jmeyers Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:03 PM Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:03 PM Proposed Orders filed by both parties Plaintiff Proposed Order.pdf ISP Proposed Order.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:18 PM Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:18 PM Proposed Orders filed by both parties Plaintiff Proposed Order.pdf ISP Proposed Order.pdf how long will it take for the judge to make a decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:37 PM Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 07:37 PM No one can predict the judiciary timelines, however attorneys and I are guessing 7-14 days perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockboyy Posted March 17, 2016 at 08:12 PM Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 08:12 PM --ISP replied (para.-13) the court also noted that the STATE enjoyed broad police powers to regulate firearms ----see ILL State Constitution section-22 (SUJECT ONLY TO THE POLICE POWER)---- Illinois police powers are (ILLinois State Police & ILLinois DNR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 17, 2016 at 09:23 PM Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 09:23 PM --ISP replied (para.-13)the court also noted that the STATE enjoyed broad police powers to regulate firearms----see ILL State Constitution section-22 (SUJECT ONLY TO THE POLICE POWER)----Illinois police powers are (ILLinois State Police & ILLinois DNR)Wow. They take the public and the courts for fools apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM Eh Theres some comments from our peanut gallery but Ill refrain from sharing them at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted March 18, 2016 at 02:56 PM Share Posted March 18, 2016 at 02:56 PM Their comments about the IL Constitution are curious. The case they cite is from 1979, WELL BEFORE Heller and McDonald that declared the Second Amendment was an individual, fundamental right. I think SCOTUS in McDonald even referenced the IL Constitution when it said that a fundamental right subject to police power was no right at all. In Moore/Shepard v. Madigan, the 7th CA extended this individual, fundamental right outside the home. Their contention that a 37 year old ruling gives them "broad powers to regulate firearms" is ridiculous in the face of these more recent rulings from SCOTUS and 7th CA that protect an individual's rights from such overreaching "police power." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockboyy Posted March 18, 2016 at 06:10 PM Share Posted March 18, 2016 at 06:10 PM After all the current court-cases We are yet Infringed by the Extreme Over-reach of administrative rule making. In this case here the over-reach is of one of the most lawful/vetted citizen groups in ILL(FCCA). I feel to stop this the ILL constitution should be amended. (Infringed only by the police power by administrative rule). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:35 PM Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:35 PM And the verdict is..........03/24/2016 Order Signed Judge: BRAUD Remanded to ISP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:38 PM Share Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:38 PM sooooooo that's the end of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:40 PM Author Share Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:40 PM Not the end, just delays. Believe next step is a Hearing before the ISP to outline why we believe Florida is substantially similar which will have a end result of them denying it and then taking the record back to Court to continue the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnCrypt Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:42 PM Share Posted March 25, 2016 at 02:42 PM Not the end, just delays. Believe next step is a Hearing before the ISP to outline why we believe Florida is substantially similar which will have a end result of them denying it and then taking the record back to Court to continue the fight.gotcha, that sucks. but then again could we really expect an Illinois judge to actually respect rights? haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted March 31, 2016 at 01:41 PM Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 01:41 PM Just for giggles, this has been filed IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITSANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS JOSHUA D. MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. LEO P. SCHMITZ , Director of the Illinois State Police, Defendant . No.: 15-MR-1066 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Now comes Joshua D. Meyers, Plaintiff herein, by Carl R. Draper, one of his attorneys, and hereby moves this court to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants by default for the failure of Defendants to answer the Complaint or otherwise file an appropriate motion in this cause, and in support thereof, he states the following:1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Defendants on November 18, 2015 and summons was issued that day to the Defendants. Defendants were served with summons on November 23, 2015.2. Defendants entered their Appearance by filing an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time on or about December 23, 2015. In that Motion, Defendants requested an extension of time to file their answers or other appropriate responsive pleading by January 14, 2016.3. On or about January 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Remand in this cause which is presently set for hearing.4. Defendants have not filed any answer to the Complaint, and as such, all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint must be taken as true. This court should enter judgment based upon the unopposed allegations of the Complaint.5. There has been no Motion to Dismiss the Complaint either pursuant to Section 2-615 nor Section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure.6. Plaintiff’s Complaint was verified in accordance with Section 2-605 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a consequence, any pleading by Defendants had to be verified under oath. No pleading in this cause has been filed in accordance with this section of the law.7. Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes provision for motions with respect to pleadings. Such motions must point out specifically any defect complained of that would cause any portion of the Complaint to be stricken or the action dismissed. The Motion to Remand does none of those things.8. Section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for involuntarily dismissal of pleadings that are defective in a manner that the court either has no jurisdiction or the action is somehow barred. The Motion to Remand raises no such issue.9. While Plaintiff was willing to extend the time to file a proper responsive pleading in this case, Defendants have failed to file any appropriate pleading even eleven weeks after the agreed extension of time. For these reasons, Joshua D. Meyers, Plaintiff, hereby respectfully prays that the court enter judgment by default for him and against Defendants and granting all of the relief requested in the prayer stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrangler Posted March 31, 2016 at 05:45 PM Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 05:45 PM I suspect that giggles will be all you'll get from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 31, 2016 at 08:26 PM Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 08:26 PM It's really disheartening the amount of gymnastics that the state, the ISP, and the courts go through to come up with any possible excuse for denying fairness and civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:05 AM Share Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:05 AM It's really disheartening the amount of gymnastics that the state, the ISP, and the courts go through to come up with any possible excuse for denying fairness and civil rights. Not to mention the fact that they're using our own dollars to keep us in chains, and reimburse our attorneys when they win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:26 PM Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:26 PM Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed as well. All 3 (Reconsideration, Preliminary Injunction and Default Judgement) all set for hearing May 4 at 130pm Motion to Reconsider.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:34 PM Share Posted April 7, 2016 at 10:34 PM Excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:00 AM Share Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:00 AM Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed as well. All 3 (Reconsideration, Preliminary Injunction and Default Judgement) all set for hearing May 4 at 130pm I'm sure all of which will be handled before the ISP gets around to giving you the formality of an administrative hearing before they deny you. Any other civil rights issue would have been handled in an expeditious manner by the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM Share Posted April 8, 2016 at 12:34 AM Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed as well. All 3 (Reconsideration, Preliminary Injunction and Default Judgement) all set for hearing May 4 at 130pm I'm sure all of which will be handled before the ISP gets around to giving you the formality of an administrative hearing before they deny you. Any other civil rights issue would have been handled in an expeditious manner by the courts.Whenever I read legal briefs and I see language saying "Now here comes..." I always imagine that person walking into the courtroom in a super flashy suit while his theme music plays in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:38 AM Share Posted April 19, 2016 at 05:38 AM And....? It's been 6 weeks since the scheduled hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted April 19, 2016 at 12:00 PM Author Share Posted April 19, 2016 at 12:00 PM The initial hearing resulted in the Judge taking it under advisement an issuing a REMAND on March 24 as shown above. There are now additional motions scheduled for hearing on May 4 which include:Motion for Preliminary InjunctionMotion to Reconsider AmendMotion for Default Judgement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted April 19, 2016 at 02:44 PM Share Posted April 19, 2016 at 02:44 PM May 4 is the next deadline. Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted May 4, 2016 at 09:03 PM Author Share Posted May 4, 2016 at 09:03 PM Arguments heard, judge to take it under advisement reading all the supporting law of memo's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul1911 Posted May 6, 2016 at 06:09 AM Share Posted May 6, 2016 at 06:09 AM Good luck and keep up the fight. You are going a lot faster then the other case that has been a roller coaster for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted May 17, 2016 at 09:08 PM Author Share Posted May 17, 2016 at 09:08 PM Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Injunction denied Motion for Summary Disposition filed (not sure what it contains yet) as the Order has not been scanned in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuroraInstructor Posted May 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM Share Posted May 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Injunction denied Motion for Summary Disposition filed (not sure what it contains yet) as the Order has not been scanned inSorry, so are you saying that the judge denied your request for relief (your motion to reconsider and injunction) and just expects you to wait for the ISP to grant you a hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted May 17, 2016 at 10:26 PM Author Share Posted May 17, 2016 at 10:26 PM I have no clue. Docket was updated and no one has seen what this Motion for Summary Disposition says yet. Im hoping it atleast has a timeline for a hearing in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted May 18, 2016 at 04:41 PM Author Share Posted May 18, 2016 at 04:41 PM Hand written order denying Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Off to see if we can't get the state to schedule a hearing (you know, that thing they denied in the first place) and now have a court order to give but won't talk about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted June 10, 2016 at 02:58 PM Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 at 02:58 PM 78 Days since a Court Order for REMAND was issued32 Days since the 2nd Request for Setting a Date was sent2 Days since the 3rd Request for Setting a Date was sent Anyone want to bet when they'll stop ignoring Court Order and set a date and stop infringing on my Due Process right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.