct burdenship here rather in existing cases and in future cases it's a defendant's option if they want to assert a mistake of fact as to consent defense that's at their discretion and we'll say from a prosecutor standpoint we don't just blindly go forward on these cases the last hearing we began with the sobering statistics of how many sexual assaults there are how many are investigated how many are ultimately prosecuted and how many actually result in conviction there's this significant significant drop off between the cases that are investigated and those that are prosecuted and therein lies the art if not exact science of prosecutorial discretion we often have to have incredibly difficult conversations with victims that assure that we believe them and yet highlight all the different reasons why we believe the evidence will not be sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt we do take into account what would appear to be reasonable or honest mistakes of fact we do take into account considerations of past history past relationship this is again why cases involving intimate partners who've been together for years including married partners are often incredibly difficult to prove at trial that said the marginal and incremental changes made to both consent and other definitions here i think are a more accurate reflection of the modern values about body autonomy and the rights of individuals in a sexual setting so i'd encourage the committee to adopt h183 thank you thank you i see martin has his hand up yeah a couple of questions on the issue of the reasonably should have known are there other criminal statutes that use that terminology that you're able to point to uh that that still concerns me frankly it seems to be going more towards a negligent standard and i think it's different than willful or reckless disregard which i know that we have criminal offenses that look at that as a sufficient mens rea and following up with that you don't have to identify that right now but if you can get back to me i'd like to understand where else we've used that that standard the other question i have is why can't this be put in the terminology of willful or reckless disregard uh and you don't necessarily have to answer that right at this moment either but this does this does concern me i don't like strict liability offenses or negligence offenses criminal law at least it's not it doesn't matter what i like or not but it's disfavored generally on a broader broader extent and and the other issue that i i also do see the trouble with the lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent i i think that we that's still a little broad for my liking and i think that there probably could be narrowed to really get at where you are where we want to be with this but i do respect where uh rebecca turner was raising that as as as being awfully broad i don't know if you have comments on either that i'm just i guess highlighting a couple places where i think that there's some certainly legitimate concerns here so uh the most immediate answer to reason we should have known i believe that both um of our stocking statutes include an element that the individual should reasonably have known that it would cause the individual fear so that is an existing standard uh in vermont i'll look that up right now to give you a solid answer on that um right in terms of you know in terms of the second part i don't i won't take away that there is a significant policy question about where the legislature desires the line for consent to be um you know but i guess putting this in terms of a medical uh procedure if you were to stay silent and a doctor comes and performs a procedure on you did you consent to that procedure being done is silence the silence equal acquiescence i think that's a fundamental question that's driven a lot of uh policy here and um i think what's incredibly important about the lack of physical resistance is this statute new statute or new proposed language uh directly counts for circumstances where someone is unable or incapable of offering such resistance and you know flipping it the other way around is foreseeable and it could happen even under the existing statute that someone would use the defense of someone who's intoxicated and just laying there motionless unable to verbalize well she was asking for it she didn't say no and that we have seen and heard that in cases in the past and whether that's a you know certainly from a moral standpoint that's probably inappropriate and i guess it's really for the legislature to determine whether that is a point where there should be criminal you know criminal liability my personal viewpoint would be yes that those are uh circumstances and there's not much that needs to be demonstrated to show some affirmation uh what we'll typically hear is you know the person responds positively to some sort of of touch either wrapping a leg or caressing somebody you know i want to get too graphic and community testimony but there's often something but the total lack of any affirmation it is troubling to suggest that there's um agreement to go forward with that action right but in this but the scenario you just threw into that discussion was an individual being intoxicated in some manner and that that's a separate separate situation that's a burden of proof that uh one has to show that the individual you know was a diminished capacity really to be able to consent which is a little bit different um i don't know i i i just i'm a little bit troubled by that but by that particular provision so i can give one anecdote from a pending case in washington county we had a 16 year old who was victim of a sexual assault and the main defense being offered is that she never said no um this young girl reports in her statement being effectively terrified and freezing while in the car with this individual and just basically sat there one because she was isolated from family friends and in a somewhat remote location it felt that she had no choice but to acquiesce and i think that that's but isn't that a situation i'm sorry isn't that a similar situation of some sort of diminished capacity but in that case it's because the individual's terrorized is freezing that's again is that something that can be captured in in the language in in here all right because yeah i'd like to capture that as well the problem is that this goes beyond that i think and you know maybe it's just going to take some more more thought or i'm just going to have to come around to this but sure the one thing i'll just add as a to close the loop where i started uh so 13 bsa section 1061 which defines what constitutes a course of conduct sufficient for stalking does include reference to reason on this and specifically stalk means to engage your purposely engage or engage purposely in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that the person engaging in the conduct knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of another or would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress that i'm going to ponder that somehow different scenario or situation but i it just doesn't seem to be exactly comparable to what we're talking about here but i can't really articulate that right the moment i have to ponder that a little bit more and maybe rebecca turner can also kind of ponder why this is different okay i uh see david you've just uh come on did you want to uh add anything at this point sure i'll be brief again i know we're into lunch and and uh attorney turner may have a quick response also but i did want to just address the issues around the burden in 3254 which in the latest draft is pages three and four um my read of the changes there uh second half of pages three in particular is that it's not a real change from current law current law already says that lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance and i view the the first three additions in particular there as basically elucidating that concept uh naming more specifically scenarios that are encompassed by the idea that lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance so i don't actually view this as a a substantive change from current law i view it as a clarification of current law and i don't think that it switches a burden to a yes means yes requirement the saying that lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent um it does not follow logically that the only way to demonstrate consent is through an affirmative statement it certainly leaves plenty of room for other types of affirmation to be brought forward and to be um potentially litigated if if if it becomes a criminal case uh so i don't think that we are moving to a yes means yes standard i think we're basically staying at the current consent standard under current law um and i think that there is room to um allow for a variety of types of consent to be or evative ways for consent to be demonstrated while also encompassing scenarios like the one that uh attorney tebow talked about in terms of scenarios where uh things like silence should not be considered consent and i think the that balance is in the current law and i think that balance remains in the proposal and i'm sure may i ask a question because my hand didn't go down and i i can put it down and put it back up again but um go ahead quickly yeah so so on that language again and um page three line 14 to 15 it still seems to me and maybe i'm just maybe it's late in the week but it still seems to me that the language that struck uh is different than than this new proposed language that lack of consent may be shown without proof of resistance that tells me still that that prosecutors still have to show lack of consent whereas the lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute consent that almost invites a situation where it's a lot easier for prosecution maybe it maybe it is no significant difference between the two but the way that i read the struck language is again i still think there's a burden to show lack of consent it's not enough to say that this person just didn't resist uh representative again i i would view that differently i don't think that you are significantly changing the current statute i think that um it certainly is the case that lack of consent will still need to be proven just as it is currently and that is going to be a burden that remains on the prosecution all it's saying is that the lack of verbal or physical resistance does not uh disprove uh consent automatically um it's basically saying that the lack of that resistance does not uh make the person you know make the accused innocent but it still leaves i think that's basically the same standard we have currently so so is that is that kind of essentially what we just dealt with in the um gay panic defense bill that we dealt with that we're essentially taking away a defense we're saying no you can't use that as a defense is that kind of the equivalent again representative i it's my position here that we're not actually effectively changing the current burden that we are elucidating it and describing more specific scenarios but that uh lack of consent still needs to be proven um and lack of you know verbal or physical resistance is they're simply noting that that is not that by itself does not constitute consent that showing that is not enough to show that an alleged perpetrator is innocent something more needs to be shown and i think that that is essentially the same as the current language i appreciate that probably everybody else got that and i just needed to have that pointed into my head a little bit more i still have issues with the reason we should have known part and you know you can circle back around to that some other time yeah thank you thank you everybody so i am going to um stop here because uh we are coming back in less than an hour um and i want to give folks a chance to uh get some lunch or have a break whatever uh okay so thank you everybody um actually before we adjourn sarah do you have anything that you want to to say or anything or or ask just want to sarah cupin has a thing just there's always more than one sarah in the room right um no i i appreciate being able to listen in on the discussion this morning um and thank you for working through these issues um and for getting this right yeah well thank you and definitely needs needs some more discussion okay well thank you everybody uh let's uh recess adjourn for the morning


In the paper that I presented today, the most important contribution that it can bring to actual monetary policymaking is the idea that if you have been in an environment with normal interest rates being at zero for a long period of time and you want to stimulate inflation, what you have to do is to raise normal interest rates. As opposed to the conventional view that normal interest rates at zero for a very long period of time will increase inflation.


I'm proud that she is our honorary chair. Let us welcome, please, First Lady of Pennsylvania, Frances Wolfe. Thank you very much. To just talk about briefly the visit with the Pope or being in Philadelphia, I think a lot of the bishops are support breast cancer awareness. In terms of, a lot of them are wearing their fuchsia gowns, and they look beautiful. So I want one. But thank you very much for your kind introduction, Pat. Good morning, and welcome to our beautiful state capital. I'm very, very excited to be here with all of you as we officially kick off the Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The fountain behind me symbolizes what I think is the boldness and courage of each breast cancer survivor. As they fight for survival. To each of you here today, thank you very, very much. I applaud your determination. I can only imagine how hard it must be, but your fighting spirit is commendable. I also want to thank the Breast Cancer Coalition and its leader, Pat Halpern Murphy, for organizing this event. The coalition, as we all know, is composed of a remarkable and dedicated group of individuals who have a drive to work with exceptional force towards fighting this devastating disease and also to finding a cure. We've all come a long way, but we have a long way to go, still. For example, in Pennsylvania, there are 13,000 women who are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. This translates to 37 women every day. It also affects men, not to the same degree, but they are victims as well. Sadly, we still lose 2,000 of them. Currently in Pennsylvania, there are 140,000 women who are fighting this disease currently. Pat and her team are at the forefront of fighting breast cancer on behalf of all of us and all of our families. Nearly all breast cancers can be treated successfully if they're detected early. That is why it is critical that we have annual checkups and it is critical that we encourage our friends and our families and our neighbors to do so as well. Early detection is the absolute key to survival. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for your commitment to this cause. As we turn our fountain pink in honor of breast cancer fighters, of breast cancer survivors across the Commonwealth and around the globe, thank you very much.


Hello everyone, today I'm going to be making a public announcement about the corona tax relief and the economic impact payment check that the government is sending out. So you need to know if you need to do anything in order to get this money, you may or may not have to do anything. If you already filed your 2018 or 2019 tax return, you don't have to do anything. The IRS would calculate your eligibility and they will send you the payment if you qualify, either 2018 or 2019. If you filed, you don't have to do anything. However, if you did not file your 2019, if you did not file your 2019, you should file for 2019. And the reason is this, maybe your adjusted gross income did not qualify you under 2018, but you may be qualified under 2019. So what you need to do, you need to e-file with a tax professional or get turbo tax or some other software. You can free file as long as your adjusted gross income is less than 69,000 at the IRS website and make sure you do drag deposit. So this way it's, you'll get your money much faster. Now this recording is for the people who are not required to file. So this is non-filers. So remember, if you are required to file, then you file. Now I'm going to tell you who's, who's, who's required and who's not. So if you are required to file, you cannot use this website. You have to use those resources, either a tax professional, free file on the IRS, or do it, do it yourself, basically, you know, turbo tax. So let's click on non-filers, enter payment information here. And you will know if you need to file or not file or if you are eligible. So click here. So first, who is eligible for the economic impact payment? You have to have a valid social security. You cannot be claimed as a dependent on another taxpayer. So listen to me carefully. Most college students, here's what's, here's what's happening. And this is the kind of the disadvantage or the bad thing about this economic payment is college students, they are often time, most of the time, they are dependents of their parents. And guess what happened? They are dependent of their parents. Therefore they don't qualify for the payment and they are above the age of 17. They don't get the $500. So this group kind of, they really got left out. But you know, this is what Congress decided there's nothing we can do about this. So ask your parent, am I a dependent on your tax return? And they would know if you are a dependent or not a dependent. If they don't know, ask them to ask the, the tax advisor under CPA, if they claimed you, if they did not claim you, that's excellent news for you. It means you are not a dependent. Therefore you qualify. You qualify as in quote, independent since you are not dependent. There's no such thing as independent. You will have to file your own return. If you are not required, this is where this website will help you. You want to tell the IRS that you exist, you are not a dependent, send me the money. And you have to have an adjusted gross income under a certain limit. If you're making too much money, you would have to file, you would still be eligible for the payment, but you would have to file. In other words, here's the limit.  But if you make more than 12,200, you have to file. Therefore you cannot use this site. This site is for non, notice, it's non-filers. So if you don't have to file, if it's a married filing jointly, it's 24,400. For 2018, the number is 12,000. For 2018, if you are not a dependent and made less than 12,000, you don't have to file. You just have to fill out this form. I'm going to be showing you in a moment. So in other words, you cannot be a dependent, and if you're making too much money, you have to file. You would still get your money as long as you made your adjusted gross income below 75, you would still get the full amount. If it's above 75, but below 99, you'll get some money above 99, you don't get anything. Now for married filing jointly, the limit will start at 150, and it will phase out, I believe, at 200,000. But you I'm not sure, I don't know the phase out for married, but I believe it is 200,000. So who is required, or who should fill out this non-filer forms? Well, if you fill out your 2018 or 2019, you don't need this form. The IRS will have your information. If you receive social security, disability, or survivor benefit, you don't have to fill out this form, or even though you did not file your income tax return for this group of people, the IRS will have your information, and they will compute your payment, and they will send it to you. Individual who receive railroad retirement benefit also don't have to use the service, because also the IRS will have your information. So who should use this non-filer status? Well, eligible US citizen or permanent resident who had gross income that did not exceed 12,200 for 2019, or 12,000 for 2018, if you are single, 24,400 for married couple for 2019, and only 24,000 for 2018. We're not otherwise required to file. If you are required, you cannot use this form. So this form only for the people who are not required to file, and did not file, and are not dependent. Okay? So how do you fill out this form? What do you need? Well, you need your full name, current mail and address, email address, date of birth, valid social security. Let me walk you through the form. It's pretty simple. It's very straightforward for I'm surprised that the IRS will have such a simple form. So let's go ahead and click on entertainment here. Click on get started. And basically, first you have to create an account. So you have to put an email address, user ID, phone number, and a password and conform the password.  So if your email is not confirmed, you cannot complete the application. So go ahead and confirm your email. I'm going to create an account that I'm going to show you what you're going to see next. So after you create an account, so I created this account, MFAR hat 777, and I have my email address. I just, my email address, I click on continue. And here's the form. Well, the form, you have to tell the IRS, whether you are single or married, then you have to fill out your name, your social security, your address. If you are married, you have to put your spouse's name. If you have dependent, you'll add the dependent here. Here they ask you, someone can claim you if the answer is yes, you as a dependent automatically, you don't qualify, they stop, you don't have to fill out this form. Then you have to put your banking information. Let me fill out the form, just basically and show you what it looks like, filled out for a single individual. So basically, this is what I did. I put my name, my social security and address. I am filling this as a single, routing and account information, click on checking, you click on the next step. So this is page two on page two, it's personal verification. They will ask you about either your adjusted gross income for 2018 or the five digits selected signature pin if you have one. And if you did not have the file, if you were not required the file, you'll put under the taxpayer adjusted gross income is zero. You will need to put your the day that you are signing for. It's April, today is the 11th, 2020, your cell number, you put your cell number here, 5551212, it doesn't matter. You're, you can choose a five digit, five, five pin numbers, don't choose zeros or one, two, three, four, five, two, three, four, five, six, your date of birth, 01, 01, 19, you know, 77. Now you need to put your state ID, either state ID or driver's license for identity purposes. Notice here, they said my email has not been confirmed, continue to e-file and you go to the next step. So this is basically, it's a pretty straightforward form. I'm pretty surprised that it's that straightforward. And once you, once you have an account, you can check your e-file status to make sure it's everything is good and you'll have an email. Now remember, do not go to the site from anywhere else except the IRS. So when you start this process, go to IRS.gov because a lot of people nowadays are trying to get your information, social security date of birth, they would love to collect this information for identity theft. Anyhow, if you're a college student, please subscribe to my YouTube channel, study hard, good luck and stay safe during those coronavirus days. Good luck.


Hello and welcome to this session. This is Professor Farhad in which we would look at CPA questions and simulations that deals with a topic that gives students a lot of issues and that's interest capitalization. This topic is covered on the far section of the CPA exam and cover an intermediate accounting. What I do, what I offer you, farhadlectures.com is detailed explanation about this topic on my website farhadlectures.com. You will have additional resources to understand, to comprehend this topic in contrast to a CPA prep company. If you have Becker, Roger, Wiley, Gleim, that's fine. You can keep them. Those are excellent resources for your preparation. However, they don't go in depth the way I do when I explain the material. So as always, I'm going to remind you to connect with me on LinkedIn. If you haven't done so, YouTube is where you would need to subscribe. I have 1800 plus accounting, auditing, tax, finance, as well as Excel tutorial. Please like and share my recording. However, on my website farhadlectures.com, you will have additional resources to understand this topic. So when I present this topic, it's part of my intermediate to accounting as well as part of my CPA courses, CPA exam courses. I cover this topic in details. So I cover it as if you never saw it before in contrast to a CPA prep company. My subscription is pretty nominal. It's going to help you tremendously understand the material so you could use your CPA course much, much more efficient to pass the exam. We're going to look at two multiple choice then assimilation. Let's start with the first multiple choice question. If more company capitalized the maximum amount of interest allowable under gap, how much will mark report as interest expense? So the first thing here you have to be careful is they're asking about interest expense, not the capitalized amount. They're going to tell you if they capitalize how much they will have an interest expense. Let's take a look at this question. During 20X1, more company manufactured equipment for its own use a total cost of 2.4 million. The total project required the entire year to complete at all costs were incurred uniformly throughout the year. At the beginning of the period, more was able to borrow 1.5 million at 6% specifically. This is an important word for the purchase of material and manufactured equipment. So they borrowed specifically for the project 1.5 million. This is called specific borrowing. And this is important to know how much we borrowed for the project because we're going to need this information later. The total cost was 2.4 million and they told us it was spent equally throughout the year. So we could just find the average and find out what's our weighted average accumulated expenditure. That's an important number. The entire debt with interest was repaid on December 31st replaced with a long term loan. That's fine. That's what they did throughout 20X1. Our company had additional debt of a million with the weighted average interest rate of 7%. Sorry. They gave you the weighted average interest. Sometimes you have to compute that. That's fine. So simply put, how much are we going to expense? So you have to be very careful here. So what do we have to do? First, we have to find out how much interest do we have? How much our interest cost? What's our total interest cost? Let's start with that. Okay. We borrowed 1.5 million. Let's start with kind of make this easy. Just find the total interest cost first. The reason I'm doing this is just for explanatory purposes. So we borrowed 1.5 million. That's the specific borrowing times 6%. And we had a million at 7%. So this is going to give us $70,000 of interest expense. And this is going to give us $60,000, $60,000 plus $30,000. That's going to give us $90,000 if my math is right. It should be $60,000. Yeah. Plus, okay. So the total interest expense is $160,000. And notice one of the answers is $160,000. They're not asking you about the interest expense. They are, but you have to be very careful. Part of that interest expense was capitalized. So part of it will not be expense. Part of it will be added to the manufacturing equipment. Now I'm kind of going backward because the question is asked, the question is about interest expense. I want to make sure you understand the big picture. Interest expense, $160,000. How much of that interest expense is capitalized? So part of it could be all of it, could be some of it. I know it's not going to be all of it, but some of it will not be interest expense. It's going to be capitalized. How much of that will be capitalized? Well, you have to find out something called the weighted average accumulated expenditure. Simply put, we have to compute how much money was spent on the project that was consuming interest. Well, we spent on the project 2.4 million, but we did not spend the January 1st. We spend it equally throughout the year. So if we spend it equally throughout the year, we'll take 2.4 million, and we're going to divide this since it's throughout the year, divided by two on average, two.  Now don't worry, we're going to compute this again in another problem, the weighted average accumulated expenditure. But just simply put, you did not spend the whole thing all at once. You spend it throughout the year. And you spend it equally. So you could divide by two. So this is what's called the weighted average accumulated expenditure. Now we're going to take this amount and we're going to see that this amount, this amount that we, what we are going to apply the interest capitalization against. Now notice, we spent or we could have avoided 1.2 million of expenditure, but we borrowed for the project 1.5 million. So the specific borrowing, remember I told you the specific borrowing by itself without going using other money, covered the project. Therefore 1.2 million times 6%, it's going to have a 60,000, that's going to give us 72,000. Well guess what? 72,000 is the amount that we are going to capitalize. Why? It's the weighted average accumulated expenditure. Again, we're going to look at a more detailed computation of this times the specific borrowing. So simply put, we said this project costs us on average 1.2 million. And guess what? The borrowing that we made for this project is good enough to cover this expense. Therefore, we multiply it by 6, and it's going to give us 72,000. Now let's answer the question. So of the total interest expense, of the total interest expense that we incurred, 160,000, of the total interest expense, 160,000, 72,000 was capitalized. What's left is 88,000, that's expense. And this is the answer, 88,000. Now let's go a step further and journalize the entry. So how would we journalize the entry? Assuming we paid all the interest in cash, we're going to credit cash 160. We're going to debit interest expense 88,000 and we're going to debit equipment, manufacturing equipment. We're going to credit equipment. So we add it to the equipment, 72,000 of interest expense computed as the weighted average accumulated expenditure times the specific borrowing. We did not have to use any money from the 7% from the additional borrowing because what we borrowed specifically for the project was enough to cover our expenditure. So the answer is 88,000. Be careful because of the answer how much was capitalized, the answer would have been 72,000. If the question is what's the total interest expense, the answer is 160,000. So be careful of what you are being asked in these problems. Let's take a look at another problem that deals with the same topic. What amount should James report as capitalized interest? Now I'm asking you for the capitalized interest. Okay. On January 1st, James signed a contract to have MCL construct a major plant facility costing half a million. It was estimated that it will take two years to complete the project. In addition, James financed the construction cost by borrowing 5 million. This is the specific borrowing. So they borrowed 5 million for the project and the interest rate of 9%. During the year, James made deposit and progress payment totaling 2 million under the contract. The average amount of accumulated expenditure, they gave us this answer 750. In the prior problem, we took 2.4 million and they said it's spread evenly. We divided by two. We came up with 1.2 million here. It's giving the next problem. We're going to have to compute it. The access borrowed fund were invested in short-term securities James realized 300,000. So what's the amount that James report as capitalized interest? Well, if I'm giving the weighted average accumulated expenditure 750 and I borrowed half a million, what I borrowed is plenty to cover the project and it's going to be times 9%. And the answer will be 67,500. That's the amount that we are going to capitalized. Now, if we are being asked, what's the interest expense? Well, simply interest expense, if you just want to know what's the total interest expense, we borrowed 5 million at 9%. We deposit totaling 2 million. It doesn't matter. So if we borrowed 5 million and we multiplied by 9%, we'll find out what's the total interest expense. Then we subtract 67,500 from it for the capitalized interest. We don't net. If we received interest revenue, be careful under GAP, under US GAP. Notice we received 300,000 of interest revenue. The interest revenue, we don't net. No netting against interest expense. So interest revenue is not netted against interest expense. Now, let's take a look at this question. So this question would require us, this is basically quasi, not outside assimilation or quasi-simulation. Let's take a look at it in an Excel sheet this way we can look at it and start to answer the questions for this problem. So this is the problem. On December 31, 2019, Bumble company borrowed 4.2 million at 12%. Remember, this is called the specific borrowing payable annually to finance the construction of a new building. In 2020, the company made the following expenditure related to this building. On March 1, they spent 511,200. June 1, they spent 852. July 1, 2,130,000. And December 1, they spent 2,130,000. The building was completed on February 21. Other that, now they have other that, other than this borrowing, other the specific borrowing. They have a 10-year, 13% bond interest payable annually 5,680. Six-year, 10% bond interest payable annually 2,272,000. On March 1, the expenditure included 213,000 of the land cost. Interest revenue earned in 2020, $69,580. Really, when they give you the interest revenue, be careful. Interest revenue is just, it's a way to trick you. It's a way to trick you to make you think you're going to need it for anything. For USGAP interest revenue, you debit cash credit interest revenue, it doesn't go into the computation of capitalizing interest. It's a trick. And they throw it out there to see if you're going to slip on it. So be careful. Under USGAP, you don't have to do that. Now let's go ahead and start to compute the weighted average accumulated expenditure. So the first thing you do is you compute this number, the weighted average accumulated expenditure. And how do you do that? Well, we're going to have to take the amount that we spent and prorated throughout the year. Well, March 1, we spent $511,200. And this is where the interest will start to incur. If you don't spend the money, there is no interest incurring. The amount is 512,200,000. The capitalization period. So if you spend it in March, it's going to incur interest. All of March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, it's going to incur interest for 1012. The weighted average accumulated expenditure is $511,200 times 1012. You spent June 1, you spent additional amount of money. And that's $852,000. Be careful. If you spend the June 1, the amount is 712. You have seven months from June 1. Then you multiply the amount, 852 times 712. Now, you spent some money July 1. Now, the reason June and July are giving is to confuse you. Don't put June 1, 6 months. If you spend it in July, that's half a year. And that's the amount of $1,065 on December 1. You spent the same amount, $2,130,000. And that amount will incur interest for one month. Now, we computed the kind of the most, in my opinion, the most challenging number. And that's the weighted average accumulated expenditure, which is $2,165,500. Why is this number important? Why is this number important? This number is important because this is going to give you. So if you take this amount, which is $2,165,500, this is the amount that you, on average, spent on this project. And you multiply it by the amount that you borrowed. Now, you borrowed $4.2 million and $60,000. You borrowed plenty of money to cover the weighted average accumulated expenditure. If we take this number, multiply it by 12%. Why 12%? Because this is how much we borrowed for the project. And once again, it's plenty of money. That's going to give us something called the avoidable interest. And that's a very important number, 259,860. Again, the technical word for this, they could ask you about this. What is the avoidable interest? And what is the avoidable interest? It's the interest that you could have avoided if you never undertook this project. So simply put, if you did not undertake this project, you wouldn't have to borrow this money. You wouldn't have to spend this money. Therefore, you could avoid it in interest $259,860. This is called avoidable interest. The interest that you could have avoided in theory if you did not undertake this project. So it's this number times 12%, 2,165,500 times 12%. Now, how much of interest are you going to capitalize? Well, you're going to capitalize the lower of avoidable interest or actual interest. Now, we already know the actual interest is higher. Because look, if we compute 4,260,000 times 12%, only the borrowing from this loan is more than 259,860. So you already answered the first question. You're going to capitalize 259,860. But let's go ahead and compute the actual interest because I want to make sure you're comfortable with computing the actual interest. You had 4.2 million, 60,000 at 12%. Another loan, 5,680 at this one at 13%. And you had a loan 2,272 at 10%. Now, basically, you compute all of your interest expense. And what you do is, again, you would compare the actual interest. This is the actual interest. This is how much you're going to pay an actual interest. You compare this to avoidable. And the lower of the two is what gets capitalized. I already told you. I already know the answer because only from this loan you incurred interest more than the avoidable interest. So you should know this right away. So on the exam, if they ask you, what is the capitalized interest, and you find out it's 259,860, the avoidable, don't compute the actual interest. It should be higher. Therefore, that's not the number that you need. Now, let's prepare the journal entry. The journal entry will be debit interest expense, debit the asset, whatever asset we are putting on the books, and credit cash. Simply put, we're going to credit cash. The amount that we spent, which is 1,476,800, we're going to debit the building. It's 259,860. This is how much we're going to capitalize and the difference. So we paid that much cash and we capitalized 259. We capitalized, let me see, C. So it's this amount minus C25, minus C25. And that's going to give us 1,216,940. That's the interest expense. So to prepare the journal entry, this will be the journal entry. So part of the cash will go toward the building and some of it toward the interest expense. Now, as always, I'm going to ask you to like this recording, share it, put it in playlist. Once again, on farhatlectures.com, you will find additional resources to complement and supplement your accounting courses, your CPA preparation. On my website, you will have much, much more detailed explanation about the topic as if you never looked at it before. If you're studying for your CPA exam, don't short change yourself. My subscription is nominal. The CPA exam is a lifetime investment. Take it seriously, study hard and good luck.


Rydym. Rwy'n gallu eu bod yn ystod y fideb sy'n fath. Mae'r ysgolau yn y fideb y lle yn ymolwg nod yw. A ond yw.. y bydd efallai wnaeth y fideb yw'r fideb o'r cyfnod pryn deithasol yn fwrdd iawn. Ac yn ymlawn i'r gynig o bobl pen dweud. Mae'r wneud hyn sy'n gwybod.  Felly mae'n cyhoeddo sy'n ffordd yw'r rai o'r cyllid yma yn y rhan o'r ei wneud. Rwy'n gweithio bod mae'n cyfrifio'n meddwl. Rwy'n gweithio'n meddwl. Ond rwy'n gweithio, ychydig feddwl hwnna wedi'u ei wneud. I don't want to be over dramatic, but this is serious stuff. You're getting hit by a golf ball that is travelling at how fast and when you're doing very little in the professional game in particular to stop this from happening and this idea that really winds me up is that a golfer will walk over to somebody who's just got to cut on their leg or cut on their arm, whatever it may be just been knocked unconscious and they'll sign a glove and give them a glove as if everything's alright all of a sudden.  It's insulting. It's insulting especially if you've not had the courtesy to shout for and make some attempt to make me aware that a golf ball is travelling on its way to me. So the purpose of the video, right? First of all, Brooks Copker, it happens to Brooks Copker, right? But I know a lot of people having to go at Brooks Copker. I think in some ways he's unfortunate because it's him. This could have been anyone, anybody literally in the last few years. This could have happened to them. And he's got that unfortunate thing of it's attached to him. And God knows he's put out some statements on Twitter and social media as to how bad he feels right now. I can imagine he does. He must feel horrendous. Obviously he doesn't mean this to happen and it's a terrible situation to be in for him personally. And like I said, for me, he's been the unlucky one if you like. He's not unlucky in the outcome, but the unlucky golfer that this has happened to in the professional game because this has been waiting to happen. It's an accident waiting to happen. And you've got to blame. I don't know why a player can't shout for. But I don't think that's... I don't think this is the end of it in terms of just shout for. But I don't know why a player can't shout for. I don't know what it is. I don't know whether they think they're above the... What has been a traditional method of warning people that a ball is coming their way. That you and I will do.  And whether I know people on the opposite fare and I wallop one of my wayward drives over to the other side. At a courtesy, I shout for. And there's obviously we're not flanked by crowds of hundreds of people, but we still shout for as loud as you can.  I was hit on a carry bag a couple of years ago, leaning my arm over the... walking down the ferry onto the back of the clubs. And a ball came over a group of trees and hit me right on the wrist that left the imprint, the ball imprint, the dimples were imprinted on my arm, which ended up being hugely bruised, but nothing more than that. Literally a centimetre to the right and it was right on my ankle, my wrist bone and could have potentially caused some serious damage. The guy on the other side of the ferry said, I didn't see you. Well, I mean, again, there is nothing more annoying. You know, he's hit a ball onto another ferry and we were walking off at sea. Anyway, forget about me, but to please shout for is a given. But in the pro game, they're not shouting for. And I don't understand in this idea of signalling a golf club out. Then I find it terrible at a disgrace. However, the flip side of that is and a lot of people have said it over the weekend. I think this is something we've got to consider and why more needs to be done than just shouting for. These guys are in this ball, three hundred and forty yards in an environment where there's a raucous crowd. There's lots of noise going on. As I understand the worst shots of four, I don't think from Brooks himself, but from a number of people around the T shouted for, whether or not they can hear a three hundred and forty yards away in amongst that environment is debatable. So even by shouting for, would this lady have necessarily not been hit? I don't think it would make any difference whatsoever. And you have to we've got to go. We've got to do something different. We've got to do something different. Like I said, before I come up with my idea, my theory, the other thing I would mention is that from the rider cup on Sunday or through the weekend rather, there was huge crowds and I must admit, I did think they were incredibly narrowly packed in terms of the width from either side of the fairway. It seemed narrow. There was a point where I think it was Tiger Woods was playing a chip shot. He was on some kind of dirt track was away with drive and he was literally, he had a tunnel of about 50 yards of people that were no, no more than 10 yards apart. He was only playing a short recovery chip shot. Don't get me wrong. But he had literally a tunnel 50 yards, 10 yards wide to hit through. And at that point, this was prior to all this.  They don't make the mistakes we do. I don't suppose, but you know, I would not have had a no way would I have took that shot on. And I think for all the skill levels and how good these players are, I don't think they should be either because things do go wrong. And he just needed anything to go on any hostile rocket. And believe me, you were taking somebody out. And I thought then that was bad. But anyway, this has happened. The purpose of my video is this. It's to encourage everybody that plays golf at every level. And obviously we are on the average golfers. But for whenever group you play in, then you must shout for you must make an effort to holler. Do not be embarrassed. Shout for as loud as you possibly can and give warning to people that golf ball is coming their way. But the pro game, my thoughts of this, I think we should have at the moment on a T box, you will see a steward that will hold up a couple of paddles. Something again, unfortunately golf always plays as if was 50 years behind technology in some ways in terms of the traditions that we uphold. We've got these quiet please boards. And that's the same thing effectively that a steward will have on the tee. And what you will indicate generally is if you wave straight down and I know this because I did this job at the open when it was over at Hoyleague. If he signals straight down, then that's obviously a drive down the middle. If he holds his boards out to the left, it's a drive to the left and holds on to the right. Now, I've also done the job on the fair where you're a spotter, ball spotter. One of the things you have to do is look back to those paddles to find out an indication of ball flight so you know where you're looking for the ball when it lands. They're impossible to see. They're amongst a huge group of people with a hugely busy backdrop and it's impossible to see them at times. And it's unbelievable to think that we're still using that method to identify or give some idea of where a ball is flying direction. It is so dated. It's incredible. And I think what we should do is this. I think that every professional event where the crowds are involved, I think we should put a system that's behind the tee, 30 ft up in the air with the lighting system on. And I think there should be one light down the centre, one light either side indicating right or left when the light in the middle is lit, it indicates that somebody is on the tee. That's the first thing because often when you're 300 yards down there, you can't even see whether somebody is on the tee. When that green light is lit, the centre light, then it indicates that somebody is actually on the tee about to play it. Shot is about to be hit. If it remains green, then the ball has gone down the middle. But if a ball goes left or a ball goes right, then there should be a big red light that is clearly visible from 300 yards away that highlights along with a shot of four and everything else that we still do that highlights visibly that we can see that that tee shot has been hit down that left hand side or alternative down that right hand side. And I think then we're not relying on a human in terms of we'll rely on a human in terms of the operation of this system, but we're not relying on a human shouting for. We're not relying on whether you can hear the word shouting for. You should be if you're in that crowd, you have a responsibility to look back to that team box. We can't. Obviously, you can't govern everything that goes on in the golf course.  You know someone stood on the tee, you know they're about to hit a shot. And if any of them if it turns red on the left or turns red on the right, you know there is a ball coming in your direction and it's your responsibility then to cover up. And I think that maybe my idea isn't the best. I don't know, but it's I think that we need to do more than just shout for. We're in, you know, we're in a place where technology rules and surely we can come up with a better system than just somebody on a paddleboard indicating whether it's centre left or right. And yes, the shout of four which still needs to continue and it saddens me that let's get back to the root. Huge sympathies to the woman who's this tragedy has happened to her. And if there's anything that comes out of it that is positive then it's got to be that golf makes a massive move forward and make sure this doesn't happen again because it's been like I said, an accident waiting for that to happen for far too long. Anyway, like I said, whether this should be a video or not, I do not know. I've done it now. So anyway, number shout for at the very least.


Are best friends DJ Zinl and Pearl Tuzi fighting? DJ Zinl and Pearl Tuzi are known to be one of the most admired best friends in South Africa, as they serve heart-melting goals. The two are supportive of each other's career and any business they put up. However, since Tuzi's return from Thailand, awkwardness has been perceived between them. On a norm, the two would have hung out or visited each other, knowing they were separated from each other, but nothing of such has opened since the actress arrival. Meanwhile, it's been observed that they've unfollowed each other on Instagram. However, while there's been obvious hints, they are yet to officially confirm their split.


The one I feel pretty good about is James Butler. He hasn't gotten a lot of volume the first two games, only seven carries and two targets in week two, but he still played 65% of the snaps. I, despite thinking Houston will win this game pretty easily, I would not expect them to run much, because again, you don't have to run to drain clock in the XFL, but Butler will be on the field, he will get some targets, he will have scoring chances, he will have conversion chances, those are all really valuable, so despite the fact I would not project him for double digit carries, I still think that James Butler is either my favorite or second favorite running back on this slate at $17. What are your thoughts on Butler there? Yeah, I mean, attached to a good offense, playing 65% of the snaps or more in each game, which is quite high for the XFL. We don't have many, we really don't have any workhorse backs in the sense that we know them in the NFL, so Butler's got really one of the best roles among running backs. It's a good game environment for him, they're favored pretty heavily, the implied team total is high, so Butler, he's going to be one of the first places I look at running back. I think I'm with you, I'm not enamored with him necessarily, but based on the alternatives, I think he's kind of very easily just in that conversation and running back on the Saturday slate is quite thin. There are two viable offenses on the Saturday-only slate, both of them have running backs. Cameron Artis Payne, if you were to go based on volume last week, he'd be better, but how mummy also runs an air raid offense, it's not like these guys are in different offense, it's not like they're St. Louis, where they want to actively run. They just happen to have a lot of success running last week and they stuck with it to their credit, like if it's working, why stop? So they became the how mummy ground raid offense for a week. I would expect that to be more past heavy this week, so I view Butler and Artis Payne as being in similar offenses. Butler is not coming off a huge week, Artis Payne is, direct pivot, $1 cheaper, that's why I'd favor him, but they're both really kind of in the same tier to me.