Description: Prevents the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation from requiring self-disclosure of criminal background information when that information is not to be used against an applicant.
Action: Signed
Effective: January 1, 2024
Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Department of Professional Regulation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. Provides that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall not require criminal background information in instances where the Department has already stated that the criminal background information cannot be used against an applicant for licensure under the relevant licensing Act.
Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Provides that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall not require self disclosure of criminal background information (rather than require criminal background information) in instances where the Department has already stated that the criminal background information cannot be used against an applicant for licensure under the relevant licensing Act.
Gov. JB Pritzker recently signed the Illinois Civil Liability for Doxing Act. But do not blame him or his party alone for this misguided, unconstitutional legislation. Astonishingly, it passed unanimously in both the Illinois House and Senate.
You’re now at risk of liability under the law for writing or sharing in any manner even truthful, simple facts. The law will stifle constitutionally protected speech and will be a tool for political abuse.
The new law lets those who are doxed bring lawsuits for damages against the doxer, subject to certain broad, vague requirements described below.
“Doxing” is commonly used to mean publication, usually on the internet, of personal information about somebody, especially somebody’s individual identity and whereabouts, with the intent of harassing, shaming or taking revenge on that person.
But that’s not the definition in the new law. The law is over-broad, going far beyond the malicious conduct normally associated with doxing. To understand, imagine doing any of the following -– things you would think surely could not expose you to liability for doxing. Then we will check through what the law says is required to make you liable, which probably will surprise you.
You write on social media, “Look at Sam Smith’s Facebook page. He says he couldn’t care less about the victims of the Highland Park mass murder and that the right to own assault weapons is God-given.”
You send out a group email with a copy of a pamphlet from a local Communist Party chapter showing their members’ names.
You publish on the internet the names of the three Illinois lawmakers with the most extreme views on abortion along with your reasons why.
You write a column that you post on the internet naming certain public school teachers you think are exceptionally bad for promoting critical race theory and gender alteration for minors, along with your reasons why.
Now, here’s what the new law requires to put you at risk of being sued for any of the above.
√ First, the law says you must have “published” the doxed person’s “personally identifiable information” without their consent.
But that’s nothing at all. “Publishing,” under the new law, means circulating information in any manner, including posting something on the internet. And “personally identifiable information means as little as somebody’s name in combination with eithertheir education, gender, email address or a list of other things. It need not be something confidential or highly personal.
√ Second, to be liable, the new law says you must publish the information “with the intent it be used to harm or harass.”
That’s not much protection against liability because it need not have anything to do with physical harm, and intent to cause some level of harm is common. When you criticize or ridicule somebody on the internet, aren’t you hoping they suffer in some manner? Isn’t that usually the whole point? Maybe you hope their professional reputation suffers, or they get fired or passed over for a promotion, or that their business loses customers, or they don’t get admitted to some private club or school or, if they are politicians, that they lose votes.
You might easily have said something elsewhere that would be used against you to prove your intent, such as “I hope he gets fired,” or “nobody should go to his store.”
Most importantly, that standard for intent is directly at odds with established free speech law. In Brandenberg v Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out a stricter standard, writing that speech can only be restricted if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”[Emphasis added.]
√ Third, to establish your liability, the law requires that you publish the information “with knowledge or reckless disregard that the person whose information is published would be reasonably likely to suffer death, bodily injury or stalking.”
That’s potentially the most important protection from liability in the new law, but it’s not as strong as it appears.
First, note that it doesn’t require that the doxing actually result in death, bodily injury or stalking, which is addressed below. It only requires that you knew or had reckless disregard that such harm “would be reasonably likely” to happen — theoretically.
It’s probably more likely than you think that somebody somewhere would, theoretically, blow up over what you publish and physically harm or stalk a person you criticize over an emotional or politically hot topic.
For proof, consider new research published by the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats showing that support for violence to achieve political results is frighteningly widespread. Based on a major, national survey, they concluded that 44 million American adults support violence to coerce Congress or government officials, 18 million adults support violence to restore Donald Trump to the presidency and 31 million say violence is justified to restore abortion rights. Support for violence to coerce Congress and government officials was disbursed close to evenly by party identification. On the other two matters support for violence split by party in the way you’d expect.
With baseline support for violence that widespread, it can be plausibly argued that we should all know that publishing names associated with controversial issues is reasonably likely to result in one individual becoming violent or stalking a person whose name is published. Deranged and irrational people are everywhere.
That third requirement for liability again runs afoul of First Amendment law. Speech that disregards the possible consequence of physical harm is still protected unless it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, the Supreme Court says.
√ Fourth, to be liable, the new law says the information you published must in fact result in significant economic injury or emotional distress to the person you talked about, or causes that person or his household to fear serious bodily injury or death, or causes the person whose information is published to suffer a “substantial life disruption.”
In other words, the actual consequence need not be physical harm or stalking. It’s as vague as “emotional distress.” Again, isn’t some of that precisely your purpose when you criticize somebody by name, even though you wish them no bodily harm?
241 years ago on August 7, 1782, George Washington issued the following orders creating the Purple Heart (then called the Badge of Military Merit), the oldest American military decoration:
The General ever desirous to cherish a virtuous ambition in his soldiers, as well as to foster and encourage every species of Military Merit, directs that whenever any singularly meritorious action is performed, the author of it shall be permitted to wear…over his left breast, the figure of a heart in purple cloth…Not only instances of unusual gallantry but also of extraordinary fidelity and essential service…shall be met with a due award.
Originally awarded for meritorious service, with suffering a wound just one type of merit, today the Purple Heart is awarded only to members of the armed forces who are killed or wounded in combat. At one time, civilians serving with the armed forces, such as government agents and Red Cross workers, were eligible. Among the earliest civilian honorees were 9 Honolulu Fire Department firefighters injured or killed fighting fires at Pearl Harbor. Since 1997, the Purple Heart is exclusively for members of the armed forces.
There is no comprehensive list of those who have received Purple Hearts. Until 1945, the award was often presented in battle so historical records are incomplete. One of the estimated 2 million Purple Heart recipients is Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Albert Ireland (February 25, 1918 – November 16, 1997) who earned 9 Purple Hearts (5 in WWII and 4 in Korea) before returning home to serve as a firefighter in Cold Spring, NY.
Another is Air Force Staff Seargeant Max Bergen (December 22, 1923 – April 23, 2020) of Chippewa Falls, WI, a tailgunner in WWII who was shot down over Brunswick, Germany. He was taken prisoner immediately after the crash and held as a POW for more than a year. He had all but given up on the possibility of verifying his combat wounds until June 2018 when his son enlisted the help of his senator. On receiving the Purple Heart at age 94, he said:
“I don’t know if words can accurately describe how I feel. . . . I didn’t realize it would mean so much to me, but it does.”
Litigation financing, sometimes termed litigation funding / third party funding, is the giving of funds to a claim holder or legal firm in return for a piece of the revenues from litigation or arbitration.The main element of litigation financing is that recourse is often restricted to the revenues of the litigation/arbitration judgment or settlement which means that the party who has been funded has to pay the litigation financier only if the party wins or settles its case.
To help you understand better what is litigation funding, let us get started with the basics.
Litigation Funding: The Basics
All or a part of the financial risk involved in litigation is transferred to the litigation funder as a result of litigation financing. Capital from a litigation funder may not only cover the legal bills and expenditures connected with pursuing or defending a case but it may be used to pay down or restructure debt as well. As a result of litigation financing, businesses are able to better deploy their financial resources and engage in initiatives that boost economic development and return on investment.
Why do Companies Utilize Third-Party Funding For Litigation?
There is a shortage of financial resources to effectively prosecute or defend a lawsuit or arbitration; litigation financing provides businesses with the wherewithal to retain top legal personnel;
Off-balance sheet funding is desired.
Corporate possibilities allow a company to spend its resources on tasks other than a valid legal claim. In order to make the most of their financial resources, firms might make use of litigation financing.
Raise cash from sources other than conventional banks and other financial institutions that are reluctant or unable to invest at a reasonable price because the company’s core business has been affected by the misbehavior of a third party.
To protect oneself from risks.
Parties Involved in Litigation Finance
The attorney, the plaintiff, and the funder are the three main players in commercial lawsuit finance.
Plaintiff
In a lawsuit, a plaintiff may be a person or a business. Legal costs, litigation expenditures, personal expenses, and working capital may all be paid for using litigation money.
Attorney
Legal counsel serves as the plaintiff’s advocate throughout the course of a lawsuit. In order to determine whether a financing agreement is in the best interest of all parties, litigation funders work closely with the plaintiff’s legal team. The bulk of money needed to pay for litigation costs is often sent straight to the law firm in order to cover the legal fees. As a result, the legal team is often engaged in the fundraising phase.
Funder
When a lawsuit is funded by a third party, the funder receives a percentage of the settlement. If you think about it, the funder is doing something similar to investing in a company or bond.
Litigation funding’s importance may be better appreciated if the steps involved in a lawsuit are examined.
What are the stages in litigation?
When it comes to civil litigation, there are eight distinct phases to be aware of. Some or all of these steps may be involved in a single instance. A lawsuit might be settled at any stage of the litigation process, which is crucial.
Investigation
Prior to initiating a lawsuit, plaintiffs and their lawyers often conduct an investigation and gather relevant material. This may entail interviewing potential witnesses, compiling relevant documentation, or even engaging the services of a private investigator. In certain cases, a demand letter is to be sent to the defendant as part of the inquiry to determine whether there is a swift settlement to the disagreement.
Pleadings
The first legal filing is known as a pleading. To begin, the plaintiff will file a complaint with the court, in which they will lay out the specifics of their claim, including any losses they’ve sustained. The defendants’ response to the lawsuit is likewise included in the pleadings.
Fact Discovery
It’s all about collecting data in the process of discovery. Requests for information are made by both parties at this point. For the most part, the process of fact discovery entails exchanging documents and deposing witnesses to events. The process of discovery aids in the prevention of surprises and the equal preparation of all parties. Due to the vast volume of emails and electronic documents that businesses create on a daily basis, fact discovery may be a time-consuming and costly operation.
Expert Discovery
An expert witness is a person who is hired by one of the parties in a lawsuit to provide their opinion on the case. Experts aren’t required in every case, but they’re a typical occurrence in high-stakes civil litigation. Technical concerns, the extent of damages that are reasonable, or intricacies in the sector at issue are regularly discussed by experts.
Pre-Trial
This stage of litigation follows the discovery and is devoted to resolving any lingering problems that may arise before the trial. Motions for summary judgment or the motions to dispute the appropriateness of experts are common during this stage. Jury instructions and evidentiary concerns might arise during this time as the trial date nears. Pre-trial negotiations are typical and often restarted, between the parties. Often, courts try to get parties to reach a settlement before a protracted trial starts in order to save money.
Preparation for trial may be time-consuming and costly, as the lawyers try to sort out the many problems that must be resolved before the trial can begin. Your legal team will be able to gather the necessary evidence for a strong case with the help of funds.
Trial
Statistically, the vast majority of cases never get to court. However, if a dispute cannot be settled before trial, a full trial is held. Witnesses and evidence are presented by both sides. A bench trial or a jury trial, when the case is heard only by the judge, may be appropriate depending on the allegations and agreements between the parties. Trials may run for days, weeks, or even months, depending on the intricacy of the case.
Verdict or Judgment
The jury or the court declares their decision at the conclusion of a trial, following a thorough review of the evidence presented by both parties. In effect, this is the ultimate ruling of the trial court, even if there is a post-trial briefing.
Appeal
If a side loses a matter in the trial court, it has the option to appeal the jury’s decision or the judge’s judgments. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the verdict may be maintained, overturned, or returned to the trial court for a new trial. The appeals procedure might take anything from a few months to a few years.
4 Benefits of Litigation Finance
Defendants may put pressure on plaintiffs to drop even the most compelling and valuable litigation because they cannot afford them. That’s where lawsuit financing comes in. Access to justice is made possible by litigation funding for individuals who otherwise would not be able to afford it. By reducing the expense, duration, and danger of litigation, it may aid many plaintiffs who are discouraged or burdened because of the money, time, and energy required for a case
Litigation is Expensive
The cost of obtaining justice via the courts might be prohibitive.
The hourly rate for a top-tier litigation partner may range from $1000 to $1700. There are no limits to the amount of money that may be spent on processing and evaluating electronic discovery in huge cases. Other than these, there are travel, expert, deposition, and court fees.
These and other expenses may be covered through litigation funds.
Litigation is Lengthy
After appeals are factored in, complex litigation normally takes between two and five years to complete. Multidistrict litigation, for example, might take months or years to resolve.
Slow-moving litigation may eat away at a company’s financial resources and weaken its management’s emotional fortitude.
Litigation funders are designed to deal with the sluggish pace of civil litigation, enabling businesses to concentrate on their core competencies instead of litigation management.
Litigation is Risky
Litigation is inherently hazardous, regardless of how strong your case is or how competent your attorneys are. It is possible for jurors and judges to make errors, yet the results of litigation are frequently all or nothing.
Litigation funders invest in a wide range of different cases in order to reduce the risk connected with any one specific one. Individual litigants may reduce their exposure to risk by enlisting the help of a funder to shoulder some of the financial burdens.
Thinking about doing fireworks on your own, but unsure of the laws in Illinois? Here’s what you need to know:
Like clockwork each Fourth of July, colorful displays of fireworks dazzle the night sky in celebration of the nation’s independence. The tradition dates back hundreds of years and is often synonymous with the holiday.
While fireworks can no doubt be impressive, they’re also dangerous and typically result in thousands of injuries a year.
As a result, dozens of states, including Illinois, have implemented laws restricting which types of fireworks can be purchased and set off. If you’ve been thinking about doing fireworks on your own, here’s a breakdown from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources on which types are permitted, along with which ones are prohibited:
The following fireworks, mainly novelty effects, are permitted under state law. However, each municipality can implement an ordinance banning such items, so you’ll want to check what the situation is in your community before purchasing any items. For example, in the city of Chicago, all fireworks, including sparklers, are illegal.
Snake or glow worm pellets
Smoke devices
Trick noisemakers known as “party poppers,” “booby traps” or “snappers”
Sparklers
Toy pistols, toy canes, toy guns, or other devices in which paper or plastic caps containing twenty-five hundredths
Grains (16 mg) or less of explosive compound are used, provided they are so constructed that the hand cannot come in contact with the cap when in place for the explosion
Toy pistol paper or plastic caps that contain less than twenty hundredths grains (13 mg) of explosive mixture
Single tube fountains not containing more than 75 grams total of pyrotechnic composition
Cone fountains with 50 grams total of pyrotechnic composition or less
Multiple-tube fountains not containing more than 500 grams total of pyrotechnic composition
Mines, comets, parachutes, shells and fancy florals that contain a maximum of 40 grams of chemical composition and no more than 20 grams of lift charge
Illegal in Illinois
The following fireworks are prohibited in Illinois on a state level:
Handheld fireworks
Bottle rockets
Skyrockets
Roman candles
Chasers
Buzz bombs
Ground items other than those that have been approved
Helicopters
Missiles
Pin wheels or any other twirling device whether on the ground or mounted above the ground
Planes
Sky lanterns, the type of balloon which requires fire underneath to propel
Ah, I love this Chicago!!! Naked Bike Ride last night with over 1100 riders !!!
After 20 years they still roll across people that have no idea the World Naked Bike Ride exists. Love all those surprised faces though, that has to be the best part of riding up front in the bow shock.
Naked bike riding thru Old Town last night. Isn’t public indecency fun? Family-friendly Chicago. If they ride naked thru a public park tomorrow, they could/should get arrested. If they do it en masse down Wells it’s a celebration. Help me with the logic. #help
The Titan Submersible implosion was not an “accident.” It was a predictable surprise. It was a perfect storm of arrogance, disregard for safety and missed warning signs. Titan’s operator gambled with the lives of innocent people.
This is a teaching moment for all safety sensitive operations. Consider the following: • Leadership Arrogance and Disregard for Safety: The CEO of OceanGate Expeditions, Stockton Rush, who was on-board the Titan, once said: “You know, there’s a limit. At some point safety just is pure waste. I mean if you just want to be safe, don’t get out of bed. Don’t get in your car. Don’t do anything…..I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules.”
Shortcuts: When interviewed about the Titan submersible by CBS last year, Mr. Rush boasted about the Titan being built with “off-the-shelf components” like from Camping World. “We run the whole thing with this game controller,” Mr. Rush added, picking up the device. Moreover, OceanGate declined to participate in rigorous independent testing of the submersible. Such a process is considered a best practice in the industry, and the decision to forego testing should have been a clear red flag.
Failing to learn from the past. On a voyage last summer, Titan went missing for five hours.
Putting the blinders on. OceanGate was the target of complaints in 2018 made by a former employee over the safety of the vessel’s hull. OceanGate fired employee David Lochridge after he correctly expressed concern about the submersible’s safety.
Confusing difference between risk and chance: Mr. Rush said: “At some point, you’re going to take some risk, and it really is a risk/reward question.” Mr. Rush was not managing risk. He was gambling and taking unnecessary chances. Risk is present in all high hazard endeavors. The safest and most profitable companies make risk management a core competency. In contrast, chance is all about luck – Things might work, and they might not. It’s clear from the available facts that Mr. Rush and his company were taking chances. And the outcome was both awful and foreseeable.
While there is no solace in what could have been, I hope one of the potential positive takeaways from this tragedy is more dedicated innovators and engineers committed to building even more robust vehicles and innovations furthering the exploration and betterment of our oceans.
As you may have heard, there appears to be a coup underway in Russia right now. And as is typical with coups from the dawn of time, the side performing the coup is a once-loyal military faction led by a General who has lost faith in the current political regime. In today’s coup, the General is a guy named Yevgeny Prigozhin. Yevgeny Prigozhin is able to pay for his private military force, the Wagner group, because he is a billionaire. How did Yevgeny become a billionaire? Since this is Russia, you might assume he controls an oil, gas or fertilizer empire. That’s not the case. Yevgeny Prigozhin earned his billion-dollar fortune as a caterer. But not just any caterer, for the last two decades, Yevgeny Prigozhin has been essentially the Russian government’s exclusive catering contractor for everything, from school lunches to prison food. Yevgeny’s nickname is literally, “Putin’s Chef.” And it all started from a hot dog stand.
So the best I can determine so far is that a non-official army created by one guy (the Kremlin caterer – no, seriously, this is where he started) ostensibly answerable to him alone, is now marching on Moscow to overthrow him.
This is some serious shit, people. Yeah, my first thoughts were pure Schadenfreaude – and Putin righteously deserves an ass kicking on general principles. First, he believed his own bullshit about how good the Russian military was. Second, he believed his own propaganda regarding how popular he really was.
The reality is proving woefully evident. By choosing to flaunt both the Russian military’s reputation and his own absolute control – never even remotely challenged – he exposed the frailty of both.
The much beleaguered US Constitution gets the credit why this hasn’t already happened here. And what should scare everyone is why a powerful faction of the government is pushing, hard, to create exactly the same sort of World Power State above even its own laws by politically weakening the Constitution they swore to “protect and defend” every chance they get.
I’m also scared at how much power has been given to old Russian men with big financial interests. If Putin is really this shallow, who is controlling the nukes?
Roy F. McCampbell's Blog 