kwc Posted April 22, 2016 at 04:25 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2016 at 04:25 PM Surprisingly, the defendants did not ask for an extension. In fact, they beat the April 28 deadline to file their response to the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend. Unsurprisingly, their motion asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion: Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied for two reasons. First, Plaintiff fails to identify apurpose authorized under FRCP 59 for the reconsideration of the Court’s March 21, 2016, andmerely rehashes her previous arguments or presents new legal theories not previously assertedprior to judgment. Second, even if the Plaintiff could raise new legal theories at this late date,Plaintiff’s reference to the constitutional right to travel does not present the Court with groundsto alter its March 21, 2016, judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Motion is attached. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted April 22, 2016 at 07:03 PM Share Posted April 22, 2016 at 07:03 PM Is ISP taking over a new leave? No Extension fort me? Im shocked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 23, 2016 at 06:54 PM Share Posted April 23, 2016 at 06:54 PM As previously stated, Maag being counsel of record is quite scary. I know of at least one IC member who contacted him in regard to Horsley v. Trame and he was dismissive, opted to use arguments that haven't been used in a 2A case before and paid the price. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 23, 2016 at 07:13 PM Author Share Posted April 23, 2016 at 07:13 PM If the plaintiff appeals, what is the likelihood CA7 will hear this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted April 23, 2016 at 07:56 PM Share Posted April 23, 2016 at 07:56 PM I find a CA7 hearing very slim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 24, 2016 at 02:48 PM Share Posted April 24, 2016 at 02:48 PM Appeal is an appeal by right and...I would rather this case not go to CA7. The only question is will the merits panel assigned to the case actually hear arguments or will it issue a per curiam because it doesn't believe that the case needs to be argued. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:35 PM Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:35 PM (edited) Judge Rosenstengel has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the case. On June 8, the plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority." The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Maag) introduced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's recent ruling on Scott Bach et al v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, and asked the Judge to review the logic applied in this case when reconsidering (if she chooses to do so) Samuel v. Trame. Scott Bach and the ANJRPC filed suit against the NH Dept of Safety for refusing to issue nonresident carry permits to residents of New Jersey. At the heart of the argument is this: New Hampshire has a shall-issue scheme in place, and the statute allows nonresidents to apply for a permit. However, the administrative rules in NH go one step further and require nonresident applicants to possess licenses or permits from their home states. New Jersey is a may-issue (or more accurately, a "no-issue") state. Effectively, this disconnect means that residents and nonresidents are treated differently. The case was not settled on Constitutional arguments. Instead, the court ruled that the administrative rules went "ultra vires" (beyond the powers) of the statute and essentially became de facto legislation. The court holds that the administrative rules are therefore invalid. Mr. Maag leaves it to the imagination of Judge Rosenstengel to intepret the applicability of this ruling to Samuel v. Trame. IMHO, the clearest parallel between Bach and Samuel would revolve around the definitions of "resident" and "nonresident" and demonstrating that the administrative code in Illinois is more restrictive than the statute. The statute (FCCA) defines a nonresident as someone who has not resided in Illinois for more than 30 days. The administrative code (Title 20, Section 1231) defines a resident as someone who qualifies for an Illinois driver's license due to his or her intent to establish a permanent domicile in this state. Military members who are stationed in Illinois reside here for much longer than 30 days, and could arguably be considered residents under the statute. The "clarification" in the administrative code removes this option. Essentially, the administrative rules are imposing legislation, contrary to their intent. That is precisely the logic behind the NH Supreme Court's decision. .Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority.pdfBach v. NH Dept of Safety.pdf Edited June 11, 2016 at 10:16 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:46 PM Share Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:46 PM Judge Rosenstengel has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the case. On June 8, the plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority." The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Maag) introduced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's recent ruling on Scott Bach et al v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, and asked the Judge to review the logic applied in this case when reconsidering (if she chooses to do so) Samuel v. Trame. Scott Bach and the ANJRPC filed suit against the NH Dept of Safety for refusing to issue nonresident carry permits to residents of New Jersey. At the heart of the argument is this: New Hampshire has a shall-issue scheme in place, and the statute allows nonresidents to apply for a permit. However, the administrative rules in NH go one step further and require nonresident applicants to possess licenses or permits from their home states. New Jersey is a may-issue (or more accurately, a "no-issue") state. Effectively, this disconnect means that residents and nonresidents are treated differently. The case was not settled on Constitutional arguments. Instead, the court ruled that the administrative rules went "ultra vires" (beyond the powers) of the statute and essentially became de facto legislation. The court holds that the administrative rules are therefore invalid. Mr. Maag leaves it to the imagination of Judge Rosenstengel to intepret the applicability of this ruling to Samuel v. Trame. Yea, I don't see that particular case of much value to this one. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:49 PM Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 at 09:49 PM (edited) Yea, I don't see that particular case of much value to this one.I edited my post #97 to explain a possible similarity between the two cases. It would have been helpful for the plaintiff's attorney to explain this, too, if that was his rationale for making this motion. It's hard to know if that was even his point. He doesn't say. Would a district judge even consider reviewing a ruling of a state Supreme Court? I dunno. . Edited June 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted June 22, 2016 at 07:17 PM Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 at 07:17 PM Would a district judge even consider reviewing a ruling of a state Supreme Court? I dunno. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Cite Additional Authority and gave the Defendant until July 5, 2016 to respond if they wish to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted July 3, 2016 at 08:39 PM Share Posted July 3, 2016 at 08:39 PM Surprise! State of IL has asked for a 3 Day Motion for Extension of Time (to July 8) due to: Attorney Aziz will be out of the office on July 5 due to a religious holiday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 3, 2016 at 09:16 PM Author Share Posted July 3, 2016 at 09:16 PM (edited) If you and I have a commitment on tax day (usually April 15) and will be unable to submit our taxes on that day, what do we normally do? Yes, boys and girls, we file them on April 14. (Or far sooner if we expect a refund.) Edited July 3, 2016 at 09:17 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted July 3, 2016 at 09:24 PM Share Posted July 3, 2016 at 09:24 PM If you and I have a commitment on tax day (usually April 15) and will be unable to submit our taxes on that day, what do we normally do? Yes, boys and girls, we file them on April 14. (Or far sooner if we expect a refund.)Accountability and consequences only apply to the common folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 9, 2016 at 01:17 AM Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 at 01:17 AM (edited) Not surprisingly, the Defendent opposes the Plaintiff's introduction of the NH Supreme Court's Bach decision. The Defendent's response is attached. This sums up the argument: "Plaintiff offers no explanation as to what aspect of this case is relevant to this matter. An examination of Bach reveals that the issue before the New Hampshire Supreme Court was purely one of New Hampshire state law, and has no bearing on the constitutional issue pleaded in Plaintiffs Complaint." .Samuel v Trame - Supp Authority Reply.pdf Edited July 9, 2016 at 01:21 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted July 9, 2016 at 10:25 AM Share Posted July 9, 2016 at 10:25 AM I'd agree with the state for once. Bach is of no consequence here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted July 12, 2016 at 03:06 AM Author Share Posted July 12, 2016 at 03:06 AM (edited) Plaintiff's attorney filed a reply outlining the possible relevance of the Bach case (see attached). His 3rd point hits the issue I addressed in post #97 above. I wish he had pointed this out originally during his motion to cite supplemental authority. Third and finally, the administrative code in Illinois is more restrictive than the statute, which falls into the ultra vires argument New Hampshire found. The Illinois concealed carry act statute defines a nonresident as someone who has not resided in Illinois for more than 30 days. 430 ILCS 66/40(a). The administrative code (Title 20, Section 1231) defines a resident as someone who qualifies for an Illinois driver's license due to his or her intent to establish a permanent domicile in this state. These are not the same things. Equating residence to domicile is the equivalent of equating residence to citizenship, something this Court is doubtless quite familiar with in applying to called diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1332). Military members, such as Plaintiff, who are stationed in Illinois reside here for much longer than 30 days, and thus are, in fact, residents under the statute. The "clarification" in the administrative code removes this option, and is, in fact, just like Bach, an ultra vires addition to the statute. Essentially, the administrative rules are imposing legislation, contrary to the intent of the people who actually wrote the statute. That is precisely the logic behind the NH Supreme Court's decision, and precisely why it is relevant to the outcome of this case. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RELATED TO BACH CASE.pdf Edited July 12, 2016 at 03:18 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 23, 2016 at 02:22 AM Author Share Posted November 23, 2016 at 02:22 AM The Central District Court of Illinois denied the motion to alter judgment, citing multiple reasons, depending upon the issue raised: irrelevance, should have introduced argument before ruling, raised argument already and the court rejected it, and the "reasonableness" of the state's substantially similar requirements for nonresident application rules as held by CA7 in the Culp v. Madigan preliminary injunction denial. Order on Motion to Alter Judgment.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 18, 2016 at 04:27 PM Share Posted December 18, 2016 at 04:27 PM Myerscough will grasp at straws all day long to find BS reasons to ignore the plain language of the statute, precedent both binding and guiding, and the Constitution. Interesting fact, every single district judge in the Central District is an Obama appointee. Wanna get a fair shake, get the bleep outta this district's jurisdiction. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 18, 2016 at 05:31 PM Author Share Posted December 18, 2016 at 05:31 PM (edited) My previous post had a typo--this is a Southern District Court of Illinois, not Central. My mistake--"Central" has been my primary focus. This ruling was from Judge Rosenstengel. Edited December 18, 2016 at 05:32 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:44 PM Share Posted December 19, 2016 at 06:44 PM Oh, Rosenstengel is just as bad and also an Obama appointee. She replaced Judge G. Patrick Murphy, another Obama appointee who went back to private practice. ILSD courthouse is in East St. Louis....eek, would wanna be armed if I'm around there. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 17, 2017 at 05:52 PM Author Share Posted February 17, 2017 at 05:52 PM Looks like the plaintiff appealed to the CA7 in Dec 2016 but didn't file the Docketing Statement in time. The court ordered the cause dismissed. From the order, issued Jan 20, 2017: Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3©, a Docketing Statement must be filed within seven (7) days of the filing of the notice of appeal. The appellant failed to do so. The court issued a show cause order directing that the appellant file a Docketing Statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order or face a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. To date, the appellant has not filed the required Docketing Statement. IT IS ORDERED that this cause is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Circuit Rule 3©. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 17, 2017 at 08:24 PM Share Posted February 17, 2017 at 08:24 PM Are you kidding me? Maag screwed up that badly? Meh, shame Illinois doesn't require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk 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