Don Moran Posted December 20, 2010 at 03:41 PM Posted December 20, 2010 at 03:41 PM Good morning Howard, what we are allowed to do and not, will be decided by the Appellate Court Justices at this point... there may not even allow oral arguments... I'm not an attorney either, but from what I understand it is very unusual to have the court allow briefs and then not allow responses from the opposition, but that is what they have done at this juncture in this case. (Of course, by amending their brief, the Defendants were able to rebutt some of our arguments;)) So, the question is, would we be allowed discovery to try and find out if their "error" was intentional? My answer would be that anyone can file a complaint with the ethics committee of the Illinois Bar when they see something they feel deserves it. I know there are probably quiet a few people that may have that impression around here... the time limits for such complaints are very lenient and I'd ask that if anyone were interested in doing such a thing, to wait until the Appelate Court has ruled. Thanks to all that have welcomed me here. This seems to be a very nice community and I'll try and post occasionally as my time allows and issues arise.Thanks, Don Moran Mr. Moran, thanks for your kind words. Will the plaintiffs in this case be able to perform discovery to determine whether the direct mis-quotations of the Supreme Court Heller decision were intentional? I'm not a lawyer yet I can see that the direct quotation of Heller on page 1 of Anita Alverez's States Attorney Office brief missing from the United States Supreme Court's Heller case. Much worse is the fact that the entire argument presented in Cook County's brief is based on that false quote. I'm sure you agree that The Illinois Bar Association is probably interested to know if lawyers knowingly lie in court. Shouldn't the court allow discovery interviews of Anita's office to ameliorate the harm already done to our side in this case? P.S. Please accept this small gift of appreciation for your fine work with the ISRA. This non-copyrighted, improved version of your likeness is presented to you for any Seasonal purpose you see fit.
abolt243 Posted December 20, 2010 at 03:49 PM Posted December 20, 2010 at 03:49 PM So, the question is, would we be allowed discovery to try and find out if their "error" was intentional? My answer would be that anyone can file a complaint with the ethics committee of the Illinois Bar when they see something they feel deserves it. I know there are probably quiet a few people that may have that impression around here... the time limits for such complaints are very lenient and I'd ask that if anyone were interested in doing such a thing, to wait until the Appelate Court has ruled. Thanks, Don Moran Don, When the time comes that you determine that complaints need to be filed, please let us know. The members of this community have become quite adept at contacting legislators regarding pending legistlation. I would guess that we could channel that expertise towards the Ethic Committee of the Illinois Bar Association if it would benefit the cause. Thanks, Tim
mstrat Posted February 3, 2011 at 05:33 AM Posted February 3, 2011 at 05:33 AM Does anyone know a timeline when we're expecting to receive any updates?
Druid Posted February 8, 2011 at 04:38 PM Posted February 8, 2011 at 04:38 PM Could be any day now. I'm surprised the Appellate court hasn't released their decision yet. I hope that's a good sign. There was an expected decision on Feb. 2rd, but that was "canceled". Whatever that means.
Druid Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:05 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:05 AM The new Appellate opinion. Broken into parts and compressed so I can upload it to IllinoisCarry.Wilson Decision 2-9-11 part1.zip
Druid Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:08 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:08 AM part 2Wilson Decision 2-9-11 part2.zip
Druid Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:11 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:11 AM part 3 (of 3)Wilson Decision 2-9-11 part3.zip
Druid Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:21 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:21 AM I think it's clear from the new Appellate decision that the justices didn't even bother to read our brief. They basically just re-wrote their old opinion and threw in a few more things about Heller and McDonald. They talk about old arguments that were not even made in our brief, such as claiming the ordinance to be "vague or overbroad". They also seem to accept the fabricated quotation of the Federal Supreme Court about "common handguns", and equate so called assault weapons with automatic machine guns, falsely claiming them be "rapid fire".
mstrat Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:34 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:34 AM Thanks for the update Druid. Going to give this a read tomorrow. I've attached a single PDF with all the pages in it for you.Wilson Decision 2-9-11.pdf
Gary Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:53 AM Posted February 13, 2011 at 07:53 AM This is very disappointing.
GarandFan Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:16 PM Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:16 PM I think it's clear from the new Appellate decision that the justices didn't even bother to read our brief. They basically just re-wrote their old opinion and threw in a few more things about Heller and McDonald. They talk about old arguments that were not even made in our brief, such as claiming the ordinance to be "vague or overbroad". They also seem to accept the fabricated quotation of the Federal Supreme Court about "common handguns", and equate so called assault weapons with automatic machine guns, falsely claiming them be "rapid fire". If this is true ... and my initial reading of it would concur ... a good lawyer would (or should) be able to thoroughly thrash this current opinion on appeal to the IL Supreme Court. Not only did their analysis seriously lack substance (how on earth can you rule that semiauto guns with detachable magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes?), but since both decisions contain so much overlap, and apparently issues in the new brief weren't discussed, they appear to have been negligent in doing their job.
GarandFan Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:17 PM Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:17 PM This is very disappointing. Disappointing? Yes. Travesty of justice? Arguably so.
Druid Posted February 21, 2011 at 04:41 PM Posted February 21, 2011 at 04:41 PM They have posted the PDF on the Appellate Website (valid for 90 days): http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/February/1081202.pdf
Sigma Posted February 21, 2011 at 09:34 PM Posted February 21, 2011 at 09:34 PM How do you think the supreme will rule
Druid Posted February 22, 2011 at 12:14 AM Posted February 22, 2011 at 12:14 AM How do you think the supreme will rule Who knows. Some say that they feel this case will eventually go Federal to get a fair trail and some justices who will actually read the briefs. I would like a win at the Illinois Supreme court, there is a good chance but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Tvandermyde Posted March 20, 2011 at 01:32 PM Author Posted March 20, 2011 at 01:32 PM Petiton for cert filed
Talonap Posted March 20, 2011 at 02:17 PM Posted March 20, 2011 at 02:17 PM Petiton for cert filed Thank you! Good News! (I hope)
Sigma Posted March 21, 2011 at 01:56 AM Posted March 21, 2011 at 01:56 AM I was reading the heller again and maybe because im bias but i dont see how they think they can get away with this.my understanding is simple. its a modern firearm and you can ban an entire class of firearm.
Talonap Posted March 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM Posted March 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM I was reading the heller again and maybe because im bias but i dont see how they think they can get away with this.my understanding is simple. its a modern firearm and you can ban an entire class of firearm. They're in Illinois... Orland Park does the same thing. They also have ammo registration from what I understand here: http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ordinances/orlandpark.pdf
Sigma Posted March 21, 2011 at 08:52 PM Posted March 21, 2011 at 08:52 PM What the heck is up with Orland, when have they ever had a problem justifying this stupid ordinance. This is why preemption is so important.
billzfx4 Posted March 21, 2011 at 11:45 PM Posted March 21, 2011 at 11:45 PM Years ago they had a gun shop/shooting range open up in the nearly vacant mall across from Orland Square, and the sheeple got their undies all in a twist over it.
Talonap Posted April 26, 2011 at 12:49 PM Posted April 26, 2011 at 12:49 PM Time for my monthly post... Anyone hear anything on this yet?
JR1987 Posted April 26, 2011 at 10:58 PM Posted April 26, 2011 at 10:58 PM I have been keeping an eye on it for some time now trying to get new information. I have found nothing. It boggles my mind that in one bill you can compare an AR15 or Ak47 to a 10/22... It just shows how ignorant and stupid the legislatures in this county are. I mean honestly... I can follow the logic of AR15's and AK47s being in a group of assault weapons. I think its wrong, but the two share similarities. But putting a 10/22 in that category...? Shameful.
Sigma Posted April 26, 2011 at 11:32 PM Posted April 26, 2011 at 11:32 PM Logic doesnt matter. Facts dont either. If it is long and black they are afraid of it. (thats what she said)
GarandFan Posted April 26, 2011 at 11:45 PM Posted April 26, 2011 at 11:45 PM It boggles my mind that in one bill you can compare an AR15 or Ak47 to a 10/22... I compare them all the time. They are all commonly-owned rifles.
JR1987 Posted April 27, 2011 at 06:20 PM Posted April 27, 2011 at 06:20 PM No, it is obviously because they are "evil"...
Talonap Posted May 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM Posted May 6, 2011 at 11:55 AM Petiton for cert filed Is there anything we can do to encourage the IL Supreme Court to hear this case - i.e. file some sort of brief or something like in Heller? (I don't know how this works.) Or do we just wait for the Justices to decide?
Davey Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:44 PM Petiton for cert filed What does this even really mean?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.