Paper or plastic? Evanston mulls ban on both

April 26, 2011|By Dan Hinkel, Jonathan Bullington and Robert McCoppin, Tribune reporters

When it comes to paper or plastic, Evanston shoppers won't have to choose, if the city embraces a proposal that would eliminate both options.
In recent years, bans on plastic bags have taken hold in jurisdictions dotting the United States. Other communities have placed a tax on disposable bags to discourage consumption. In Evanston, City Council members on Monday discussed a potential ban on both paper and plastic.
If that were to pass, Evanston would become the first Illinois municipality to ban disposable bags, experts said. And a prohibition on paper would be among the most restrictive bag laws nationwide, they added.
While council members worried about the bags' environmental impact, some shoppers voiced trepidation about being boxed in by bag options.
"I think a ban would be more of a nuisance,'' shopper Tom Krebs said outside an Evanston Dominick's store. "I'm sure a lot of people would roll their eyes."

Advertisement

Yet ban proponents on the council say the city needs to act.
"I hate plastic bags, and I'm prepared to vote tonight to eliminate plastic bags or brown paper bags — whatever it takes to get rid of them," said Ald. Ann Rainey.
The proposal remains in its infancy, and the logistics of how a ban would be implemented aren't clear. City officials plan to meet with small-business owners, national chain store representatives and residents to discuss the possible bag ban before revisiting the topic at a May 23 committee meeting.
Any restrictions would put Evanston in league with an expanding group of jurisdictions that have taken a variety of tacks toward coaxing shoppers to tote reusable bags.
San Francisco banned plastic bags outright in 2007, and a handful of other California municipalities have followed. North Carolina outlawed plastic bags on the islands of its Outer Banks, and Washington, D.C., levied a 5-cent tax on paper and plastic bags.
The city of Chicago requires retailers that offer plastic bags to reuse or recycle them.
No state has yet enacted a statewide ban, fee or tax on bags, but at least 11 states this year have proposed legislation on the topic, said Douglas Shinkle of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Bills governing bags have been shot down in various states in recent years, he said.
"This is a relatively fertile issue," he said. "Thus far, (restrictions on bags) haven't been successful, but who knows if that may change."

NFL, Players Face Off in Court

By MATTHEW FUTTERMAN

Nearly a month after negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement collapsed, lawyers for the NFL and the league's players association squared off in court Wednesday in a crucial hearing that will help determine whether there will be a 2011 season.
The hearing in front of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson in St. Paul, Minn., is the first major step in the case of Tom Brady vs. the National Football League that is being closely watched by both football fans and legal experts.

Sports Labor Disputes

Take a look back at some of the disputes that have upset play in major-league sports.

Players are seeking an injunction that would end the current lockout, while owners are trying to maintain the status quo in hopes of forcing the players to return to collective bargaining. Owners are hoping that by locking out the players and withholding pay, a critical mass of the rank-and-file will break with the leadership and push for a new deal that includes concessions.
During the initial arguments Wednesday morning Judge Nelson peppered lawyers for both sides with questions, but she was particularly hard on David Boies, who is representing the NFL. Mr. Boies acknowledged the awkwardness of his position—telling a federal judge she didn't have jurisdiction and should defer to the National Labor Relations Board. In response, Judge Nelson asked Mr. Boies if the NFL could lock out the players indefinitely while waiting for an NLRB decision that might take years—and how could she balance that with the harm the players were enduring by not being able to work? Jim Quinn, a lawyer for the players, noted there were no precedent cases similar to this one because, noting how odd it was for a business to challenge a union's decertification and impose a lockout, "no one would dare do what the NFL has done here."
The hearing was expected to last into Wednesday afternoon, and it remained unclear whether the judge would make a ruling. At one point, she suggested the solution shouldn't rest with her. "It's possible you could sit down and work out a plan," she said. Mr. Quinn said they had tried that and failed.
After nearly two years of talks and three weeks of federal mediation, discussions broke down on March 11. The NFL Players Association decided to decertify as a labor organization. The players had to decertify as a union for collective bargaining purposes in order to be able to seek relief in the courts under the antitrust laws. They sued the league for antitrust violations in federal court just hours before the collective-bargaining agreement expired.
Owners subsequently locked out the players. They have labeled the decertification an end-run around the collective-bargaining process and filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board attempting to block it. The NLRB has launched an investigation into the matter.
Under the previous agreement, players had been receiving 51% of revenue. Owners want to cut that. Projected revenue for 2011 is $9.4 billion.
Both sides were keeping quiet in the days leading up to the hearing. No talks have taken place since March 11, with lawyers for each side focusing on the initial decisions of a case that has turned labor law on its head.
"In the typical industry, employees fight to be part of a union and management fears the power of these unions," said Gabe Feldman, director of the sports law program at the Tulane University School of Law. "In this context, the employees are fighting to dissolve their union while management fears the absence of the union. Whatever Judge Nelson decides after the hearing on Wednesday will create the law in this area."

Despite extensive legal briefs, it's unclear whether Judge Nelson will rule from the bench or take additional time to decide.
For the players, the hearing marks a return to the venue where they have achieved most of their gains during the past two decades, including the right for players to sell their services to the highest bidder.
Owners, on the other hand, are trying to have the case dismissed as quickly as possible, arguing the two sides should settle their disputes through collective bargaining.
"Litigation is not going to solve this problem," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said recently. "The faster we can get back to mediation, the faster we will get an agreement and the fairer it will be."
The prospect of lengthy litigation is particularly precarious for the owners, since damages are triple if a trial determines owners violated antitrust laws.
However, Matthew Cantor, an antitrust lawyer with New York-based Constantine Cannon said the players' biggest obstacle to convincing Judge Nelson to lift the lockout may be proving that monetary damages won't fully compensate them for the supposedly irreparable harm they will endure.
"Even for the players who don't have contracts, it's pretty easy to calculate how much money they would lose," Mr. Cantor said.

Players-association officials have pointed out that NFL careers are notoriously short—less than four years on average—making any lost time potentially critical to a player's career.
The case is taking place in Minnesota because the federal courts there have overseen the NFL's labor cases since the late 1980s, when a group of players sued the league there to win the right to free agency. Those cases were ultimately settled in 1992 and 1993 when the league and the players association came up with a collective-bargaining agreement that provided players with a path to free agency but included a strict limit of how much each team could spend on player salaries.
The agreement was extended repeatedly, with minor adjustments. It remained a part of the settlement, though, and as a result, the U.S. District Court in Minnesota has continued to hear the subsequent NFL labor disputes. U.S. District Court Judge David Doty has usually heard the cases, and he has a consistent record of ruling in favor of the players.
In fact, the league has had such little success in court that a primary goal for them during the standoff is to remove federal judicial oversight from the labor process, a burden the other major sports leagues in the U.S. don't have to endure. Judge Doty recently delivered a blow to the owners when he ruled some $4 billion in broadcast revenue may have to be placed in escrow during the lockout because the league violated its obligation to seek the highest price for its media rights
Not every case ends up in front of Judge Doty, but the players association has no complaints that this one landed in Judge Nelson's court. "She's a very smart and fair-minded judge," Jeffrey Kessler, a longtime players-association lawyer said during a recent interview. "Judges like that are usually very good for the players."

Miranda rights and terror suspects

New Justice Department guidelines on reading terror suspects their Miranda rights strike a good balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of the arrestees.

There was an uproar when it was revealed that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas Day bomber, was read his Miranda rights. For law enforcement the dilemma is obtaining what could be vital information without denying suspects their legal rights. (U.S. Marshals Service/AP Photo)

There was an uproar when it was revealed that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas Day bomber, was read his Miranda rights. The hysterical reaction obscured a real dilemma for law enforcement: how to obtain what could be vital information about terrorist plots without denying suspects their legal rights. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and the FBI have produced guidelines that adroitly balance the two interests.

Issued Oct. 21 but made public only recently, the guidelines will not please those conservatives who insist that suspected terrorists shouldn't be Mirandized at all. But they strike us as reasonable and, equally important, useful in heading off efforts in Congress to weaken Miranda.

The guidelines say that if applicable, "agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents without advising the arrestee of his Miranda rights." This advice is consistent with a 1984 Supreme Court decision making an exception from the Miranda requirement for questioning motivated by a concern for public safety.

Next, the guidelines say that after public safety concerns have been resolved, agents should promptly Mirandize a suspect. But there are exceptions: situations in which, "although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation." This provision pushes the public safety exception to its limit, but it's defensible.

Finally the guidelines remind agents that the Miranda rule is ultimately about ensuring that confessions introduced at trial are not coerced: "The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda warnings, but instead may be violated only if and when the government introduces an unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant." The point is that if an agent believes Mirandizing a suspected terrorist would lead to vital information being withheld, the agent can delay doing so — but at the cost of rendering the results of the interrogation inadmissible.

The new guidelines strike a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of suspects. In fact, they're so reasonable that they shouldn't be limited to terrorism cases but should apply to any case — a gang-related case, say, or a murder plot — in which a suspect may have knowledge of a possible future threat. Singling out terrorism suspects as less deserving of legal protections than others is generally a bad idea. So let's by all means implement the new guidelines, and broaden them beyond terrorism.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Chase may cap debit purchases at $50-$100

CHICAGO — Using your debit card on shopping trips could become more difficult.
Chase is considering a limit of $50 to $100 on debit-card purchases. The New York-based bank, owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co., and some other big lenders have begun instituting new fees and restrictions on checking and savings accounts.
The moves come in response to a federal crackdown on certain practices. One rule that could go into effect in July is a reduction in the charge that merchants pay to card issuers when customers make purchases with debit cards.
The Fed has proposed a rule that would cap what are called “debit-card interchange fees” at 12 cents a transaction, a reduction of about 70 percent from the average cost in 2009.
That change would take a bite of $1.3 billion annually from Chase’s fees, which also help cover losses from fraudulent transactions. If banks’ ability to recoup losses on, say, a $400 purchase is limited to 12 cents, then they’re more likely to consider capping purchases made with debit cards.
“The proposed rules give banks little incentive to authorize large debit transactions that will bring additional fraud risk but no additional revenue,” said Greg McBride, senior analyst at Bankrate.com. “New rules on debit-card swipe fees have the unintended consequence of making debit cards a more-expensive or less-applicable method of payment for many consumers.”
People who have sworn off credit, or can’t get credit, will resort to cash or checks if paying with debit cards isn’t an option, he said.

21 Airlines Fined For Fixing Fees

When the airline industry took a nose dive a decade ago, executives at global carriers scrambled to find a quick fix to avoid financial ruin.
What they came up with, according to federal prosecutors, was a massive price-fixing scheme among airlines that artificially inflated passenger and cargo fuel surcharges between 2000 and 2006 to make up for lost profits.
The airlines' crimes cost U.S. consumers and businesses — mostly international passengers and cargo shippers — hundreds of millions of dollars, prosecutors say.
But the airlines caught by the Justice Department have paid a hefty price in the five years since the government's widespread investigation became public.
To date, 19 executives have been charged with wrongdoing — four have gone to prison — and 21 airlines have coughed up more than $1.7 billion in fines in one of the largest criminal antitrust investigations in U.S. history.
The court cases reveal a complex web of schemes between mostly international carriers willing to fix fees in lockstep with competitors for flights to and from the United States.
Convicted airlines include British Airways, Korean Air, and Air France-KLM. No major U.S. carriers have been charged.
The price-fixing unraveled largely because two airlines decided to come clean and turn in their co-conspirators.
In late 2005, officials with German-based Lufthansa notified the Justice Department that the airline had been conspiring to set cargo surcharges. By Valentine's Day 2006, FBI agents and their counterparts in Europe made the investigation public by raiding airline offices. After those raids, British-based Virgin Atlantic came forward about its role in a similar scheme to set fuel surcharges for passengers.
Investigators eventually found a detailed paper trail laying out agreements, stretching back to 2000, to set passenger and cargo fuel surcharges The probe expanded to airlines doing business between the U.S. and Europe, Asia, South America, and Australia.
The Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic mea culpas allowed them to take advantage of a Justice Department leniency program because they helped crack the conspiracies.
Former Associate Attorney General Kevin J. O'Connor, who oversaw Justice's antitrust division in the late 2000s, said he doesn't know why they confessed, but the result "demonstrates the effectiveness of that amnesty program."
Now in private practice, O'Connor said companies that confess for amnesty may be wisely trying to limit liabilities from illegal conduct.
"Generally speaking, if they have an inkling they might get caught, they come in," O'Connor said. "The theory might be that eventually these things will be exposed and why risk continuing."
Federal prosecutors and investigators declined to discuss details of the cases because they are still investigating.
"Lufthansa Cargo fully cooperated with the investigation launched by DOJ," Martin Riecken, Lufthansa's director of corporate communications for the Americas said. Virgin Atlantic referred all questions to the Justice Department.
Airlines and executives who didn't come forward were charged with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Two former airline executives were sentenced to six months in prison; two others were ordered to prison for eight months. Charges are pending against 15 executives, nine of whom are considered fugitives.
Bruce McCaffrey, one-time vice president of freight for the Americas at the Australian carrier Qantas, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to restrain trade. He was sentenced to six months in prison in 2008. He admitted working with other airlines to fix cargo fuel surcharges between 2000 and 2006.
Keith H. Packer, a former senior manager of sales and marketing for British Airways, pleaded to conspiracy to restrain trade and was sentenced to eight months in prison in 2008. He admitted joining the cargo conspiracy in 2002 and participating until February 2006.
British Airways and Korean Air pleaded guilty to violating the Sherman act; each was fined $300 million in August 2007.
British Airways admitted fixing cargo surcharges from 2002 to 2006 and passenger fuel surcharges from 2004 to 2006. Korean Air admitted fixing cargo and passenger surcharges from 2000 to 2006.
Announcing four guilty pleas in June 2008, O'Connor said the case "conservatively, has affected billions of dollars of shipments. Estimates suggest that the harm to American consumers and businesses from this conspiracy is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"As an example of the impact of the conspiracy, fuel surcharges imposed by some of the conspirators rose by as much as 1,000 percent during the conspiracy, far outpacing any percentage increases in fuel costs that existed during the same time period," O'Connor said.
In one of several lawsuits by passengers and cargo shippers now being heard in a California federal court, San Francisco-based lawyer Christopher Lebsock and others allege airline officials routinely gathered at industry meetings to discuss fuel costs and how to make up losses.
Lebsock said they agreed to add or increase the fuel surcharges that are tacked onto passenger fares and cargo fees.
"We have seen in public documents that they were concerned and wanted to raise revenue to offset the increasing price in fuel," Lebsock said.
According to published notes of an October 2005 meeting of airline representatives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a host of executives openly spoke about surcharges already in place. One official, identified in meeting minutes only by the initials" GF," suggested the group create "a subcommittee to study this subject and come up with a joint proposal."
According to published notes of another meeting of airline representatives in Saudi Arabia in September 2004, "the participants agreed to make uniform policy for such (insurance and fuel) surcharges to be applied."
Not all airline officials at these meetings agreed to join the conspiracies.
During a 2004 industry meeting in Thailand, executives from U.S. based-United Airlines and Northwest Airlines left the meeting when others started discussing setting fares and fuel surcharges, according to a court filing by lawyers in one class action suit.
Warren Gerig, an international manager for United when he walked out of that meeting, declined to discuss the case. The Northwest executive was identified only as Sarathool M. and could not be reached.
While meeting notes make it appear the discussions were open to anyone who accidently walked into the wrong ballroom, Lebsock and Justice officials believe executives were more careful to hide their activities.
"My sense is they weren't really open to the public," Lebsock said. "They weren't that stupid."
Lebsock said documents obtained in pretrial discovery make clear that many surcharge discussions carried over from large group meetings around the world to more private office settings and e-mail discussions
According to one passenger lawsuit, several Asian airlines — including Cathay Pacific Airways, Japan Airlines, and All Nippon Airways — confined many discussions to phone calls and e-mails. Lebsock said evidence shows some airline executives tried to hide or destroy incriminating documents and e-mails.
Lebsock believes the conspiracies were so well hidden that it's possible they would have continued undetected had Lufthansa not come forward.
"In the absence of someone coming forward, and ratting it out, it is very, very difficult to establish that there was a (conspiracy)," Lebsock said.

Teen accused of threatening to bomb school!

Bond was set this morning at $150,000 for a Bensenville teenager who allegedly threatened on his Facebook page to bomb Fenton High School.
Eric Stout, 17, of the 800 block of Dolores Drive, was also ordered by DuPage County Judge Michael Wolfe to undergo a psychological examination.
Assistant State's Attorney Cathy DeLaMar told Wolfe that an acquaintance of the defendant saw the posting late Sunday evening and called police.
Stout is charged with felony disorderly conduct-making a deadly threat.
DeLaMar said the defendant told police that he was only kidding, but that he had previously been declared a juvenile delinquent for having set his house on fire.
abarnum@tribune.com

Former Chicago Cop Jon Burge Sentenced To 4.5 Years In Prison

By Erline Aguiluz on January 26, 2011 9:27 AM | No TrackBacks

Former Chicago police commander Jon Burge was arrested for his infamous role in the widespread torture of minority suspects, which led to a number of unlawful and mistaken criminal convictions. The Chicago Sun-Times reported Burge is alleged to have systematically persecuted African-American suspects in the 1970s and 1980s.
Race and status appeared to have potentially played a role in the abuse, but Burge could not be tried for the alleged torment he caused suspects because the statute of limitations for the torture cases had already expired. However, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow did sentence the former cop to four and a half years in prison for perjury and obstruction.

The crime of perjury is recognized as knowingly lying after taking an oath to tell the truth, such as when testifying in court or disclosing information on certain legal documents. The fabrications must also be pertinent to the matter at hand. Obstruction is a criminal offense that involves interference, using words or actions, with the appropriate operations of a court.
Burge apologized for bringing "disrepute" to the Chicago police department, but did not acknowledge his role in the alleged mistreatment of criminal suspects. Burge's actions cost the city millions of dollars in the settlement of claims filed against the police and also created much distrust between African-Americans in Chicago and the department, according to the ABA Journal.
To learn more about cases like Jon Burge's or the criminal law system in Chicago, seek legal counsel from an experienced Illinois criminal defense lawyer or browse through the Related Resources links for general information.

Will Drew Peterson's wives speak from the grave?

February 15, 2011|By Beth Karas, "In Session" Correspondent

• 
  Stacy Peterson married Drew Peterson eight days after his divorce from Savio. She is missing.

Drew Peterson's lawyers go to court on Wednesday for a hearing that could have a profound effect on the murder case against him.
At issue: whether the jury can consider statements two of his wives made about him to others. One of them, his ex, is dead and the other is missing and presumed dead.
Peterson, a former police sergeant from Bolingbrook, Illinois, is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004 and remains under investigation in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Video Poker Rejected.

(Chicago)  --  An Illinois appellate court has tossed the state's video poker law and a tax hike on liquor and candy.
   Judges ruled Wednesday the law violated the single-subject rule of the Illinois Constitution because the law covered a "wide range of topics"  The suit was filed in 2009 by Chicago Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz, who opposed the liquor tax hikes.
   The money was being used on the state's 31-billion-dollar public works program.

Rahm Emanuel Thrown Off the Ballot

The front-runner doesn't meet residency requirements, a state appeals court says, reversing the elections board. The former congressman and Obama chief of staff plans to appeal.

Rahm Emanuel appears in Chicago. (Scott Olson / Getty Images / December 2, 2010)

Reporting from Chicago —

Rahm Emanuel, who left Chicago to join the Obama administration as White House chief of staff, should not appear on the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot in the city because he does not meet the residency standard, according to a ruling issued by a state appellate court Monday.

Emanuel told a news conference he would appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court and would ask for an injunction so his name would appear on the mayoral ballot.

"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said. "We'll now go to the next level to get clarity."

Emanuel, a former congressman, has been the front-running candidate in the race to succeed retiring Mayor Richard Daley. The latest poll by the Chicago Tribune showed Emanuel at 44%, more than double his closest rival, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor.

"We conclude that the candidate neither meets the [Illinois] Municipal Code's requirement that he have 'resided in' Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement," the majority judges wrote.

Emanuel said he meets requirements despite moving to Washington, D.C.. He served as President Obama's White House chief of staff until October.

"Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, you do it," Emanuel said.

The municipal code exempts from residency requirements members of the military who serve away from home. State election code also includes a government service exemption that protects the residency status of anyone who temporarily leaves "on business of the United States."

Early voting begins Jan. 31. An elections board spokesman said ballots are scheduled to be printed midweek.

Later, Langdon D. Neal, the elections board chairman, issued a statement: "We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor."

Elections board spokesman Jim Allen said ballots would be printed Monday night.

"We've basically hit the 'go' button," Allen said. "We needed to do this on the 18th. We were waiting for this decision. We are going to press now; we have to."

"A candidate who is removed from the ballots by the courts has until Feb. 15 to file as a write-in," Allen said.

kmack@tribune.com

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune