domin8 Posted February 3, 2015 at 09:19 PM Share Posted February 3, 2015 at 09:19 PM If you're speculating about a backdoor deal, take it elsewhere. I know Mr. Culp. I've shaken his hand, looked him in the eye, had conversations with him, etc. I don't believe he's the type that'll accept a backdoor deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 6, 2015 at 03:22 AM Share Posted February 6, 2015 at 03:22 AM What's the word on the continuance request? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted February 6, 2015 at 06:57 AM Share Posted February 6, 2015 at 06:57 AM Just assume it is granted. They pretty much always are granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted February 8, 2015 at 03:42 PM Share Posted February 8, 2015 at 03:42 PM If you're speculating about a backdoor deal, take it elsewhere. I know Mr. Culp. I've shaken his hand, looked him in the eye, had conversations with him, etc. I don't believe he's the type that'll accept a backdoor deal. Not speculating on any kind of deal whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 11, 2015 at 10:55 PM Share Posted February 11, 2015 at 10:55 PM Found this portion of today's interstate handgun sales court ruling to be applicable: The Supreme Court has also held that strict scrutiny is required where the challenged classification impinges on residency. See Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 254-64 (1974) (holding that a challenge to a state durational-residency requirement to receive free, non-emergency medical care merited strict scrutiny, and the requirement was unconstitutional); see also Att’y Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986). The Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in situations where state laws discriminated against non-residents, and those cases involved benefits offered by the state, not constitutional rights. See id.; Mem’l Hosp., 415 U.S. at 254. This is in response to the Fifth Amendment Due Process claim against the interstate transfer ban, which was also sustained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 12, 2015 at 11:39 AM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 11:39 AM Looks like the defendants provided a response to the complaint yesterday. The response isn't available yet in the public archives, but should be visible to PACER account holders. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/4948229/Culp_et_al_v_Madigan_et_al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 12, 2015 at 01:07 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 01:07 PM I can't justify the minimum $49/month fee for PACER when I wouldn't use it that often. Hopefully somebody can post up a way to view the response once it is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 12, 2015 at 05:32 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 05:32 PM There's no minimum, my PACER bill was less than $40 last quarter. If it's below $30, they zero it out...or they used to. The federal court system set a cutoff where they'll wipe the bill if it's under a certain amount. Anyway, here's the two motions for extension of time to file response *gag* and the response itself. Excuses....excuses. "This is a holiday....I've been assigned too many cases...." Oh, and get used to this since they lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs....9 through 28, in the complaint (plaintiffs). "X. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about thetruth of the allegations in paragraph X." Evidently, this is a misquote because, you know, the state disagrees with the opinion itself..... "33. The Second Amendment “is fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010)." And here's what the state had to say about that.... "33. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately quoted or cited McDonald v. Cityof Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Defendants admit that the Second Amendment is applicable tothe States under the Fourteenth Amendment." Let's see what else the state disagrees with. Oh, this one is good. "36. There is a fundamental right to carry handguns for self-defense in public. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir., 2012)" Lisa says "NOOOOO" because that's dead wrong..... "36. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36." Oh, "We're gonna enforce this until you tell us to not enforce it...." "57. The State Police defendants admit that they will continue to enforce thechallenged law in the absence of an injunction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations inparagraph 57." Here's all of the briefs.... First extension (30 days), second extension (14 days) on top of the 60 days already provided by the FRCP First.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE11.0.pdfSecond.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE12.0.pdf State Response State.Response.DE13.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:18 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:18 PM Thank you, skinnyb82!!! Links are now also posted in the public archive: http://ia801404.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.61910/gov.uscourts.ilcd.61910.docket.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:19 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:19 PM There's no minimum, my PACER bill was less than $40 last quarter. If it's below $30, they zero it out...or they used to. The federal court system set a cutoff where they'll wipe the bill if it's under a certain amount. Anyway, here's the two motions for extension of time to file response *gag* and the response itself. Excuses....excuses. "This is a holiday....I've been assigned too many cases...." Oh, and get used to this since they lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs....9 through 28, in the complaint (plaintiffs). "X. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph X." Evidently, this is a misquote because, you know, the state disagrees with the opinion itself..... "33. The Second Amendment “is fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010)." And here's what the state had to say about that.... "33. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately quoted or cited McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Defendants admit that the Second Amendment is applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment." Let's see what else the state disagrees with. Oh, this one is good. "36. There is a fundamental right to carry handguns for self-defense in public. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir., 2012)" Lisa says "NOOOOO" because that's dead wrong..... "36. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36." Oh, "We're gonna enforce this until you tell us to not enforce it...." "57. The State Police defendants admit that they will continue to enforce the challenged law in the absence of an injunction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 57." Here's all of the briefs.... First extension (30 days), second extension (14 days) on top of the 60 days already provided by the FRCP First.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE11.0.pdf Second.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE12.0.pdf State Response State.Response.DE13.0.pdf Thanks again for everything skinny. When I clicked on the link kwc provided I was given the image below. I couldn't find a way around it. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/12/3106b6f1555befedbb5f5678d2244669.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:33 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:33 PM Ooohhh, yeah that's no good. Go here for PACER registration: https://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html You need a CC # on file for recurring billing, but if you watch how many documents you pull then you may be fee exempt if you don't exceed a certain amount. Dockets are also 10 cents per page (it costs about $2 just to pull the Shepard docket in ILSD). I suggest using Firefox or Chrome, get the RECAP plugin so every document you pull will be archived, along with the docket itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:38 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:38 PM Thanks again Skinny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:43 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 07:43 PM Thanks again for everything skinny. When I clicked on the link kwc provided I was given the image below. I couldn't find a way around it. My link (once you cancel the splash screen) displayed a summary of filings. I didn't intend that to be the portal into PACER. Sorry if I threw you for a loop on that one! The public archive (post #121 above) now reflects the same actions/filings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 12, 2015 at 08:38 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 08:38 PM Thank you, skinnyb82!!! Links are now also posted in the public archive: http://ia801404.us.archive.org/27/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.61910/gov.uscourts.ilcd.61910.docket.htmlWow. Did they have some high school intern write that? "We don't know anything, we have no argument, but we're right and you should decide in our favor". Maybe they know they're going to lose and just aren't going to bother putting time into it. If I was the judge I'd be perturbed that I gave them time extensions and that's all they sent in. I was preparing to be annoyed by asinine, illogical and elitist legalbabble, and as it turned out it was pretty sad. They're infringing on the civil rights of millions of Americans, and that's all they can come up with in justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
out in the tall grass Posted February 12, 2015 at 09:04 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 09:04 PM Their arguments sound familiar, along the lines that my dad used when I was 8. " because I said so, and that's all you need to know" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted February 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM Share Posted February 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM There's no minimum, my PACER bill was less than $40 last quarter. If it's below $30, they zero it out...or they used to. The federal court system set a cutoff where they'll wipe the bill if it's under a certain amount. Anyway, here's the two motions for extension of time to file response *gag* and the response itself. Excuses....excuses. "This is a holiday....I've been assigned too many cases...." Oh, and get used to this since they lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs....9 through 28, in the complaint (plaintiffs). "X. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about thetruth of the allegations in paragraph X." Evidently, this is a misquote because, you know, the state disagrees with the opinion itself..... "33. The Second Amendment “is fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010)." And here's what the state had to say about that.... "33. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately quoted or cited McDonald v. Cityof Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Defendants admit that the Second Amendment is applicable tothe States under the Fourteenth Amendment." Let's see what else the state disagrees with. Oh, this one is good. "36. There is a fundamental right to carry handguns for self-defense in public. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir., 2012)" Lisa says "NOOOOO" because that's dead wrong..... "36. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36." Oh, "We're gonna enforce this until you tell us to not enforce it...." "57. The State Police defendants admit that they will continue to enforce thechallenged law in the absence of an injunction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations inparagraph 57." Here's all of the briefs.... First extension (30 days), second extension (14 days) on top of the 60 days already provided by the FRCP First.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE11.0.pdfSecond.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE12.0.pdf State Response State.Response.DE13.0.pdf That State Response . . . oh, my Gawd, that's got to be the funniest, most pathetic legal filing I've ever read! "I know nothing." "I know nothing." "I know nothing." "I don't believe them." "I disagree with them." "They should get nothing." "I don't know why they should get nothing." Am I strange for laughing so hard at this foolishness that my stomach hurts? I feel that somehow I should be annoyed, since it's my tax dollars that are going to pay for these clowns to come up with at least something in the ostensible pursuit of their jobs, but it's so sad that I can't even be ruthlessly contemptuous the way they deserve. It's like watching that loud-mouthed, annoying jerk kid at school get his butt whipped in a playground fight, and still be trying to swing blindly at the air long after he's been knocked silly and the other kid walked away out of pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2015 at 12:47 AM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 12:47 AM What's really funny is they needed 2 extensions to come up with that garbage. They even argued about Hiram Grau not being the head of ISP, but didn't bother to point out that he was in that position at the time of the filing of the complaint back in October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leadchucker Posted February 13, 2015 at 08:14 AM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 08:14 AM Not a lawyer, what's next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted February 13, 2015 at 12:48 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 12:48 PM I'm not a lawyer either.... But what amazes me is that a judge will continue to grant extensions to a side that has no substance to their reason for asking for more time. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2015 at 01:01 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 01:01 PM Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted February 13, 2015 at 01:47 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 01:47 PM Curious how the Sergeant Schultz defense will perform in a courtroom before a federal judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:01 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:01 PM Sergeant SchultzHaha that's exactly what I thought of after reading that brief. "I know nothing, NOTHING!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:01 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:01 PM Good one. Only seems to work on the gov'ment side, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:53 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 03:53 PM "And now we'll hear arguments from the Defense in support of their position on the case:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 13, 2015 at 07:12 PM Share Posted February 13, 2015 at 07:12 PM I'm not a lawyer either.... But what amazes me is that a judge will continue to grant extensions to a side that has no substance to their reason for asking for more time. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk The district judge dumped all of the BS work on the magistrate assigned to the case which is an odd move, clearly she doesn't want to deal with pre-trial garbage filings (I wouldn't want to have to read nonsense filed by the State). Federal magistrates are not appointed. They are employed by the federal government and have the power to grant and deny motions, as long as they are not dispositive (motion for summary judgment,etc) in nature. It should be noted that this case was "randomly" assigned to (District) Judge Sue Myerscough, an Obama appointee in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, also presided over Moore et al v. Madigan et al. She was the judge who dismissed Moore. She also denied the State's motion to moot Moore after CA7 reversed the district courts' rulings because Plaintiffs had not obtained relief requested (carriage of stun guns, basically a total invalidation and rewrite of the UUW/AUUW). It's preposterous when Local Rules give a government official who is a defendant in a lawsuit, 60 days to file an answer to the complaint when anyone else would be required to answer LONG before that. Then the AAG assigned to the case, Josh Ratz, who also successfully defended the State in Horsley v. Trame (Obama appointee district judge ruled the FOID Card Act provision barring those under 21 from obtaining FOID without parental consent to be constitutional....his arguments were asinine, argued for rational basis more or less), is just talking out of his posterior. The "I don't know(s)" are referring to the names and occupations of the Plaintiffs. They truly do not know, cannot take Sigale's word for it. It's the 44 days' worth of extensions that bother me. It's not enough that they have 60 days to answer, they need 44 more to file...what? This crap? "Moore v. Madigan does not...." This is splitting hairs because, as the majority stated in Moore v. Madigan, 792 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012): The Second Amendment states in its entirety that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (emphasis added). The right to "bear" as distinct from the right to "keep" arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of "bearing" arms within one's home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. The majority distinguishes armed self-defense from criminal action, armed self-defense being a constitutional right rather than a property right in Moore v. Madigan, 792 F.3d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 2012): To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right — a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell's painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense. So, to state that Moore did not establish that armed self-defense outside the home is a right, would be....a Clintonesque splitting of hairs, parsing of words....."It depends on what your definition of the word 'is,' is." The delays, well let's see.... "2. The undersigned requires additional time to confer with his clients for the purposeof adequately responding to the issues and facts alleged in the complaint." 60 days isn't enough? Well, it gets better in the second motion for an extension because Mr. Ratz admits that he's in violation of the Code of Professional Conduct by taking on a caseload which interferes with his ability to adequately defend his "clients." He was granted an extension, then goes and "leaves the office" for four days (presumably on vacation), then he states that he had about three cases to handle before answering the complaint in Culp. Bottom line, Lisa...you need more AAGs. Like, a few dozen more. "2. Since the entry of the Court’s order granting a first extension, the undersignedwas out of the office January 5, 2015 through January 9, 2015. Upon returning January 12, 2015,the undersigned was assigned to second chair a trial....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leadchucker Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:31 AM Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 06:31 AM Thanks for sharing your insights skinnyb82.Very enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:41 PM Share Posted February 14, 2015 at 02:41 PM Thanks for sharing your insights skinnyb82.Very enlightening.+1 I always look for new content with you screen name attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 19, 2015 at 08:03 PM Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 08:03 PM PACER shows this update as of Feb 13: NOTICE OF HEARING: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set Thursday, 3/26/2015, at 11:00 AM by telephone (court will place call) before U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Attorneys are directed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) by meeting as soon as practicable, and in any event at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference, and are to submit a proposed discovery plan in writing to the Court on or before 3/24/2015. Such a plan must include, at a minimum, those items listed in CDIL-LR 26.2(3), Rule 16( b ), Rule 26(f), and CDIL-LR 16.2(E) with proposed deadlines. The parties are directed to specifically address the provisions, if any, for discovery or disclosure of electronically stored information, and to discuss agreements, if any, the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial preparation material, after inadvertent production. Any plan filed shall specifically address the need, or lack thereof, concerning discovery of electronically stored information. If a discovery plan is not submitted as required, the scheduling hearing will not be held and costs may be assessed. Lead counsel or other counsel of record with knowledge of the case should be available to participate in the Rule 16 scheduling hearing. (LB, ilcd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 22, 2015 at 08:27 PM Share Posted February 22, 2015 at 08:27 PM That's simple case management since the federal courts require the parties to at least "try to work it out" and, if that's not possible, set a joint case management schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 25, 2015 at 04:51 PM Share Posted February 25, 2015 at 04:51 PM What happens if a non-resident of ILLINOIS has a non-resident Virginia CCW? Would a non-resident of ILLINOIS that qualifies under the substantially similar laws of virginia to qualify for a CCW license use the non-resident license to show that he or she qualifies for an FCCL by holding the valid non-resident license from substantially similar Virgina? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.