Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Yes, Eco-Terrorists Are Real Terrorists

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:November 15, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Environmental Law Federal Criminal Law & Process Federal Sentencing Seventh Circuit

seventh-circuit51 On the night of July 20, 2000, Katherine Christianson, Bryan Rivera, and two companions damaged or destroyed more than 500 trees at a United States Forest Service facility. Was it a prank? A dare? A harvest for the thneed industry? No, Christianson and Rivera were members of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front, and their target was the Forest Service’s genetic-engineering experiments on trees in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. ELF issued a press release the next day claiming responsibility for the attack and asserting that “the Forest Service, like industry, are [sic] capitalists driven by insane desire to make money and control life.”

Eight years later, Christianson and Rivera pled guilty to destroying government property and were sentenced to two and three years of prison, respectively. On appeal, Rivera challenged the district judge’s decision to apply the terrorism enhancement of the sentencing guidelines. He argued that he was not a terrorist because his motivation was “the hope of saving our earth from destruction.” The Seventh Circuit, however, rejected his argument and affirmed the sentence in United States v. Christianson (No. 09-1526) (Manion, J.).

Feingold: Sept. 11 Prosecutions Will Advance Justice and American World Standing

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:November 13, 2009
Post category:International Law & Diplomacy Speakers at Marquette U.S. Supreme Court

The decision to prosecute five people accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in federal court in New York drew support Friday from US Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in comments at a one-hour discussion at Marquette University Law School.

“That’s the way to go,” said Feingold, who has been highly critical of the long confinement, without trial, of the suspects at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

At the same time, US Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced that several other suspected terrorists will be tried in military courts. That group includes Ad Al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who allegedly planned another major attack, the bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in 2000 in Yemen.

The decisions to go the two different routes in the cases will provide an interesting opportunity to compare civil and military handling of cases of this kind, Feingold told Mike Gousha, who moderated the session and who is a distinguished fellow in law and public policy at the Law School.

Feingold said bringing the Sept. 11 suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, who has claimed he masterminded the attacks, into civil courts and allowing the justice system to proceed to a verdict on their cases is the appropriate course, said Feingold, a member of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. “This advances not only our legal system, but our credibility in the world,” he said.

Important Caterpillar 401(k) Fees Litigation On The Way to Settlement

Post author:Paul M. Secunda
Post published:November 13, 2009
Post category:Labor & Employment Law

From Forbes.com yesterday:

In the war over hidden and excessive 401(k) fees, investors may have won a battle in Illinois.

Caterpillar, the heavy equipment manufacturer in Peoria, Ill. has agreed to settle a class action alleging that employees and retirees in its 401(k) plans were overcharged by potentially millions of dollars.

If a federal judge and independent fiduciary approve the deal the parties struck, Caterpillar will pay $16.5 million to settle the case. More importantly, it has agreed to make changes to its 401(k) plan that could potentially save employees millions of dollars. More important still, it may set a precedent for other companies to follow . . . .

The Caterpillar plan’s record-keeping fees would be limited, according to the memorandum on file with the court. Record-keeping fees can add substantially to investor costs. The fees are often based on assets under management, so an investor pays more as his or her balance increases. At Caterpillar, such fees will henceforth be calculated on a flat or per-participant basis . . . .

The settlement is a rare victory for investor advocates. In February, in a 401(k) case against Deere & Co., a federal appeals court judge ruled in favor of the employer. Jerome Schlichter, the plaintiffs’ attorney with Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, who handled both the Caterpillar and Deere suits, has sued a dozen other companies over their 401(k) plans, including Exelon, General Dynamics and International Paper. He says he is appealing the Deere case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is already hearing a separate case, Jones vs. Harris Associates, which involves the question of whether mutual funds over-charge for their services.

It might be appear to be common sense for companies to engage in these types of disclosures with regard to plan fees, but litigation is proving that such is not the case.

William Birdthistle (Chicago-Kent) and I previously wrote an amicus brief in the Hecker v. Deere case that is referred to above and it discusses some of these very inequities that currently exist in the way participants in 401(k) plans are charged for mutual fund fees. I have also joined an amicus cert. brief in the Deere case which will be filed this Monday.