Court rules France failed to respect its climate change goal

A Paris court on Wednesday ruled that the French state failed to take sufficient action to fight climate change in a case brought by four nongovernmental organizations. The NGOs cheered the decision as “historic” for their country and a boon to those elsewhere using the law to push their governments in the fight against global warming. The four organizations are Greenpeace France, Oxfam France, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation and Notre Affaire a Tous (Our Shared Responsibility). In its ruling, the administrative court recognized ecological “deficiencies” linked to climate change and held the French state responsible for failing to fully meet its goals in reducing greenhouse gases. The government said in a statement that it “took note” of the decision, and provided a list of actions in the pipeline to “allow France to respect in the future the objectives it set.” Government spokesman Gabriel Attal went further, acknowledging at a regular briefing that the country has fallen behind on its goals. “It’s perfectly fair to say that our country has been lagging behind these past years in the fight against climate change,” he responded to a question. But he added that “we are tackling these issues.” Among other things, he cited 30 billion euros earmarked for greener energy policies. A bill is being introduced next week in the Cabinet that includes measures to support renovation of high energy-consuming buildings and encourage greener transport. President Emmanuel Macron, who has been very vocal about his support for climate change action, pushed in December for beefing up the European Union’s 2030 targets to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 55% compared with 1990 levels ? up from the previous 40% target. But Oxfam France, Greenpeace France and the two other organizations contended that Macron’s lobbying for global climate action is not backed up by sufficient domestic measures to curb emissions blamed for global warming. France is missing its national targets that had been set under the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb climate change, and the country has delayed most of its efforts until after 2020. The court ruled that there was a link between ecological damage and deficiencies by the state in respecting its own goals. It decided that awarding money wasn’t appropriate in this case. Instead, reparations should center on fixing the failure to respect goals for lowering greenhouse gases. The court gave itself two months to study measures to repair the problem and stop it from getting worse. It did, however, ask the French state to pay each of the four organizations that brought the action a symbolic euro each, a common practice in France. The four NGOs that brought the case called the decision “a first historic victory for the climate” as well as a “victory for truth,” saying that until now France has denied the “insufficiency of its climate policies.” The decision “shows the state has a special responsibility in the climate fight ... Emmanuel Macron, more than other heads of state, spoke out strongly on the subject. Today, he cannot remain silent,” Greenpeace France chief Jean-Francois Julliard said at a news conference. The decision “goes beyond French borders,” he added, because it can help those fighting such battles in other countries. The French NGOs got advice from colleagues in the Netherlands where the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment for the Urgenda environmental group that ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The government responded with a package of measures that included shutting or reducing capacity at coal-fired power stations and subsidizing moves to promote sustainable energy. Urgenda director Marjan Minnesma told The Associated Press on Wednesday that it’s not yet clear if the Dutch government achieved the emissions reduction mandated by the court, but that the economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus helped and they may be “nearly there.” Minnesma said she is “super happy” with the French case.

Tips for Avoiding Common Workers’ Compensation Pitfalls

Workers’ compensation is an insurance program. If you have sustained an injury or illness at work, filing a workers’ compensation claim may provide compensation for your medical bills and lost wages. Unfortunately, the claims process can be complicated and confusing, which is why workers often make mistakes along the way. Some of the common mistakes that hurt workers’ recoveries are often avoidable if you know your rights. Avoid these mistakes to get the best settlement: Failing to Report the Injury You cannot get workers’ comp benefits without reporting your injury to your employer. For most injuries in Illinois, employees have 45 days from the accident to tell their employer about the injury. Not Seeking Treatment If you’ve sustained any injury, you need to be seen by a physician immediately. Your doctor can document your injury, symptoms and treatment plan, which will make it easier to be awarded just compensation. Failing to Keep Accurate Records After suffering a workplace injury or illness, it is crucial to keep accurate and detailed records. This means documenting the time missed from work due to the condition as well as all expenses related to medical treatment. Not Following Your Doctor’s Orders Working beyond your doctor’s restrictions and treatment plan not only puts your healing in jeopardy, but the insurance company can also invalidate your claim if you do. Representing Yourself Don’t make the mistake of representing yourself in your workers’ compensation claim. A skilled lawyer will make sure you file all the necessary paperwork and meet all the critical deadlines. An experienced attorney will also know how to gather and present the evidence supporting your case, and the best strategies of negotiating with insurance companies. It is best to consult an experienced Illinois worker’s compensation attorney as soon as possible to ensure that no problems occur due to delays in providing notice and filing your Illinois worker’s compensation claim. At Krol, Bongiorno & Given, we have handled well over 30,000 claims for injured workers throughout the state of Illinois. Call us at (312) 726-5567 for a free consultation or contact us online.

More protests called in Moscow to demand Navalny’s release

Moscow braced for more protests seeking the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who faces a court hearing Tuesday after two weekends of nationwide rallies and thousands of arrests in the largest outpouring of discontent in Russia in years. Tens of thousands filled the streets across the vast country Sunday, chanting slogans against President Vladimir Putin and demanding freedom for Navalny, who was jailed last month and faces years in prison. Over 5,400 protesters were detained by authorities, according to a human rights group. One of those taken into custody for several hours was Navalny’s wife, Yulia, who was ordered Monday to pay a fine of about $265 for participating in an unauthorized rally. While state-run media dismissed the demonstrations as small and claimed that they showed the failure of the opposition, Navalny’s team said the turnout demonstrated “overwhelming nationwide support” for the Kremlin’s fiercest critic. His allies called for protesters to come to the Moscow courthouse on Tuesday. “Without your help, we won’t be able to resist the lawlessness of the authorities,” his politician’s team said in a social media post. Mass protests engulfed dozens of Russian cities for the second weekend in a row despite efforts by authorities to stifle the unrest triggered by the jailing of 44-year-old Navalny. He was arrested Jan. 17 upon returning from Germany, where he spent five months recovering from nerve-agent poisoning that he blames on the Kremlin. Russian authorities reject the accusation. He faces a prison term for alleged probation violations from a 2014 money-laundering conviction that is widely seen as politically motivated. Last month, Russia’s prison service filed a motion to replace his 3 1/2-year suspended sentence from the conviction with one he must serve. The Prosecutor General’s office backed the motion Monday, alleging Navalny engaged in “unlawful conduct” during the probation period.

US Supreme Court won’t take up Sheldon Silver’s case

The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up the case of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who is serving a 6 1/2-year prison sentence after being convicted in a corruption case. The high court’s decision not to hear Silver’s appeal is another sharp blow to the Manhattan Democrat, who was once one of the three most powerful state officials. Silver was ousted as speaker in 2015 and was convicted later that year. His original conviction was overturned on appeal, but he was convicted again in 2018. Part of that conviction was then tossed out on another appeal, leading to yet another sentencing in July. Silver, 76, began serving his sentence in August. In the part of the case that survived the appeal process, Silver was convicted in a scheme that involved favors and business traded between two real estate developers and a law firm. Silver supported legislation that benefited the developers. The developers then referred certain tax business to a law firm that paid Silver fees. Two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, said they would have heard Silver’s case. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump was considering clemency for Silver, but ultimately no pardon or sentence reduction was granted. Silver has been serving time at the federal prison in Otisville, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) from New York City. Before his conviction, Silver was a giant in New York politics. First elected to the Assembly in 1977, he became speaker in 1994, holding that position for more than two decades. For nearly half that time, during the administration of Republican Gov. George Pataki, he was the most powerful Democrat in the state. Silver’s lawyers had asked the court to consider allowing him to serve his sentence at home because of the risk of contracting COVID-19 and dying in prison. But District Judge Valerie Caproni said issuing a sentence without prison time was inappropriate because Silver was guilty of “corruption, pure and simple.”

Woman accused of helping steal Pelosi laptop freed from jail

A Pennsylvania woman facing charges that she helped steal a laptop from the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the attack on the U.S. Capitol will be released from jail, a federal judge decided Thursday. U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson directed that Riley June Williams be released into the custody of her mother, with travel restrictions, and instructed her to appear Monday in federal court in Washington to continue her case. “The gravity of these offenses is great,” Carlson told Williams. “It cannot be overstated.” Williams, 22, of Harrisburg, is accused of theft, obstruction and trespassing, as well as violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Carlson noted Williams has no prior criminal record. The FBI says an unidentified former romantic partner of Williams tipped them off that she appeared in video from the Jan. 6 rioting and the tipster claimed she had hoped to sell the computer to Russian intelligence. Williams’ defense lawyer, Lori Ulrich, told Carlson the tipster is a former boyfriend who had been abusive to Williams and that “his accusations are overstated.” Video from the riot shows a woman matching Williams’ description exhorting invaders to go “upstairs, upstairs, upstairs” during the attack, which briefly disrupted certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory. “It is regrettable that Ms. Williams took the president’s bait and went inside the Capitol,” Ulrich told the judge. Williams surrendered to face charges on Monday. She was expected to leave the county jail in Harrisburg later Thursday, and will be on electronic monitoring to await trial.

Supreme Court won't hear PA abortion clinic free speech case

The Supreme Court is declining to get involved in a case about free speech outside a Pittsburgh abortion clinic. The high court turned away the case Monday. The court's decision not to hear the case leaves in place a 2019 appeals court decision that upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance creating a 15-foot “buffer zone” where protests are barred around entrances to health care facilities. The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed “sidewalk counseling” within that zone. The appeals court said the city can restrict congregating, picketing, patrolling and demonstrating in the immediate vicinity of clinics, but the zone restrictions do not apply to “calm and peaceful” one-on-one conversations by anti-abortion activists seeking to speak with women entering a clinic. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he agreed with the court's decision not to take up this particular case because it "involves unclear, preliminary questions about the proper interpretation of state law." But he said the court should take up the issue of buffer zones in an appropriate case.

Arizona Supreme Court upholds election challenge dismissal

 The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court decision dismissing the last in a series of challenges that sought to decerify Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

The high court ruling is the second time the majority-Republican court has turned aside an appeal of a court loss by backers of President Donald Trump seeking to overturn the results of the election. In all, eight lawsuits challenging Biden’s Arizona win have failed. It comes the day before a divided Congress is set to certify Biden’s victory.

Tuesday’s ruling from a four-judge panel of the high court agreed with a trial court judge in Pinal County that plaintiff Staci Burk lacked the right to contest the election. That’s because she wasn’t a registered voter at the time she filed her lawsuit, as required in state election contests. Both courts also agreed that she made her legal challenge too late, after the five-day period for filing such an action had passed.

Burk said in her lawsuit that she was a qualified Arizona voter, but officials said they discovered she wasn’t registered to vote. She later said she mistakenly thought “qualified electors” were people who were merely eligible to vote, and that her voter registration was canceled because election workers were unable to verify her address.

The Supreme Court said the fact that she wasn’t a registered voter was fatal to her ability to file an election challenge and that Burk admitted she knew she wasn’t registered.

“There is nothing before the Court to indicate that Appellant timely contacted the appropriate authorities to correct any problems with her voter registration,” Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote. “An election challenge ... is not the proper vehicle to reinstate voter registration.”

Biden won the state over Republican President Donald Trump by more than 10,000 votes and the results were certified last month.

The lawsuit brought by Burk, who isn’t a lawyer but represented herself, is nearly identical to a lawsuit dismissed in early December in federal court in Phoenix.

Burk’s lawsuit alleged Arizona’s election systems have security flaws that let election workers and foreign countries manipulate results. Opposing attorneys said the lawsuit used conspiracy theories to make allegations against a voting equipment vendor without any proof to back up claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona.

No evidence of voter or election fraud has emerged in Arizona. Despite that, Republicans who control the Legislature are pushing to review how Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, ran its election. Two subpoenas issued by the state Senate seeking an audit and to review voting machines, ballots and other materials are being challenged by Maricopa County.

Two of the failed legal challenges focused on the use of Sharpies to complete ballots were dismissed. Another lawsuit in which the Trump campaign sought inspection of ballots was dismissed after the campaign’s lawyer acknowledged the small number of ballots at issue wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

A judge dismissed a lawsuit in which the Arizona Republican Party tried to determine whether voting machines had been hacked.

Then a separate challenge by Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward was tossed out by a judge who concluded the Republican leader failed to prove fraud and that the evidence presented at trial wouldn’t reverse Trump’s defeat. The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in an earlier ruling.

And a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, who alleged widespread election fraud through the manipulation of voting equipment. Burk’s lawsuit repeated some of Powell’s allegations word-for-word.