Jump to content

Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit


kwc

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Is there any other possible explanation for a decision such as this one? I can't think of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...