Use the form on the right to contact us.
You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999
(123) 555-6789
email@address.com
You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.
Governor Pritzker can indicated that he plans to extend Illinois’ eviction moratorium until October 3, 2021. No Executive Order has been issued yet but is expected prior to September 18, 2021.
Governor Pritzker has announced that Illinois’ eviction moratorium - which has been in effect for 17 months and counting - will end on August 31, 2021. While a “tidal wave” of evictions is anticipated, several Chicago and Cook County ordinances have been enacted fundamentally changing the litigation landscape between landlords and tenants during the moratorium. For trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
For years, the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CRLTO”) has been the bane of landlords and the joy of tenants within the municipal boundaries of the City of Chicago. The CRLTO provides a host of extremely strong protections for Chicago tenants including, most importantly, a general fee-shifting provision for the prevailing party. This means that tenants who have had their rights violated are normally able to find an attorney willing to take their case when, generally, they may not be able to.
However, despite what proud Chicagoans (including myself) might tell you, Chicago is NOT the only city within Cook County. There are a LOT of people (~2.3 million) and a LOT large municipalities in Cook County (e.g. Elgin, Cicero, Arlington Heights) which have no meaningful tenants rights ordinances.
Well, that has now changed!
A new Cook County Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (Cook County Code Sec. 42-801 et seq.) has officially been adopted and become effective county-wide. This new ordinance vests a host of rights for residential tenants and imposes a litany of duties on residential landlords. While the ordinance largely tracks the CRLTO, there are several important differences from the CRLTO including, inter alia, a limitation to what actions are fee-shifting and less onerous security deposit requirements. A competent public summary of the ordinance’s contents can be found here. To be clear, this new law applies to ALL residential properties within Cook County, except those explicitly excluded and those located in municipalities with their own already adopted landlord-tenant ordinance.
It is hard to overstate the importance and impact of the Cook County Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance on landlord-tenant law in Cook County. For trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
SK
This week, the Columbia Law Review published an article title “Delegation at the Founding,” wherein its authors, Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley, argue that the “non-delegation doctrine” - the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to others - was not historically justified at the founding nor any time after. The authors also gave an interview with Slate on the topic which is both more accessible and concerned with contemporary political / judicial reality.
Whatever you label it, I personally agree with the wisdom of limiting Congress’ ability to delegate lawmaking authority to any other body / office. It is important that the constituent members of a body charged with legislating remain politically accountable to their constituents for legislative acts. Legislative officials - perennially susceptible to criticism or electoral challenge - will always be tempted to simply hand off "hard questions" to the executive as a way of exercising "political cover" and avoiding flack. However, this process inevitably leads to wildly erratic legal regime changes every four-to-eight years as piles of paper with the words "executive order" stamped at the top are replaced with new wholly contradictory piles of paper. Meanwhile, the hard work of building an actual articulated consensus is kicked further down the road while the men and women charged with this duty redouble their efforts at staying in office through fundraising, gerrymandering, etc.
However, this article argues whatever the “wisdom” of my personal opinion / position on the non-delegation doctrine, it is only that; i.e. potentially good policy but not actual law rooted in the text or history of the Constitution. I am only an amateur scholar of Anglo-American legal history but I think there is much merit to this article's central premises. To wit: (a) before the enactment of the Constitution, it was routine for Anglo sovereign bodies (including the various colony legislature as well as the Crown / Parliament) to delegate "lawmaking" authority to local or specialized "ministers" / "magistrates;" (b) immediately after enactment of the Constitution, this practice continued in our young nation without observable interruption; and (c) the textual evidence that the constitutional settlement, through text, structure, or otherwise, mandates a change of this system is very thin. Further, that "non-delegation" was only in judicial vogue one year during the New Deal is also very telling. Cass R. Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 315, 322 (2000) (“We might say that the conventional [non-delegation] doctrine has had one good year, and 211 bad ones (and counting).”). Thus, on balance, it seems very unlikely that the founders intended the vesting clauses to completely overwrite this historical consensus and practice, much less to do so extremely quietly and without discernible success.
In sum, I don't know that the issue is "settled" one way or another but I'd recommend that any lawyer friends interested in constitutional law give this interview and/or article a read. It’s honest scholarship and the subject matter is increasingly relevant, as the administrative state grows ever larger and the several States’ judiciaries make clear they are much less shy than their federal counterparts for both obvious and non-obvious reasons. Understanding the contours of this inevitable battleground will be useful, especially if it is true that "[f]or the first time in modern history, a working majority on the Supreme Court may be poised to give the nondelegation doctrine real teeth."
Regards,
SK
Today the City of Chicago announced a new initiative called “Chicago Alfresco” which expands the city’s prior “outdoor dining program” and aims to increase “outdoor dining area and the opportunity for businesses and community organizations to design creative long-term outdoor spaces.” Importantly, the program includes grants of up to $25,000 for local community organizations to “creat[e] longer-term active community spaces that support outdoor dining or highlight community-focused placemaking, support community identity, and provide opportunities for public enjoyment.” The City’s examples of appropriate projects include “activating” (a) existing public plazas with furnishings for outdoor dining; and (b) street, curb, and alley space for dining and community gathering spaces.
First round of approvals are set for April 30, 2021. Also, there is a webinar (registration required) is set for March 26 at 3 p.m. to answer questions.
To me, this is a welcome bit of good news for Chicago. These efforts certainly would have been welcome in advance of the pandemic but to combine two lazy clichés into one mega-lazy-cliché-pun “with 2020 in our hindsight, this is better late than never.” Here’s hoping that, in addition to beautiful our City’s public spaces, this initiative helps the many hospitality, restaurant, and bar businesses so grievously injured by the pandemic get started on a recovery in anticipation of Summer 2021.
Regards,
SK
Cameron & Kane is looking for a web-designer! We have a comprehensive project document describing the specific scope of work and expectations, but, in short, we are looking for someone to redesign our firm’s several branded websites.
Cameron & Kane, LLC | https://www.cameronandkane.com/
Chicago Bike Law Firm | https://www.chicagobikelawfirm.com/
Keep Chicago Renting Legal Group | https://www.keepchicagorenting.com/
Logan Law, LLC | https://loganlawllc.com/
If you are interested, contact us today: scott@cameronandkane.com / (872) 588-0727
The abuse of copyright law to harass, silence, or extort individuals without colorable legal justification is, unfortunately, a fact of American life. I have posted about one brand of this ugly practice - bit torrent copyright trolling - on this blog a fair amount. However, that is only one of several ways Title 17 of the United States Code is abused by the unscrupulous.
For example, consider Addison Cain. In addition to being a prolific wolf-person erotica author (re-read those four words, I dare you!) and fan of inspirational “you go girl!” text Instagram posts, Ms. Cain is a serial abuser of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) notice-and-takedown process to get competitors’ works she finds distasteful or commercially threatening removed from vendors’ websites. So prolific was her DMCA abuse that Ms. Cain caught some headlines for an insane lawsuit involving her and another author concerning Ms. Cain’s DMCA abuse and, more generally, their mutual grievances concerning who was ripping off who in their notably similar wolf-person erotica efforts.
Whew. Two notes on that last SPICY paragraph. First, I never thought the words “wolf-person erotica” would ever appear on this blog. Second, while I lack the stomach to investigate the specifics of the lawsuit above, the gist I’ve gathered is that both Ms. Cain and her rival are both, essentially, mid-tier participants in a body of fan-fic literature called – I kid you not – “the Omegaverse” which is – I kid you not a second time – a hyper sexual wolf-person centric spin off of the TV show "Supernatural.”
So, into this already sordid scene enters Lindsay Ellis a charming Youtube film critic and pop culture mulcher, who, along with the equally charming Youtube legal commentator Legal Eagle, published a synopsis of the foregoing wolf-person erotica DMCA abuse lawsuit kerfuffle. I have watched the video in its entirety and can confidently say it is both very long and very entertaining. You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll cringe. It’s a great time.
Ms. Ellis’s sniggering “WOLF FIGHT” recap video might have been the end of it but Ms. Cain, perhaps on bad legal advice or perhaps because the moon was full, settled on the fight half of her fight or flight instinct and sicced her lawyers on Ms. Ellis for her Omegaverse video. Ms. Cain’s attorney wrote Ms. Ellis an email nasty-gram which, even in the realm of stupid lawyer demand letters, is a real stinker chock full of laughable threats based on inaccurate assessments of copyright and defamation law.
Embarrassing and inaccurate legal threats aside, mean letters from lawyers scare a lot of people and Ms. Ellis, to her credit, was not cowed. Instead of rolling over and playing dead, Ms. Ellis came back for more instead and published a second video responding to, and in excruciating detail, refuting each and every one of Ms. Cain’s ridiculous legal threats. Like her first video it is long, ridiculous, and really entertaining. However, more importantly, Ms. Ellis’ response video is perhaps one of the most comprehensive and accessible explanation of fair use in copyright as applied to criticism and commentary Youtube videos. Given the exploding fields of “video essays” and “video game streaming / let’s plays,” this is a topic which many content creators will find increasingly relevant in the years to come.
In conclusion, while some will be drawn to this story for its steamy lupine erotica and copyright law drama like me, there is a more general and important story here. It is the feel good story of a self-publishing content creator standing up against baseless legal threats and being hilarious doing so. See! There’s still good in this increasingly litigious and horny wolf-person eat wolf-person world of ours!
Regards,
Scott Kane
P.S. I just want to repeat that when she’s NOT starting fights with self-martyring wolf-person erotica authors, Ms. Ellis publishes very entertaining and thoughtful film reviews with a focus on musicals and Disney films. Along with House Burlington (SHAMELESS PLUG) and Red Letter Media, hers are some of my favorite reviews on Youtube. Check her out for sure.
P.P.S. Huge shout out to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They are an internet free speech and privacy advocacy group who, in addition to listing me as copyright troll defense resource, gave Ms. Ellis a lot of great legal support in the course of the foregoing drama.
P.P.P.S. In her second video, Ms. Ellis spends a lot of time lamenting that Ms. Cain and her lawyers are able to legally bully her without seeming consequence. If Ms. Ellis wanted to expand her legal knowledge on legal bullying, she would do well to research some of my favorite anachronistic legal causes of action: barratry, champerty, and maintenance!
The Illinois Supreme Court recently adopted an important new rule applicable to eviction cases filed in the state. The rule requires all eviction plaintiffs to attach certain several important documents to their complaint at its initial filing. The rule is designed, in part, to help pro se tenant-defendants “have access to the relevant information at the outset, rather than having to wait for discovery or trial to understand the nature of the allegations against them, can better understand the basis for the eviction action and be better prepared to assert timely defenses.“
The documents this new rule requires to be attached to evictions complaint are ultimately presented to the court at trial in the vast majority of eviction case. Further, read literally, the current rules of civil procedure could be read to require the attachment of these documents even without the new rule. 735 ILCS 5/2-606. Thus, there is little downside to the Supreme Court’s new rule and a fair number of upsides, including, inter alia, ensuring eviction defendants are aware of what documents will be presented as evidence well in advance of trial, eviction defendants do not waste their time if they lack the proof they will need to prevail at trial, and assisting judges in resolving their eviction cases in a more streamlined and efficient matter. Thus, we view this rule as a pragmatic win for all parties.
For trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
Scott Kane
The City of Chicago announced a $330 million lending commitment to acquire and rehabilitate 7,000 housing units on the city’s south and west sides. This commitment was joined by the Community Investment Corporation (CIC) and 40 banks. Mayor Lightfoot’s press release on the topic is copied below:
CHICAGO – Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot and Department of Housing (DOH) Commissioner Marisa Novara joined the Community Investment Corporation (CIC) today to announce a $330 million lending commitment from 40 banks for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 7,000 units of affordable rental housing on Chicago’s South and West Sides. This commitment by CIC and its investor banks is expected to finance affordable rental units in up to 400 buildings over the next five years. CIC will align their commitment with the Mayor’s INVEST South/West initiative to attract further private and philanthropic investment for equitable development and increased opportunities in neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment for decades.
"As we continue to weather the storm of COVID-19, it's our responsibility to make sure that our residents, especially those on our South and West Sides, have a place to call home and find shelter," said Mayor Lightfoot. "Partnerships with and investments from organizations like CIC and its investor banks are just what we need to ensure our communities have access to the safe, affordable housing they need now more than ever. Securing these funds and the projects they enrich will ultimately build on our ongoing neighborhood improvement initiatives such as INVEST South/West, protect the residential infrastructure of our communities, and restore the vibrancy of our economy at the local level."
The announcement was made at a CIC-financed courtyard building in the City’s South Shore neighborhood, a community where CIC has financed over $60 million to preserve 1,800 units over the past 10 years. The building is owned and operated by Anthony Oliver, who also owns 150 affordable rental units on Chicago’s South and West Sides, and represents the type of CIC borrower – local business people – who provides the vast majority of affordable housing in Chicago and throughout the country.
“This $330 million commitment to CIC represents a major effort to counter the historic disinvestment in many Chicago communities,” said CIC Chicago President Jack Markowski. “It will preserve our affordable housing stock, invest in communities that are most in need, and build and strengthen the local businesses who own and operate the buildings.”
Since 1984, CIC has provided $1.5 billion to rehab and preserve 63,000 units of affordable housing throughout Chicago. This new investment will not only create and preserve affordable rental opportunities but also increase access to credit for entrepreneurs and small business owners who are committed to neighborhood development on the South and West Sides.
“CIC has a deep knowledge of our neighborhoods and consistently supports the City’s small, community-based developers who are essential in creating and preserving affordable rental housing that our city desperately needs,” said DOH Commissioner Marisa Novara. “The majority of CIC’s borrowers are women and people of color, so when they invest in local entrepreneurs, not only do they produce affordable housing, they also build wealth for populations long denied that opportunity.”
Community Investment Corporation (CIC) is the leading source of financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental housing in the Chicago area. The roster of CIC’s 40 investors includes 31 banks that are renewing their support for CIC as well as nine banks making investments for the first time. For more information about CIC and its affordable housing programs, visit www.cicchicago.com.
This announcement is part of Mayor Lightfoot’s commitment to bring equitable investment, resources and much-needed development in many of the city’s underserved neighborhoods. Last week, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment of key, underutilized properties in three INVEST South/West neighborhoods: Auburn Gresham, Austin and Englewood. The projects will revitalize their respective neighborhoods with quality-of-life amenities, job and mixed-income housing projects that leverage local transit and advance long-established community goals. For more information about the RFPs and to submit a proposal visit, Chicago.gov/investsw.
The Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CLRTO,” Chi. Mun. Code § 5-12-010 et seq.) is a landmark tenants’ rights ordinance enacted during Harold Washington’s tenure as the city’s mayor in 1986. The CRLTO has an expansive scope making quick summary impossible but can be generally understood as “pro-tenant” legislation that vests rights in the city’s residential tenants not otherwise provided by common law or state statute. If you are curious, the City of Chicago maintains a website with a brief summary and the actual text of the CRLTO here.
The CRLTO has been remarkably contentious since its enactment – tenants generally love it and landlords generally hate it. Despite this, and excepting several small trivial amendments, there has been an unofficial “détente” between the city’s various lobbying groups since the CRLTO’s initial passage. No one wants to touch it for risk of opening the floodgates of amendment which may, ultimately, make things worse from their perspective. As a result, the CRLTO and the general landscape of landlord-tenant legal relations in the city have remained largely unchanged since its enactment.
However, earlier this year three coronavirus-response ordinances were proposed in the Chicago City Council. Each of these ordinance (BRIEFLY summarized infra) facially attempted to amend the CRLTO in one substantive way or another.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Better Housing / Progressive Caucus’ “Just Cause” ordinance (O2020-3449), an expansive re-writing of landlord-tenant law including, inter alia, limiting the reasons a landlord can lawfully evict a tenant to those specifically enumerated by the ordinance and mandating a landlord pay tenants a relocation assistance fee of $10,600 some certain types of evictions.
The Progressive Caucus’ “Rent Relief” ordinance (O2020-2235), a temporarily halting of evictions for nonpayment caused by corona-virus related economic hardship.
Mayor Lightfoot’s “Fair Notice” ordinance (O2020-2862), which, as originally drafted, lengthened the notice period a landlord must give a tenant before not renewing their rental agreement and providing for relocation assistance of $2,500 under some specific circumstances.
Since being introduced, the “Just Cause” ordinance and “Rent Relief” ordinance described above have been sent around the City Council’s various committees for review, hearing, and argument. Not so, for the Mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance!
The Mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance was passed into law on July 22, 2020 after some extremely important last-minute negotiations and amendments which completely dwarf the importance of the “notice” provisions of the ordinance. Specifically, an amendment which “swapped out” the limited scope relocation fee provision described supra and “swapped in” a one-time tenant “right to cure” a prior rent default by paying all back rent then due as well as the landlord’s accumulated costs (excluding attorneys’ fees) at any time prior to entry of an eviction order. CRLTO § 130(a). This “right to cure” is broadly analogous to the statutory right of reinstatement in Illinois mortgage foreclosure proceedings, though, again, details vary. 735 ILCS 5/15-1602.
I have prosecuted and defended countless eviction actions in Chicago during my practice and, risking immodesty, know a quite a bit about evictions and landlord-tenant law in Chicago generally. So, please believe me when I say that this new tenant “right to cure” is a seismic shift in the practical realities of Chicago evictions. Tenants will now have the option to fix their previous non-payment of rent by ponying up all amounts due plus the landlord’s costs. This will allow the tenant to stay in their home while making the landlord “almost but not completely whole” – remember the landlord is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or interest. Landlords will need to pay sharp attention to this dynamic moving forward and, at the very least, make sure that the court and tenant are updated regularly on the total amount of rent and costs due to avoid being shortchanged should a tenant so elect to cure.
Setting aside the several other massive simultaneous legal changes to landlord-tenant relationships ALSO going on in Illinois – eviction moratorium, etc. – this change alone means we are starting a whole new chapter in Chicago evictions and, if you’ll forgive the shameless self-promotion, it will definitely pay to have a good lawyer on both sides of the case caption.
On that note, for trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
Scott Kane
CBS Chicago has a great write up on the status on the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance previously addressed on our firm’s blog / website. Here’s the link with the text below.
CHICAGO (CBS) — Less than a week after advancing an ordinance to require landlords to give long-term tenants more notice before terminating or not renewing their lease, or raising their rent, aldermen on Monday resurrected a proposal that would provide even greater protections for tenants.
The so-called “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance had been sent to the City Council Rules Committee, where legislation opposed by the mayor is typically sent to languish without a vote. But after Mayor Lori Lightfoot said last month she wanted aldermen to debate the proposal, the Rules Committee on Monday sent the measure to the Housing Committee, where it could get a public hearing after the next meeting of the full City Council.
However, the measure could face an uphill battle for passage, as the mayor opposes it, meaning even if a majority of aldermen support the plan, they would need 34 out of 50 votes to override a potential veto.
Chicago currently allows “no-fault” evictions, but the ordinance backed by a group of progressive aldermen seeks to put an end to that.
The “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance would allow landlords to go to court to evict a tenant only if the landlord can establish the tenant has not paid rent, has violated the terms of their lease, or refuses the landlord’s request to renew or extend their lease. A landlord also could seek to evict a tenant so the owner or a close relative (spouse, child, parent, grandparent, sibling or grandchild) can move into the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 months; if the owner plans to sell the unit as a condominium conversion; if significant repairs or renovations are required; or if the owner plans to demolish the unit.
The measure also would require most landlords to provide a $10,600 relocation fee to tenants being forced to move out for repairs, demolition, condo conversion, or to allow the owner or a relative to live there. Owners of buildings with four or fewer units would be required to pay a lower relocation fee under those circumstances, with the fee dependent on the reasons for the eviction, and the median monthly Chicago rent for an apartment with the same number of bedrooms.
In addition, the ordinance would require landlords to give tenants anywhere from 30 days’ to 120 days’ notice before raising their rent:
30 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of up to 5%;60 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of at least 5% but less than 10%;90 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of at least 10% but less than 15%;120 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of 15% or more.
If a landlord were to increase a tenant’s rent by 20% or more within 12 months, the renter would be allowed to reject the rent hike, and vacate the premises before the required notice period has ended, and the landlord would be required to provide the tenant with a relocation fee within 14 days of the renter’s rejection.
Any rent increase of 50% or more within 12 months would be deemed “excessive, unconscionable, and against public policy.”
A handful of groups representing landlords and property owners spoke out in opposition to the ordinance Monday before it was sent to the Housing Committee.
Real estate attorney Ebony Lucas said the relocation fees could force landlords to raise rents, because the fees are not tied to the amount of rent paid, whether or not a tenant is current on their rent payments, or the condition of a unit when it is turned back over to the landlord. She said most landlords would struggle to make enough profit in one year to pay for a single $10,600 location fee.
Clint Sabin, with the Neighborhood Building Owners’ Alliance, said many landlords are already struggling to keep their buildings open and pay their own bills during the pandemic, because so many tenants can’t afford to pay their full rent.
“We aren’t asking grocery stores to give away free food, or pharmacies to give away free medication or diapers, but we are asking housing providers to give away free homes,” he said. “Adding a resident’s right to a unit forever, on top of added regulations and burdens such as increased notifications, is risking the ability of our neighborhood housing providers to keep their properties, and increasing the chance they’ll sell them to giant, faceless corporations.”
The ordinance could be called for a hearing at anytime after the next full City Council meeting on Wednesday, although the following City Council meeting won’t happen until September, due to the council’s annual summer break in August.
The provisions of the “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance go much further to protect tenants than the mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance, which was backed by the Housing Committee last week. That ordinance, up for a final vote on Wednesday, would require landlords to give long-term tenants up to four months’ notice before terminating or not renewing their lease, or raising their rent.
Under the mayor’s proposal, landlords would be required to give 60 days’ notice to tenants who have lived in their unit between 6 months and 3 years before ending their lease; 120 days’ notice would be required for tenants who have lived in their home for more than 3 years. The current 30 days’ notice would stay for tenants who have lived in a unit for less than 6 months.
This is the first in a series on recent events in Cook County corruption. Stay tuned for more on Michael Cabonargi, Dan Patlak, Larry Rodgers, Joseph Berrios, and more.
Michael Madigan has been the most powerful man in Illinois for several decades now. He runs both the state legislature and state Democratic party through both (a) his de jure powers as the Chair of the Illinois Democratic Party, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, and Member of the Illinois House of Representatives (22nd district); and (b) his de facto power as the spider in a seemingly endless web of campaign contributions, patronage appointments, and electioneering. He is, to cop a crude video game metaphor, the “final boss” of machine politics in Illinois and probably the country.
On July 17, 2020, Jon Lausch, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, filed criminal charges against ComEd alleging, inter alia, that the public utility engaged in an expansive bribery scheme to buy influence in the Illinois General Assembly. However, more interesting than the state’s charges are ComEd’s sworn averments that between 2011 and 2019, they did, in fact, bribe Speaker Madigan and his subordinates with “jobs [involving little to no work], vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments […]” to curry his favor in the state house. These averments flatly admit to criminal activity and further agree to pay $200,000,000 and fully cooperate with the government in exchange for dismissal of the charges.
That same day, subpoenas – court orders demanding the production of documents and testimony – were delivered to Speaker Madigan’s office seeking information about his political organization, law firm, and a laundry list of political allies including former alderman, state representative, and precinct captains. Specifically named were Will Cousineau, Frank Clark, Frank Olivo, Ed Moody, Shaw Decremer, Michael Zalewski, Ray Nice, and Eddie Acevedo – all of whom were / are part of Speaker Madigan’s political apparatus.
The entire situation was adeptly summarized by Rich Miller at the Chicago Sun-Times as follows: “One of the most politically powerful entities in this state, ComEd, has basically admitted bribing the most politically powerful person in this state, House Speaker Michael Madigan.” Personally, I would remove the “basically” from that sentence but, hey, that’s just me.
Speaker Madigan’s office responded to the foregoing by (a) categorically denying any wrongdoing in any capacity ever and saying any claims to the contrary are “unfounded;” and (b) downplaying the subpoenas as seeking “among other things, documents related to possible job recommendations.” The former statement is insultingly stupid as it requires it’s audience to believe that when a fifteen billion dollar company admits under oath that they bribed a man for eight years, paid $200,000,000 as contrition for such bribes, and rolled over like a dog to avoid being reamed by the federal government, this is not a good “foundation” for concluding maybe – just maybe – some actual bribery occurred. The latter statement is an obvious mischaracterization as, if you read the subponea – which requests documents on twelve different topics ranging from several disgraced former public officials to ComEd, Walgreen, and Rush medical – and conclude that the document is about “job descriptions,” you need your head examined.
Governor Pritzker - who is, probably, the second most powerful man in Illinois - has stated that if these allegations are true, Speaker Madigan “must resign.” Two other Democratic “Madigan friendly” legislators - Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, D-Oswego and Rep. Kelly Cassidy - joined the Governor in his condemnation and conclusion. While what will come of this is, obviously, quite uncertain, the list of Madigan associates already compromised (Danny Solis, Kevin Quinn, et al.) is so long and the mountain of evidence implicating those remaining Madigan associates is so high, I suspect someone is gonna flip like a flapjack to get out of the griddle and turn on Uncle Mike.
The City of Chicago scheduled several new ordinances and regulations to go into effect on July 1, 2020. These new laws are very important and briefly summarized below. If you would like to speak with a lawyer regarding your rights as an employee or your responsibilities as an employer contact Cameron & Kane LLC today: (872) 588-0727 // info@cameronandkane.com.
Chicago’s Fair Workweek Ordinance (and associated rule) requires employers in certain industries to give certain employees (a) advance notice of their work schedule; (b) provide 1 hour of “predictability pay” for any shift change within 10 days, and (c) the right to decline both (i) previously unscheduled hours and (ii) hours less than 10 hours after the end of the previous day’s shift.
Chicago’s Minimum Wage Ordinance updated the minimum wage to $14.00 an hour for most covered employees. Similarly, the minimum wage for most tipped employees was raised to $8.40 an hour. Additionally, new rules were promulgated which established new notice and bookkeeping requirements.
Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was amended to expand coverage to (a) several categories of employees and (b) all employers with at least one covered employee, regardless of whether the employer has a Chicago worksite or is subject to business license requirements. Additionally, new rules were promulgated which established new notice and bookkeeping requirements.
Chicago’s COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance was enacted to bar employers from firing, demoting, or taking any other adverse action against an employee in Chicago for obeying government orders or some qualifying orders of healthcare providers to stay at home, quarantine, or isolate due to COVID-19.
Regards,
SK
I received several calls to submit witness slips in support of the "COVID-19 Emergency and Economic Recovery Renter and Homeowner Protection Act" today.* Curious about the topic, I googled the bill’s title and found a fair number of articles on it. A lot of the reporting on this bill, like the Tribune and The Real Deal articles below, states that the bill would "cancel rent debt" and "suspend mortgage payments."
However, after a little digging, I found that the bill in its current state (SB 3066 House Amendment 003) definitely does NOT do those things, though the substance of the bill as presently proposed is still pretty wild. I'll give a walk through on the bill as proposed - and other proposed legislation - in the days to come. Spoiler warning: statewide total eviction moratorium may be incoming.
To be clear, I don't think that this reporting inaccuracy is "on purpose," as an earlier version of the bill (HB5574 House Amendment 001) DID set out to accomplish these things and most of these articles were published prior to the present amendments. However, this reporting has not been updated / corrected to my knowledge and, as our legislators debate on whether to enact this bill into law, think it's important that people understand, at least in broad strokes, what the bill does and does not do.
Regards,
Scott Kane
* To their credit, Chicago Housing Initiative and United Neighbors of the 35th Ward were both able to accurately describe the bill’s contents as of this morning.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-re-coronavirus-rent-relief-legislation-20200520-6cog3rewubhzjauxbtjzn5zgrm-story.html
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2020/05/20/illinois-legislators-to-vote-on-massive-rent-mortgage-relief-package-this-week/
The city of Chicago has issued a new grant for means-tested emergency rent and mortgage assistance for those financially impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. As reported by Curbed Chicago:
“The application window is short—between Friday, March 27 to Wednesday, April 1. So, if you need help submit information through an online form. Applicants who are selected will be entered into a lottery and hear back in a few days from the Department of Housing. Specifically for renters, there is an emergency financial assistance in order to prevent homelessness or those who are at risk of eviction.
Specifically for renters, there is an emergency financial assistance in order to prevent homelessness or those who are at risk of eviction. In order to apply, residents must get an application packet from one of the city’s community service centers and mail it in (this process still stands, even with the stay-at-home order). Once approved, the payments will be made directly to the property owner or landlord.”
Those struggling with rent or mortgage obligations may wish to review the standards for assistance and apply.
Regards,
Scott Kane
Federal, state, and local governments – including Chicago – have recently announced several loan programs available to small-businesses negatively impacted by the coronavirus. These loan programs are specifically intended to help small businesses cover (a) employee payroll; (b) fixed debts; and (c) accounts payable. Further, these loans are notable for their generous interest rates / repayment terms. Some pending legislation even raises the possibility for total forgiveness of loans taken through these programs.
Cameron & Kane LLC’s attorneys have been trained on how to apply for these loan programs and is ready to help your small business apply. Competition for these loans will undoubtedly be high, so contact us today to help maximize your business’ chances to receive this vital assistance. 872-588-0727 / info@cameronandkane.com
PLEASE NOTE, while we are able and willing to work to accommodate our clients’ financial situation, this service is NOT free and will require at least partial payment of fees in advance.
Last week, the Governor of Illinois, J.D. Pritzker, ordered the state-wide closure of dine-in services for Illinois bars and restaurants to help combat the spread of the Coronavirus. While we agree with our Governor’s difficult but prudent decision given the importance of containment of this virus, we are also aware of the enormous financial strain this places on our neighborhood’s bars and restaurants - especially their staff.
Accordingly, Cameron & Kane LLC has made donations to several Logan Square bar and restaurant staff relief funds including, inter alia, the following:
Cafe Mustache (host of our firm’s monthly jazz series) - https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-cafe-mustache-staff?fbclid=IwAR1CTjYjt1Hkbb_jnkbR9WjceDbfcH1OiaMQfXOB66NSt0XFLz9TpHSOf8A
The Whistler (host of several of our firm’s meet-ups and mixers) - https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-whistler-empoyee-fund
Lula Cafe (host of several client meetings) - https://www.gofundme.com/f/lula-cafe-staff-relief-fund
The Burlington Bar (a favorite establishment of Scott Kane) - https://www.gofundme.com/f/burlington-bar-workers-relief-fund
Chicago Diner (a favorite establishment of Colin Cameron) - https://www.gofundme.com/f/chicago-diner-logan-square-employee-relief-fund
If you are a local / patron of these establishments and able to assist during this difficult time, we encourage you do to so.
Regards,
Scott Kane
Read MoreA new wave of copyright troll litigation has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois (a federal court covering northern Illinois). These copyright troll lawsuits allege - often without any good faith basis in fact or law - that large groups of individual has used the BitTorrent protocol to download their protected work - normally failed films or pornography - and abuse the civil justice system to subpoena personal information about the defendants and extort the same for money.
Cameron & Kane LLC’s Scott Kane has been identified by the Electronic Freedom Frontier as a Defense Resource for defendants in these cases. If you have questions or need legal representation in these suits, contact Cameron & Kane LLC today. (872) 588-0727 / info@cameronandkane.com
*** THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR SHOULD YOU RELY UPON IT AS THE SAME ***
On March 13, 2020, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans of the Circuit Court of Cook County issued General Administrative Order 2020-0001 (“Order”). The Order, seeking to help mitigate the spread of the Coronavirus / COVID-19, essentially “paused” the vast majority of legal matters before the Court and rescheduled them for continuation in thirty days.
The Order also ordered:
The Sheriff of Cook County to “cease execution of eviction orders relating to residential real estate effective March 14, 2020 [… for …] 30 days.” This means that no residential tenant within Cook County will be forcibly removed from the property they occupy by the Sheriff for that time period.
The Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County to effectuate a “moratorium on final judgments and executions of judgments in mortgage foreclosure proceedings. This means that there will be a temporary pause on the final stages of foreclosure lawsuits.
A suspension on Grand Jury empanelings until May 1, 2020 and an extension of any currently empaneled Grand Juries to cover the gap.
Please note that the foregoing explicitly does not relieve parties of their general legal duties vis a vis rent, mortgage payment, or jury service.
We, at Cameron & Kane LLC, are sincerely pleased to hear of our primary court’s leadership taking proactive health and safety measures in these trying times. We have incorporated this “pause” into our practice and are working diligently to ensure our clients’ matters before the Circuit Court of Cook County continue to be zealously advocated for.
*** AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR IS THIS FIRM ADVISING YOU TO TAKE OR FOREBEAR FROM ANY COURSE OF ACTION ***
The 2020 Illinois primaries are tomorrow - March 17, 2020. As always, I’d like to remind everyone that (a) Illinois state judges are ELECTED; and (b) because Cook County votes so predominantly Democratic, the primary elections are de facto elections for office.
To that end, I’d like to provide a link to a handful of bar associations’ “ratings / qualifications” pamphlets. It’s important to remember that bar associations are private associations of legal practitioners. So, while these ratings carry the important weight of experience and investment in the legal field, they are emphatically NOT governmental or “official” rating.
Bar association ratings generally just state whether they think a judicial candidate is “qualified” or not - so you may see multiple “qualified” candidates for the same office. That is intentional. The bar associations are merely trying to state whether each particular candidate is fit for the office they seek, not to explicitly endorse a particular candidate over another.
You can briefly review three bar association guides below. Select one, print out the guide linked to it, and take to the polls with you to help you vote. If you needed my personal recommendation, I say go for the Chicago Bar Association (Click on the “March 17, 2020 Pocket Guide”) at the top of my list because it is the shortest and easiest to read.
Chicago Bar Association (Click on the “March 17, 2020 Pocket Guide”) - https://www.chicagobar.org/chicagobar/CBA/Programs/Judicial_Evaluation/Judicial_Voters_Guide/CBA/JEC/Judicial_Voters_Guide.aspx
Chicago Council of Lawyers - http://chicagocouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CCL-sample-ballot2020-version1-with-correction.pdf
Illinois State Bar Association - https://www.isba.org/sites/default/files/judicialevaluations/2020primary/ISBA%202020%20Cook%20Primary%20Election%20Ratings.pdf
However, please note there there are a multitude of bar associations which are generally organized on the basis of geography, ideology, or identity. If interested, you can google “bar association __________” with whatever criterion you think would “speak” to you. Or, alternative, go to VoteforJudge.com (ballot guide here: https://www.voteforjudges.org/#1582042744415-8fddcc23-8a11) for a multi-association summary of Illinois judicial recommendations.
Lastly, though it should go without saying, please exercise caution for yourself and others while voting. Your polling location should make voting a clean and quick process, but I would recommend you take additional precautions; e.g. hand sanitizer.