Jump to content


Photo

Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#61 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 31 January 2016 - 03:58 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 orders

A. 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?


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#62 Bushy223

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Joined: 13-November 08

Posted 31 January 2016 - 07:07 PM

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


"There is no explanation for evil. It must be looked upon as a necessary part of the order of the universe. To ignore it is childish, to bewail it senseless. "
— Somerset Maugham


#63 out in the tall grass

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 11

Posted 31 January 2016 - 08:39 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 orders
A. 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.

#64 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 01 February 2016 - 10:37 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 orders
A. 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?


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#65 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 February 2016 - 02:18 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.

 

Attached File  REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTíS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.pdf   58.71KB   142 downloads

 


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#66 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 February 2016 - 02:58 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 being

stationed in Illinois. It is fair to presume this is because she intends to visit her home state and

return there permanently. As such, Illinois has an interest in verifying that, while in her home

state, 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 ongoing

basis. Illinois residents are subject to daily confirmation. Plaintiff is not entitled to be treated

more 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.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#67 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 12 February 2016 - 03:08 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 being

stationed in Illinois. It is fair to presume this is because she intends to visit her home state and

return there permanently. As such, Illinois has an interest in verifying that, while in her home

state, 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 ongoing

basis. Illinois residents are subject to daily confirmation. Plaintiff is not entitled to be treated

more 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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#68 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 21 March 2016 - 11:09 AM

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.

 

Attached File  Judgment.pdf   58.36KB   117 downloads

 

Attached File  Memorandum and Order.pdf   157.03KB   123 downloads


Edited by kwc, 21 March 2016 - 12:14 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#69 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:12 PM

I just pulled it an hour ago and it wasn't there.

 

Oh well, lets see what happens next



#70 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 21 March 2016 - 12:19 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 :)



#71 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 22 March 2016 - 01:07 PM

Motion to Alter or Amend has been filed by Plaintiff

Attached Files



#72 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 01:16 PM

Motion to Alter or Amend has been filed by Plaintiff


Interesting...
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#73 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,840 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 01:38 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.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#74 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,840 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 01:57 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.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#75 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 02:32 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."


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#76 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,840 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 03:15 PM

$$ So, if you're a judge, you're supposed to form an opinion first, then find case law from other jurisdictions to support your opinion, instead of reading the relevant case law and basing your opinion on that. Okay, got it! $$

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#77 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 March 2016 - 03:17 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.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#78 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,840 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 22 March 2016 - 04:21 PM

I think they used the same logic in Friedman...

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#79 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:43 AM

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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#80 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 April 2016 - 08:42 AM

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.)


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#81 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 12 April 2016 - 08:55 AM

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?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#82 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 12 April 2016 - 09:00 AM

 

The CA7 upheld the 18-21 rule?

 

 

Yes.  See full opinion here and Illinois Carry discussion thread here.


Edited by kwc, 12 April 2016 - 09:02 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#83 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 15 April 2016 - 09:24 AM

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)


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#84 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 15 April 2016 - 02:16 PM

Motion for Extension of time coming I assume? lol



#85 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 18 April 2016 - 11:19 PM

And....?
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#86 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 19 April 2016 - 04:18 AM

And....?


Awaiting response from the defendants, due Apr 28 (see my previous post).

Edited by kwc, 19 April 2016 - 04:19 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#87 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 21 April 2016 - 12:48 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
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#88 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 21 April 2016 - 03:37 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 Tapatalk

I've worried about this very issue. Now we're stuck with bad precedent.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#89 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,687 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 21 April 2016 - 04:25 PM

The State loves to lie to the courts.


Indeed.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#90 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 13,027 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 21 April 2016 - 05:33 PM

I've worried about this very issue. Now we're stuck with bad precedent.
Naw, he'll be gone on January 20.

Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users