Gamma Posted January 31, 2016 at 09:58 AM Share Posted January 31, 2016 at 09:58 AM I especially love the way that the plaintiff's lawyer cleverly paints the parallel of Nazi-esque arms control to the defendant's behavior and actually gets her to essentially cop to it: When it is pointed out to Defendant that it is equally difficult to perform background checks on residents and non-residents, Defendant invokes the so called “Nuremburg defense”. A. I follow what is put forth in front of me.Q. You’re just following ordersA. Well, if you want to simplify it, yes. Even funnier is that in the deposition Exhibit B, literally every time the state's counsel Bilal objects, Maag tells Trame that she can answer the question. It's like watching a petulant kid continually trying to butt in and being told, "Shut up, junior."One thing I thought might have been instructive in that exchange. She's supposed to be the director of these programs. Who is putting the instructions in front of her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted February 1, 2016 at 01:07 AM Share Posted February 1, 2016 at 01:07 AM Depositions are part of pre-trial discovery. There is no judge present (At least in none to which I've been a party), and it's typically done at the office of one of the lawyers. Either lawyer may object to a question posed their client during examination, but the person must still answer the question. If the objection has merit, a judge will not allow the Q and A to be used at trial, but the deposition goes ahead until then. Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
out in the tall grass Posted February 1, 2016 at 02:39 AM Share Posted February 1, 2016 at 02:39 AM I especially love the way that the plaintiff's lawyer cleverly paints the parallel of Nazi-esque arms control to the defendant's behavior and actually gets her to essentially cop to it: When it is pointed out to Defendant that it is equally difficult to perform background checks on residents and non-residents, Defendant invokes the so called “Nuremburg defense”. A. I follow what is put forth in front of me.Q. You’re just following ordersA. Well, if you want to simplify it, yes. Even funnier is that in the deposition Exhibit B, literally every time the state's counsel Bilal objects, Maag tells Trame that she can answer the question. It's like watching a petulant kid continually trying to butt in and being told, "Shut up, junior." One thing I thought might have been instructive in that exchange. She's supposed to be the director of these programs. Who is putting the instructions in front of her?Wouldn't I like to see that question asked, and answered in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 1, 2016 at 04:37 PM Share Posted February 1, 2016 at 04:37 PM I especially love the way that the plaintiff's lawyer cleverly paints the parallel of Nazi-esque arms control to the defendant's behavior and actually gets her to essentially cop to it: When it is pointed out to Defendant that it is equally difficult to perform background checks on residents and non-residents, Defendant invokes the so called “Nuremburg defense”. A. I follow what is put forth in front of me.Q. You’re just following ordersA. Well, if you want to simplify it, yes. Even funnier is that in the deposition Exhibit B, literally every time the state's counsel Bilal objects, Maag tells Trame that she can answer the question. It's like watching a petulant kid continually trying to butt in and being told, "Shut up, junior."One thing I thought might have been instructive in that exchange. She's supposed to be the director of these programs. Who is putting the instructions in front of her?Wouldn't I like to see that question asked, and answered in court. She's the director of these programs and ends up sounding like an entry level office drone as she really doesn't seem to know much about what she is supposed to be in charge of. The above exchange (along with the rest of the deposition) does make it seem like she's just a figurehead, if so, who is telling her what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 12, 2016 at 08:18 PM Author Share Posted February 12, 2016 at 08:18 PM Ms. Trame provided a reply in support of her motion for a summary judgment, claiming that the primary arguments given by the Plaintiff in her opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment are insufficient "to hold that the challenged regulations are unconstitutional." Trame believes she is entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, Trame claims that the FCCA's residency requirement is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and the residency requirement is substantially related to the government's public-interest justification. Where have we heard this line before? Reply is attached. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 12, 2016 at 08:58 PM Author Share Posted February 12, 2016 at 08:58 PM This is quite possibly the dumbest statement I've read in months: Plaintiff seeks to retain her status as a Montana resident, notwithstanding her beingstationed in Illinois. It is fair to presume this is because she intends to visit her home state andreturn there permanently. As such, Illinois has an interest in verifying that, while in her homestate, nothing occurs that would disqualify her from possession of a concealed carry license.Based upon Montana’s laws, Illinois cannot confirm Plaintiff’s qualifications on an ongoingbasis. Illinois residents are subject to daily confirmation. Plaintiff is not entitled to be treatedmore favorably than Illinois residents. Ms. Trame, the plaintiff lives here!!!!! Intent to move back to her home state on some indeterminate date (it could be 20 years in the future) has absolutely no bearing on her right to bear arms, nor on your ability to confirm her criminal and mental qualifications on an ongoing (daily) basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 12, 2016 at 09:08 PM Share Posted February 12, 2016 at 09:08 PM This is quite possibly the dumbest statement I've read in months: Plaintiff seeks to retain her status as a Montana resident, notwithstanding her beingstationed in Illinois. It is fair to presume this is because she intends to visit her home state andreturn there permanently. As such, Illinois has an interest in verifying that, while in her homestate, nothing occurs that would disqualify her from possession of a concealed carry license.Based upon Montana’s laws, Illinois cannot confirm Plaintiff’s qualifications on an ongoingbasis. Illinois residents are subject to daily confirmation. Plaintiff is not entitled to be treatedmore favorably than Illinois residents. Ms. Trame, the plaintiff lives here!!!!! Intent to move back to her home state on some indeterminate date (it could be 20 years in the future) has absolutely no bearing on her right to bear arms, nor on your ability to confirm her criminal and mental qualifications on an ongoing (daily) basis.And the plaintiff HAS A (bleeping) FOID so IS IN FACT SUBJECT TO DAILY CONFIRMATION. Statement is a lie. Also, plaintiff is only demanding to be treated EQUALLY to Illinois residents, the fact that the state is incapable of fulfillng a requirement of their own design is NOT the fault of the plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:09 PM Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 05:09 PM (edited) Well this really stinks. Judge Rosenstengel ruled against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. Ella Samuel's motion for summary judgment is denied. Judgment.pdf Memorandum and Order.pdf Edited March 21, 2016 at 06:14 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:12 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:12 PM I just pulled it an hour ago and it wasn't there. Oh well, lets see what happens next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:19 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 06:19 PM Page 7 - Plaintiff does not appear to challenge the constitutionality of 430 ILCS 66/40 itself. Well theres a clue, lets challenge it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:07 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:07 PM Motion to Alter or Amend has been filed by Plaintiff06913444911.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:16 PM Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:16 PM Motion to Alter or Amend has been filed by PlaintiffInteresting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:38 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:38 PM Very nicely stated! Unfortunately, I don't think a judge who was so obtuse as to deny the plaintiff her rights will see the logic in these arguments either. That is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:57 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 07:57 PM I find it curious that in the Order and Memorandum, the judge cites cases from OUTSIDE the 7th Circuit (Masciandro, for example) that contradict Moore v. Madigan, which is the most recent, on point precedent in this circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:32 PM Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 08:32 PM I find it curious that in the Order and Memorandum, the judge cites cases from OUTSIDE the 7th Circuit (Masciandro, for example) that contradict Moore v. Madigan, which is the most recent, on point precedent in this circuit. Yep, it's called "cherry-picking." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:15 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:15 PM $$ So, if you're a judge, you're supposed to form an opinion first, then find case law from other jurisdictions to support your opinion, instead of reading the relevant case law and basing your opinion on that. Okay, got it! $$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:17 PM Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 09:17 PM $$ So, if you're a judge, you're supposed to form an opinion first, then find case law from other jurisdictions to support your opinion, instead of reading the relevant case law and basing your opinion on that. Okay, got it! $$ Is there any other possible explanation for a decision such as this one? I can't think of any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 22, 2016 at 10:21 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 10:21 PM I think they used the same logic in Friedman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 31, 2016 at 03:43 PM Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 03:43 PM So she ignores binding Circuit precedent, cites persuasive authorities such as the Fourth Circuit? This is textbook pre-judgment. Reminds me of Judge Blake in Kolbe. "Well I'm just going to ignore this, that, etc, because I've already decided this case before evaluating the merits." Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 12, 2016 at 02:42 PM Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 at 02:42 PM No action yet on the plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend, filed on March 22, 2016. Is the judge obligated to rule on a motion such as this after the original case has been closed? Or can she choose to ignore it indefinitely? Samuel's attorney, Mr. Maag, also represented Tempest Horsley in the "under age 21 requirement to have a parent sign a FOID card application" case against Jessica Trame in district court and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not sure how I missed it, but Judge Rosenstengel--the judge that ruled against Ms. Samuel in the present case--is the same judge that heard Horsley's case in district court and ruled against Horsley. (CA7 subsequently upheld her decision.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted April 12, 2016 at 02:55 PM Share Posted April 12, 2016 at 02:55 PM No action yet on the plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend, filed on March 22, 2016. Is the judge obligated to rule on a motion such as this after the original case has been closed? Or can she choose to ignore it indefinitely? Samuel's attorney, Mr. Maag, also represented Tempest Horsley in the "under age 21 requirement to have a parent sign a FOID card application" case against Jessica Trame in district court and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not sure how I missed it, but Judge Rosenstengel--the judge that ruled against Ms. Samuel in the present case--is the same judge that heard Horsley's case in district court and ruled against Horsley. (CA7 subsequently upheld her decision.)The CA7 upheld the 18-21 rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 12, 2016 at 03:00 PM Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 at 03:00 PM (edited) The CA7 upheld the 18-21 rule? Yes. See full opinion here and Illinois Carry discussion thread here. Edited April 12, 2016 at 03:02 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 15, 2016 at 03:24 PM Author Share Posted April 15, 2016 at 03:24 PM No action yet on the plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend, filed on March 22, 2016. Is the judge obligated to rule on a motion such as this after the original case has been closed? Or can she choose to ignore it indefinitely? Judge Rosenstengel just gave the defendants until April 28, 2016 to respond to the motion, if they choose to do so: ORDER SETTING DEADLINE: Response, if any, to the 37 Motion to Alter Judgment is due on or before April 28, 2016. Related [+]. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 04/14/2016. (bak) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted April 15, 2016 at 08:16 PM Share Posted April 15, 2016 at 08:16 PM Motion for Extension of time coming I assume? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:19 AM Share Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:19 AM And....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM Author Share Posted April 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM (edited) And....? Awaiting response from the defendants, due Apr 28 (see my previous post). Edited April 19, 2016 at 10:19 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 21, 2016 at 06:48 PM Share Posted April 21, 2016 at 06:48 PM Maag is a mass tort litigator. He's not a con law expert, nor is he (IMO) competent to litigate a case such as this. It makes me nervous because his lack of due diligence manages to set undesirable Circuit precedent. Such as Horsley v. Trame. He COULD HAVE won that case quite easily if he had presented evidence that ISP will not process an appeal for someone under 21 with no "permission slip" but he relied on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Didn't do his due diligence, lost in district, lost on appeal, CA7 tacitly approved of stripping those under 21 of their Second Amendment rights when they have no parent willing to sign off on a FOID app. Such a shame considering ISP has stated off the record that, absent a parent/guardian signature, the only "remedy" (it's not a remedy) is to turn 21. But I'd have loved to see an affidavit stating the contrary. The State loves to lie to the courts. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 21, 2016 at 09:37 PM Share Posted April 21, 2016 at 09:37 PM Maag is a mass tort litigator. He's not a con law expert, nor is he (IMO) competent to litigate a case such as this. It makes me nervous because his lack of due diligence manages to set undesirable Circuit precedent. Such as Horsley v. Trame. He COULD HAVE won that case quite easily if he had presented evidence that ISP will not process an appeal for someone under 21 with no "permission slip" but he relied on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Didn't do his due diligence, lost in district, lost on appeal, CA7 tacitly approved of stripping those under 21 of their Second Amendment rights when they have no parent willing to sign off on a FOID app. Such a shame considering ISP has stated off the record that, absent a parent/guardian signature, the only "remedy" (it's not a remedy) is to turn 21. But I'd have loved to see an affidavit stating the contrary. The State loves to lie to the courts. Sent from my VS986 using TapatalkI've worried about this very issue. Now we're stuck with bad precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted April 21, 2016 at 10:25 PM Share Posted April 21, 2016 at 10:25 PM The State loves to lie to the courts. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted April 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM Share Posted April 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM I've worried about this very issue. Now we're stuck with bad precedent.Naw, he'll be gone on January 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now