Jump to content

Moore vs IL Attorney General


Recommended Posts

My guess is that if the letter contained a threatening message, the USMS would be investigating it as a criminal matter, and the letter would have been handled differently.

 

But it still makes me very curious about who sent it and what it said. Is this like the suspicious manilla envelope in the OJ trial, and we'll never know what was in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so our side sent the letter than.

 

 

Let's hope not. But it really needs to be stressed to everyone that any attempt to contact the Judge about this case is not only illegal it is monumentally stupid.

 

The only way to look at this whole process is that the facts have been presented by both sides and the judge will use law and precedence to deliver a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly just said the judge asked the plaintiffs not to discuss the letter. or i'm i reading it wrong Moore is the plaintiff right?

 

Molly is saying that because she has contact with the plaintiff's attorneys. We don't have contact with the defendant's attorneys as Illinois Carry is named as a plaintiff also. But we assume that the Judge asked both sides to keep quiet. Just take it for what it was. The letter won't be discussed by anybody, and if anyone, from either side, is considering contacting a federal judge about an ongoing case, DON'T.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've indicated before, it's not uncommon for this sort of thing to happen. The letter won't influence the case, but again as Budman said, sending a letter to a Judge is ex parte communication and can only be described as monumentally stupid.

 

There are various groups that do this sort of thing in Cook County courts all the time, the Moorish Temple convinces homeowners in foreclosure to deed their properties to their temple. The sheikh of the temple then proceeds to send all kinds of legal nonsense to the Judge. Or various mafia-type groups record all kinds of nonsense against the property to cloud title and confuse the court record or militia-type pleadings that claim that the court doesn't have jurisdiction because the person is a sovereign nation, etc. etc.

 

While these actions have no legal implications on the outcome of the case, these are actions are SANCTIONABLE which could mean jail time, fines, etc. Federal Rule 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

 

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.

So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

 

However.

The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.

:clap:

 

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

 

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.

So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

 

However.

The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.

:clap:

 

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.

 

 

 

Unfortunately your just way too familiar with Illinois politics. How many times have political parties here run extra candidates in opponents parties just to split up the others votes? Yea it could have been something from a poser trying to cast a bad light on one side or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

 

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.

So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

 

However.

The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.

:clap:

 

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.

I might be wrong, but you can't have a mistrial without a jury. However, an anti posing as one of us to bring discredit to our cause isn't out of the question. Or vice versa...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but you can't have a mistrial without a jury. However, an anti posing as one of us to bring discredit to our cause isn't out of the question. Or vice versa...

Given the level of intelligence shown by the Defense in their arguments thus far I wouldn't put it passed them to try and argue that an Ex Parte communication taints the ruling and forces the whole sorry exercise to be started all over again.

 

Unfortunately your just way too familiar with Illinois politics.

I said I don't have any inside info.

In Il the politicians wear their corruption on their sleeves. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 is just the number for the entry on the electronic docket, it's not a page number count.

 

As for the content of the letter, there is no reason to speculate. I will say that jail house "lawyers" and local crazies send letters to judges all the time, so my best guess is some violence victim wrote a letter expressing a point of view. The judge will pay it no mind, she just has an ethical obligation to tell everyone in the case that she received it.

 

The sealing could be for any number of reasons, there could be personal information in it, etc. that the judge doesn't want the whole world to see, crazies dig up all kinds of bizarre things.

 

Like People!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

 

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

 

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

 

i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases. there going to drag it out until then.IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

 

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

There is no way to spur the progress of either case. Both cases have been presented to the judges and now we wait

for one or both of them to make a move or issue a judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

 

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases. there going to drag it out until then.IMO

 

I am far from being a judicial study, but I would hardly think that two judges would sit on ruling on two separate cases for a year and possibly more. And if the coming election is the catalyst . . . .what do they have to loose or gain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

 

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases. there going to drag it out until then.IMO

 

I am far from being a judicial study, but I would hardly think that two judges would sit on ruling on two separate cases for a year and possibly more. And if the coming election is the catalyst . . . .what do they have to loose or gain?

well i would think if that's the case of loose or gain than they should of ruled on the cases by now, but no they haven't cause one is waiting on the other one to rule this has been done before i heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Transcript from August 4 has been made available here.

 

http://ia700603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.37.0.pdf

 

Has this been posted before? I find it hard to believe that I may have passed over this?

 

It was noted a couple weeks ago here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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