Justin Trudeau has announced plans to grant pardons to all individuals who have been convicted of a marijuana-related offense.
In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities:  However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to  and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that.
Marc Katz, the Austin deli owner running for lieutenant governor, lists health care as his No. 1 campaign issue on his Web site. So it's no surprise that he took a shot at highlighting Texas' struggling mental health system on Twitter.Texas is LAST (50th) in spending for mental health care, he saidin a message on Twitteron Dec. 8.We wanted to know the source for Katz's claim, but he didn't respond to our phone calls or email. We assume Katz was referring to data published by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for fiscal 2006, which tallied mental health care spending for the District of Columbia and the 50 states. Texas was indeed ranked 50th for spending  per capita  though that was second to last.Spending $34.57 per Texan, the state squeaked ahead of New Mexico, which spent $25.58 and ranked 51st. Florida came in third from last at $38.17, and the national average was $103.53.When you look at total dollars spent, Texas ranked 10th in 2006, spending about $805 million.Aware of the state's shortcomings in health care services, Texas legislators allocated $55 million in 2009 to be distributed during the next year (half of it has been already) to expand services at local mental health centers, and through August this year, community mental health centers will receive another $341.8 million in state money through the Department of State Health Services.Twitter sometimes leads to clunky writing because items are limited to 140 characters per tweet. In this case, though, Katz sliced information to give it more impact. Sure, he was only off by one state, but that was the difference between Texas ranking last and not, an important detail when you're showing Texas' rank in ALL CAPS. We rank Katz's statement Mostly True. With state lawmakers revving up plans to tackle Georgias underfunded transportation system, some readers are confused about the often-changing plan. As it stands, the House has passedHB 170to raise about $700 million next year toward a $1 billion annual need to maintain existing roads and bridges. The proposal is now before the Senate, which could adjust or completely overhaul the proposed taxes and cuts in the legislation. One alert reader reached out on Twitter, remembering a claim in a story earlier this year and wondering if the House version still revokes a tax-credit for consumers electric cars, while leaving a similar break in place for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia decided to check it out. The necessity of tax hikes has long threatened talk of tackling the states backlog of transportation projects and resulting gridlock. Amendments that would have undercut the tax rates in HB 170 were introduced right up until the House approved the proposal intact. As is, the legislation would eliminate the state percent sales tax on gasoline and replace it with an excise tax of 29.2 cents per gallon. Key to our question, it also would eliminate the popular $5,000 state tax credit for all-electric vehicles ($2,500 for low-emission vehicles) as of July 1. Owners of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles, meanwhile, would be required to pay a $200 annual registration fee. State Rep. Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, said that included the changes in the transportation tax bill he pushed through the changes because electric vehicle owners practically pay nothing to lease and operate those cars. The tax credit cost the state $13.6 million in 2013. When combined with the $7.500 federal tax credit for buying a zero-emission electric vehicle, the state credit covers about 23 percent of the lowest-priced Nissan Leaf. Atlanta was the top market in the nation last year for the Leaf, the nations top plug-in electric car, in part due to the generous state tax incentive. Eliminating the credit and adding the annual fee is estimated to generate about $68 million in new revenue in 2016, according to the state Department of Audits and Accounts. Not addressed in the pending legislation, though, is any change to tax credits for businesses. PolitiFact Georgia had to go back to last years legislative session to find those breaks. Roberts was among 116 House members (and 41 Senators) who approved House Bill 348 last year. That measure, which Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law last April, provides an income-tax credit of up to $20,000 for firms that purchase a heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle and $12,000 for the purchase of medium-duty alternative fuel vehicles. The credits are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis and are limited to $2.5 million each year for vehicles that run on electricity, liquid petroleum gas, natural gas or hydrogen. (The break does not include vehicles under 8,500 pounds. That eliminates the Leaf, which weighs between 3,000 and 3,500 pounds, according to various automotive blogging and news web sites.) Those tax credits expire on June 30, 2017. But it took no time for some firms to make good use of the breaks to switch to alt-fuel vehicles. Sandy Springs-based UPS, for instance, said last spring it was buying 1,000 propane-powered delivery trucks as part of a $70 million investment. Those trucks are used in more rural areas, where propane is more readily available, and can go up to 200 miles on a single tank. So that means the current legislation does revoke a tax break available for consumers alternative-fuel vehicles, while leaving alone a similar credit for business use. Several studies suggest the Georgia economy actually benefits from both of the tax credits, though. The break for businesses spurs investment and can create the bulk buying that encourage the rest of the market, said Bruce Seaman, an economics professor at Georgia State University. The breaks for consumers electric vehicles keep more money in Georgia, in large part because the state does not have a very large interest in the oil industry but does generate a lot of economic activity around electricity. One study, by the Keybridge Public Policy Economics consulting firm, concludes the state stands to lose $107 million to its GDP in the next five years if it eliminates the consumer tax break. Over 16 years, from now until 2030, the amount is $252 million. The analysis also showed that without the credit, Georgia car owners would pay $155 million more to pump gas into their cars in the next five years, offset by saving about $60 million in electricity. That means a double-hit to Georgias overall economy: lost fuel savings and an increase in spending on fuel (gas), whose profits leave the state. Its pretty hard, economically, to justify one credit and not the other, Seaman said. Eliminating the electric vehicle credit is a quest for funding. But its short-sighted not to consider the overall economic impacts, especially on commuting and our roads. Senators may well weigh those considerations as they take up the legislation. House members, too, could discuss changes if the proposal returns to them with any amendments. But the question here is whether, today, Georgias transportation legislation eliminates a popular consumer tax credit while retaining a similar break for businesses. It does. One caveat: the tax credit for businesses, which is not mentioned in the latest proposal, would expire in two years anyway. Both of those issues may be the topic of debate to come. But as it stands, we rate the claim True. Claim:  Koch Industries paid the legal fees of George Zimmerman.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Was posted on my facebook page today. Is this true? "In the wake of the killing of Trayvon Martin ... The company Koch which manufactures paper products is paying for Zimmerman's legal fees because they feel he had legal right to bear arms and shoot Trayvon. We are asking that people everywhere band together with us and pass this information on and not purchase any of the following items because your money will be paying for Zimmermans lawyer fees!!! Please do not purchase any of the following items : Angel soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, Dixie plates, bowls, napkins or cups, Mardi Gras napkins and towels, Quilted Northern toilet paper, Soft and gentile toilet paper, Sparkle napkins, Vanity fair napkins, Zero napkins, PASS IT ON"  Origins:  Koch Industries is a multinational conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, which owns companies in a variety of industries, including pulp and paper.  A rumor claiming that Koch was paying the legal fees of George Zimmerman, the defendant in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, and calling for a boycott of Koch-owned paper companies began to spread in mid-April 2012.  This rumor appeared to be tied to a combination of George Zimmerman's launching a web site soliciting donations for his lawyers and living expenses and news reports linking Koch to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative policy group "that came under attack after the Trayvon Martin shooting for pushing Stand Your Ground gun laws nationwide": web site linking Few people know the American Legislative Exchange Council by name, but they may know the laws the organization develops. For decades, the group of lawmakers and private sector officials has worked closely to draft legislation that focuses on everything from the fairly mundane, like tax  policy and cable TV regulations, to the controversial, such as voter ID laws and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute. That last one pulled it into the spotlight in recent weeks after the death of teen Trayvon Martin. The law gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight, and ALEC  as the group is known  has worked in recent years to spread it to other states. ALEC announced that it was eliminating its public safety task force that had dealt with the "Stand Your Ground" law and said it was refocusing those resources on economic matters. The group said liberal foes are simply trying to score political points by taking advantage of the Martin tragedy. Koch  denied having any connection to the passage of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law: denied Koch has had no involvement in this legislation whatsoever.  We have had no discussions with anyone at ALEC, the legislative policy group at issue, about the matter either.  In fact, the only lobbying on firearms issues we have ever undertaken in Florida was in opposition to the National Rifle Association's support for a bill that mandated employers must allow employees to bring firearms onto company property. As for the rumor of Koch's paying George Zimmerman's legal fees, we found nothing (outside of mere repetition of the rumor) to support it, and Koch itself maintained there was nothing to it: maintained Contrary to an irresponsible rumor that began circulating online on April 18, Koch has no involvement whatsoever with the defense of George Zimmerman, the defendant in the Trayvon Martin case. As well, Melissa Cohlmia, Koch's Director of Corporate Communications, told us that the rumor is "entirely and unequivocally false." According to Mark O'Mara, one of two defense attorneys (along with Don West) for George Zimmerman, money to cover the costs of Zimmerman's defense was provided through private donations to the George Zimmerman Defense Fund established by the two attorneys in the summer of 2012 (with O'Mara paying out of his own pocket to keep matters going when funds were not available): George Zimmerman Defense Fund SAVIDGE: Money, money in this case, and there was public appeals, and there was a number of them, were made to raise funds. How much money did you think was needed to defend him?  O'MARA: I think I said at one point $500,000 and then I said $1 million for a defense. That turned out to be a little shy of what we need.  SAVIDGE: And how often were you sort of right there at almost a zero bank account?  O'MARA: Oh, we were at the zero bank account numerous times, and we were  I have funded this case, and a lot of money I have put into this case, because you can't stop, and people still need to be paid or depositions need to be ordered or depositions need to be taken.  SAVIDGE: You fill the gaps?  O'MARA: Yes. I had to. I mean, you don't just stop. And at that point, my commitment was such that we're going to see this case through trial.  SAVIDGE: Who gave? Who were the people that gave?  O'MARA: It's funny, because we got a lot of $5 contributions, a lot of $100 contributions, a few $1,000 contributions. But if you looked at the range, I would say it was $10 to $100 [from] people all over America, a lot of people who are on fixed incomes. I was amazed that people would send $5 or $10 to us. And they would write letters and say, "I'm on Social Security. I wish I could do more. I'll try to do more next month, but we really feel George deserves a fair trial." Last updated:  18 July 2013    Graves, Lisa.  "ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection."   The Nation.  1 August 2011.    Lichtblau, Eric.  "Martin Death Spurs Group to Readjust Policy Focus."   The New York Times.  17 April 2012.    Mahapatra, Lisa.  "George Zimmermans Defense Cost $500,000, Not Including Lawyer's Fees."   International Business Times.  16 July 2013.    CNN.  "George Zimmerman's Attorney Speaks About Trial."   13 July 2013. On 15 February 2016, the Facebook page "The Original Wake Up People" posted a years-old memefeaturing a quote ostensibly uttered by Vladimir Putin:   This is not a real quote from the Russian president.The above-displayed quote has been circulating since 2009 in one form or another (usually in the form of a meme such as the above image) when it was originally published on the satirical web siteScooter's Report: published Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin haswarned the Obama administration against adopting further socialism, saying Russian historyclearly proves it is a recipe for failure. "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history," saidPutin. "President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy." Scooter's Report, whichfrequently featured anti-Obama rhetoric, has adisclaimer on the web site that states, "Like I have to tell you: This isfictitious satire and any resemblance to persons, places, or events is coincidental." Putin has, however, addressed the responsibilities of businesses to the community in the past: addressed We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich. In August 2017, rumors began to spread on social media that anti-fascists (a name often shortened to "antifa", which has become shorthand for a subset of protestors, usually clad in black and accessorized with bandannas and who are evidently unnerving bloggers and vloggers enough to be the pet topic of many an angry online rant) were planning extended unrest, riots, killing random citizens, or outright civil war beginning on 4 November 2017: August 2017 rumors began civil war   Depending on the source, "antifa" (always treated as though it is one homogenous, unified group) is purportedly planning extended riots, joint violence alongside Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers, or a coup of the American government. The rumors seem to have originated from a video originally published on 30 August 2017 by an individual named Jordan Peltz. Peltz was widely (and incorrectly) identified as a "U.S. Marshal" in the video, which shows him wearing what looked like an official badge that is actually simply printed on his shirt. However, he is not actually law enforcement or military  Peltz instead evidently works as some combination of bail bondsman and bounty hunter. published (Claiming to be a United States marshal is very popular among the sovereign citizen set; those involved claim to answer only to their interpretation of common law and maintain they are not subject to other legal conventions, including getting driver's licenses and paying taxes. Local, state, and federal governments tend to disagree.) popular involved driver's licenses taxes On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice": Instagram   Peltz published a video to "clear the air" on 27 September 2017 after reporter JJ MacNab, whose beat includes anti-government and sovereign citizen groups, wrote a thread on Twitter about how militia groups are being goaded into taking up arms against anti-fascists: JJ MacNab thread   Peltz responded by stating that his video, which gave an impression he was either predicting or calling for a November 2017 civil war, had been edited  although he didn't specify when, by whom, or why, despite millions of views and thousands of comments, he had remained unaware it had been altered until he saw reports: stating Finding out my video meant for me and few friends had been taken and edited. Only site I thought had it. @jjmacnab should have just msg me pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf @jjmacnab pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 24, 2017 September 24, 2017  https://t.co/JNR3co0QwhFollow-up from my Viral Video and clearing the air. Please, view my IG to see what else was falsely claimed https://t.co/JNR3co0Qwh  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 28, 2017 September 28, 2017 On 29 September 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording: published Antifa is planning a new round of nationwide riots on November 4 as part of a plot to start a civil war that will lead to the overthrow of the Trump administration. Far-left militants plan to gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country in the hope of building momentum for civil unrest that leads to nothing less than domestic regime change. Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power, states a call to action on the RefuseFascism website. A longer screed posted on the Revolutionary Communist website makes it clear that Antifa is not prepared to wait for electoral change from Democrats, and will engage in a ferocious struggle, based on plans outlined in a book written by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is called The Coming Civil War. The page also cited "antifa" web sites, neither of which threatened violence. One provided a list of Facebook events, and the other read in its entirety: provided list read entirety ON NOVEMBER 4, 2017: We will gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country, at first many thousands declaring that this whole regime is illegitimate and that we will not stop until our single demand is met: This Nightmare Must End: the Trump/Pence Regime Must Go! Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power. Our actions will reflect the values of respect for all of humanity and the world we wantin stark contrast to the hate and bigotry of the Trump/Pence fascist regime. Our determination to persist and not back down will compel the whole world to take note. Every force and faction in the power structure would be forced to respond to our demand. The cracks and divisions among the powers already evident today will sharpen and widen. As we draw more and more people forward to stand up, all of this could lead to a situation where this illegitimate regime is removed from power. Spread the word and organize now. Be a part of making history. Dont let it be said that you stood aside when there was still a chance to stop a regime that imperils humanity and the Earth itself. Join in taking to the streets and the public squares day after day and night after night demonstrating that In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America. On November 4, 2017, we will stand together with conviction and courage, overcoming fear and uncertainty, to insist that: This Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must GO! @AntifaChecker, a Twitter feed devoted to sniffing out phony "antifa" accounts, said it was not even aware of the call to action: yeah, we haven't heard anything about november 4  Antifa Checker (@AntifaChecker) October 1, 2017 October 1, 2017  An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events: article Their placards bore letters that spelled out "NOV 4 IT BEGINS." But they couldn't get enough volunteers to hold all 12 letters, so the tallest among them, the ones with the broadest wingspans, held up two letters each. The eight people weren't enough to block the on-ramp, so some motorists were able to swerve around. [Organizer and USC film professor Perry] Hoberman says the protest was conceived in part to get the word out about a Nov. 4 demonstration the group is planning. He says it's being modeled on the Women's March held in January at Pershing Square and that organizers hope the action will include an encampment in a public place,  la Occupy Wall Street, or at least a prolonged series of protests over several days. At one point on Tuesday they knelt on the freeway, which organizer Michelle Xai says was to acknowledge "black and Latino people who have been and continue to be murdered by police." A video of the protest uploaded to the group's Facebook page has more than 700,000 views. Many of the 24,000-plus commenters ask for more information about Nov. 4. Plenty of others object to the group's inconveniencing motorists, and some appear to endorse running them over. It is true that some groups linked to the antifa movement planned co-ordinated protests on 4 November 2017, but that had nothing to do with Peltz's video expressing disdain for the group in August 2017, nor did he appear to have any insider law enforcement knowledge, as he does not work as law enforcement himself. When a wave of rumors about 4 November anti-fascist protests began, his clip became part of the claim as "evidence" that a "federal officer" warned of coming violence. In reality, a list of apparently peaceful protests were paired with an older, unrelated video to create the impression of a looming threat. Peltz himself walked the claims far back after his video brought him unwanted attention and scrutiny. There was an uptick in the rumor's spread on 1 November 2017, when the groups advertised the 4 November 2017 demonstrations in the New York Times.  advertised Smith IV, Jack.  "The Far-Right Thinks A Violent Antifa Overthrow Is Coming Nov. 4, But The Truth Is Far Stranger."
  Mic.  2 November 2017. [Updated] 3 November 2017: Added information about advertisements for the planned protests which appeared on 1 November 2017 in the New York Times. Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012. Does New York get the short end of the stick when it comes to federal funding? Gov. Andrew Cuomo said so in atweeton Jan. 14. New Yorkers are just tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars. New York subsidizes 42 other states. No state gets back less from Washington than New York state. The federal government must stop shortchanging NY, Cuomo tweeted. New Yorkers are just tired of subsidizing other states with our tax dollars.New York subsidizes 42 other states.No state gets back less from Washington than New York State.The federal government must stop shortchanging NY.#SOTS2021 Is Cuomo correct that no state gets back less from Washington than New York state? We looked at a comprehensive independent analysis and found that Cuomos assertion was close to accurate. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget, told PolitiFact that Cuomo was referencing a widely citedanalysisfrom the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy arm of the State University of New York. The report, published in January 2020, shows four-year totals of funding flows from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2018. The report found that New Yorkers cumulatively sent $116 billion more to the federal government during that period than New York state received from the federal government. The four major categories of federal spending analyzed by the report are direct payments for individuals under programs such as Social Security and Medicare, federal grants to state and local governments, federal contracts and procurement, and wages paid to federal workers. The institute found that during that period, only 11 states received fewer dollars in funding than they sent to the federal government in tax payments  and of these, New Yorks cumulative shortfall was easily the largest. The other 10 states with negative balances with the federal government during that four-year period were, in descending order, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, Utah and New Hampshire. In the most recent year studied in the report, 2018, New York sent almost $22 billion more to the federal government than it received. Thats a larger sum than the next two statess shortfalls combined, New Jersey and Massachusetts. But when adjusted for population, New York isnt the biggest loser. Its fourth, after three of its smaller neighbors: Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Cuomos mention of 42 states stems from the 2018 figures in the report, which says, Forty-two states had a positive balance of payments with the federal government in 2018, Broadly speaking, federal money flows from high-income states to low-income states through spending by programs such as Medicaid. The system isnt designed to give back each state the equivalent of what its residents and businesses paid. Because New York is home to a large critical mass of very high-income households, as well as a considerable number of merely very affluent (mid-six-figure) residents, the Empire States residents generate a disproportionately large share of federal revenues through a tax system that is, after all, based on a progressive income tax, said E.J. McMahon, founder and research director of the Empire Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank. New Yorks balance of payments with the federal government could worsen in the coming years unless a change made to the tax code in 2017 is reversed. In the Republican-backed tax bill signed that year by President Donald Trump, lawmakers limited the size of the federal deduction for state and local taxes paid. This change to thestate and local tax deductionmeant that some taxpayers in high-tax states like New York would pay more in federal taxes. Cuomo said that no state gets back less from Washington than New York state. This aligns with a widely cited study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government that looked at every states balance of payments with the federal government from 2015 to 2018. However, that same study notes a slightly different result when population is taken into account. On a per-capita basis, New York ranked fourth, after Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts. We rate the statement Mostly True. It's a political fact of life: Incumbency has its perks. You're already in a position of power. Name recognition is not a problem. And, if you're president, your arrival at a venue  whether for campaign reasons or not  is bound to generate headlines. That's the underlying complaint of a tweet presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent out July 5 as his presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, was preparing to join President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina. Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump said. We wondered if it was true that the trip was going to be made at taxpayer expense. To some degree, it is. And that's out of necessity. The president doesn't stop being president just because he's campaigning for himself or someone else. Even if he flew to a campaign stop on a commercial jet, he would need a host of support services and personnel to keep him connected and in charge. And that doesn't include the requirements for security. Thus, the president always uses Air Force One, which is one of two specially designed Boeing 747s built in 1986 to include a command center, a medical suite, bedroom, office, two food preparation galleys, and plenty of room for staff and reporters. It's not cheap to operate. According to CNN, the Air Force was reporting two years ago it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Officeanalysisof three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hourin 2016 dollars. Technically, if the president makes a campaign trip, the campaign or the political party is supposed to reimburse the government for use of the plane to some degree. (The full cost is not reimbursed because some of the costs are directly connected to the responsibilities of being president.) These days,the amountis the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to theWashington Post.Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. When you have someone traveling on behalf of a campaign, such as Clinton and any staffers who might be accompanying her, the accounting can get even more complicated. But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s,according to CNN. The amount is even more complicated when the president mixes business with politics, such as flying somewhere to give a policy speech or performing another official act but also spending time attending a purely political event, such as a fundraiser. (The North Carolina appearance, in contrast, was purely political.) How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is,according to Time magazine. Mark Knoller, the CBS News White House correspondent who has been tracking presidential trips for years, noted in a tweet that presidents have repeatedly told the press that such costs will not be revealed. > Prior administrations also refused, he noted in a followup tweet. But they didn't claim to be most transparent Admins ever. The closest you can get to getting an estimate is to see what the campaigns pay the government. For his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush's campaign paid just under $1 million, according to thePost. But that was when the cost was based on a first-class commercial airline ticket. By 2012, after the rules were changed to be based on chartering a 737, Obama spent just over $3 million. In this case, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said the campaign will cover its portion of the costs, although he indicated those costs had not been determined. The Trump campaign didn't respond to an email, but Trump is well aware that campaigns are required, by federal law, to reimburse for expenses. During his trip to Scotland last month, Trump went to great lengths to repeatedly state that federal law requires his campaign to pay for everything, even if it's the use of a conference room in Trump Towers, which he said he would gladly let his campaign use for free. I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back,he said. If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back. Our ruling Trump said, Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by Obama and Clinton. How people define a fortune is somewhat subjective, and details about how the costs of using the presidential plane are determined are secret. But based on the information available, it's clear that the campaign is only going to be picking up a small fraction of the $200,000-plus hourly costs of using the plane, with taxpayers footing the bill for the rest. Because Trump's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa60cf08-a414-40d2-b91a-70999d4188a2 FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health, suicide or substance use crisis or emotional distress, reach out 24/7 to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (formerly known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline) by dialing or texting 988 or using chat services atsuicidepreventionlifeline.orgto connect to a trained crisis counselor.  suicidepreventionlifeline.org The death of former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, who was found hanged in his prison cell on 19 April 2017, was followed by rumors and questions that including speculation he intended his suicide to benefit his young daughter: Aaron Hernandez   This speculation was followed from news reports suggesting that because Hernandez was appealing his conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd at the time he died, under Massachusetts law that conviction could be vacated as if it had never happened: reports Odin Lloyd Former NFL player Aaron Hernandez's suicide early [on 19 April 2017] ended his life and his legal saga, but according to Massachusetts law, Hernandez goes to his grave as an innocent man. Under a legal doctrine in use in Massachusetts called abatement ab initio, if someone dies after a conviction but before the completion of their appeal, the person's legal records in that matter are wiped clean. "It will be as if it never occurred," said Martin W. Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar Association. "The indictment, the complaint, the trial, all of that, in the eyes of the law it is considered null and void." The legal concept of abatement ab initio is both seldom invoked and not without controversy due to its potential effect on victims' families: abatement ab initio seldom invoked controversy Healy said the idea of abatement ab initio is always controversial in those instances when it comes to light. Usually, those cases involved highly prominent trials that generate great interest in the press, he said. Abatement ab initio is a common law dating back to English law when Massachusetts was a British colony, Healy said. Massachusetts is one of six or seven states that recognize abatement ab initio. Several states have modified it or nullified it. In each of those instances, the change was made in recognition of victims' rights, he said. "All of this is not going to give any closure or comfort to the Lloyd family," Healy said. Speculative online posts have stated with certainty that Hernandez's death triggered a windfall for his surviving relatives, presuming the NFL star would once again be entitled to a considerable fortune from his football career, but legal analysts and extant case law paint a muddier picture. They say an argument could be made disputing the severance of a contract based upon an arrest for an overturned or vacated conviction, but not that such a lawsuit would necessarily be successful: extant say For example, [Healy] said, with a "creative lawyer," the family could file litigation against the Patriots and the NFL for voiding Hernandez' contract after his indictment. However, the Boston Globe disputed that achieving such an outcome was feasible: disputed Even without a conviction on the books, Hernandez almost certainly was in breach of his contract. When Hernandez was arrested for Lloyds murder in June 2013, the Patriots released him and refused to pay the remaining guaranteed money  a $3.25 million deferred signing bonus payment, and base salaries of $1.323 million and $1.137 million. They also declined to pay a $82,000 workout bonus that he had earned in June 2013. Hernandez lost his grievance, and his contract would likely prevent him from collecting any of the money now, despite the lack of a conviction on his record. Even though Hernandez was found not guilty of the 2012 double murder, the Patriots can reasonably argue that Hernandez didnt represent his reckless behavior during that time, and that when he signed the contract he was headed down the path of incarceration and unavailability. In June 2013, NFL.com reported that Hernandez's contract guarantees had been revoked, a decision the NFL based on his arrest and his conduct subsequent to that arrest, not his later conviction. In other words, had Hernandez not been convicted in the murder of Odin Lloyd, that circumstance would have had no bearing on the NFL's June 2013 decision: NFL.com The New England Patriots have voided all of Aaron Hernandez's contract guarantees ... meaning the former tight end will have to fight to receive even the portion of his signing bonus that he's already earned. Hernandez was to receive $2.5 million in guaranteed base salaries over the next two seasons, and his contract does not have language to void that money if he fails to practice. However, the Patriots believe the Collective Bargaining Agreement covers them because he has engaged in conduct unbecoming after being arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Odin Lloyd. As for his $3.25 million in signing bonus payment that was to be paid this March, that's a deferred payment that Hernandez already earned after signing his five-year, $40 million contract last year. The Patriots appear to have a serious uphill battle to avoid paying this, but they seem set on making Hernandez fight for this portion of his fully guaranteed signing bonus. Speculation holds that if Hernandez's conviction were vacated it would posthumously restore his standing with the NFL, thereby entitling his next of kin to the wealth he would have accumulated if he had never been convicted. But that speculation presumes that since the legal doctrine triggered by Hernandez's suicide could vacate his conviction, the NFL would somehow be bound by that outcome to pay out the contract's promises to his family. However, the NFL is a business entity and not a court of law, and Hernandez's contract was voided 90 minutes after his arrest based on "conduct unbecoming," not on his conviction. 90 minutes Abatement ab initio may possibly clear Hernandez's name in a technical sense, but legal experts say only that a "creative lawyer" could initiate litigation based on that concept, not that the outcome of such litigation is automatic or certain.  The legal concept of abatement ab initio is controversial when invoked in high-profile cases like this one because it often serves to protect the existing assets of an appellant's estate, and no provision of the law mandates that the NFL must reinstate Hernandez's contract terms on the basis of his death. UPDATE: Henandez' conviction was erased by a Massachusetts judge in May 2017. It was later reinstated in March 2019 with the Associated Press reporting: erased reinstated "The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously found that the legal rule that erased Hernandezs conviction is 'outdated and no longer consonant with the circumstances of contemporary life.' It ordered that Hernandezs conviction be restored and that the practice be abolished for future cases. The ruling does not affect past cases." Johnson, Patrick.  "After Aaron Hernandez Suicide, Murder Conviction in Odin Lloyd Death Legally Considered 'As If It Never Occurred.'"
  MassLive.com.  19 April 2017. Rapoport, Ian.  "Aaron Hernandez's Contract Guarantees Voided by Patriots."
  NFL.com.  29 June 2013. Rashbaum, William K.  "Obscure Legal Doctrine May Erase Guilty Verdict for Ex-Legislator Who Died."
  The New York Times.  26 August 2016. Sullivan, Jennifer.  "Dead Man Appeals His Murder Conviction."
  The Seattle Times.  28 September 2011. Volin, Ben.  "Patriots Quickly Ran Out of Patience with Aaron Hernandez."
  The Boston Globe.  27 June 2013. National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI).  "Abatement Ab Initio and a Crime Victims Right to Restitution."
  Fall/Winter 2006. The Washington Post.  "Abatement Ab Initio."
  9 July 2006. Wikipedia.  "Murder Of Odin Lloyd."
  Accessed 20 April 2017. Volin, Ben.  "Do the Patriots Owe Aaron Hernandezs Estate Any Money?"
  The Boston Globe.  20 April 2017. Updated with information on the March 2019 ruling.