Jump to content

Plaintiff's response to motion to stay


Recommended Posts

Here's the response from the plaintiffs to Lisa Madigan's motion to stay the mandate.

 

Plaintiffs_Response_to_Motion_to_Stay_Mandate.pdf

 

Thanks. That was a very enjoyable read with solid arguments.

 

Edit: My favorite parts are where they mention the governor needs more time now but for the other bills (2193, orig 183, etc) the gov was tweeting out his opinions on them in no time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try?

 

No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this request for more time even valid when the ILGA has not formally given a bill to the governor? The ILGA site still does not provide a status indication that the bill has been transmitted to the governor's desk? This is all a sham and CA7 should shoot it down in flames. This is nothing but a clear case of Illinois politicians playing games and continuing to deny Illinois citizens of their Constitutional Rights! "They" operate under the assumption they can break any law or any part of the Constitution that fits their needs and then ignore court orders that tell them they can't operate in this fashion. This needs to STOP and stop NOW.

 

 

 

EDIT: http://www.suntimes.com/news/20524014-761/attorney-general-asks-appeals-court-to-extend-deadline-for-conceal-carry-law.html

 

The governor’s office welcomed the move by Madigan, who has not ruled out a possible 2014 primary challenge against Quinn for governor.

“We think the request for a 30-day stay is appropriate,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said. “The bill has not yet arrived. Ordinarily, under the Illinois Constitution, the governor has 60 days to review a bill upon its arrival.”

Last week, the governor’s office would only say Quinn intends to “review” the legislation but would not offer any sense of the governor’s leanings on the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try?

 

No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again.

 

little harsh there?

 

I hope it's denyed but bet she gets the time to let gov potatoe head take his sweet time

 

While it shouldn't matter to them I doubt the court wants anything to do with 'court carry'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this request for more time even valid when the ILGA has not formally given a bill to the governor? The ILGA site still does not provide a status indication that the bill has been transmitted to the governor's desk? This is all a sham and CA7 should shoot it down in flames. This is nothing but a clear case of Illinois politicians playing games and continuing to deny Illinois citizens of their Constitutional Rights! "They" operate under the assumption they can break any law or any part of the Constitution that fits their needs and then ignore court orders that tell them they can't operate in this fashion. This needs to STOP and stop NOW.

 

You're right. Its a blatant, deliberate, exploitative, and frivolous stall tactic, giving additional time for local home rule to pass more AWB ordinances. Nothing more. You dont have to be a judge to see that, and the response exposes that perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try?

 

No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again.

Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try?

 

No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again.

Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong?

 

Par for the course from some of the mods here. Same attitude the legislature got miffed by with the got 'em by the balls attitude after the 7th decision. Unfortunately, we're paying for it now. The great and almighty Abolt has spoken, so you better duck. Ahem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gov has had as much or more time to analyze the bill as we have. His staff had reviewed it all through the drafting in order to determine his position just like we did. He could be examining it now, and probably is. Easy enough for him to figure out whether or not to veto/sign before the cliff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong?

 

Par for the course from some of the mods here. Same attitude the legislature got miffed by with the got 'em by the balls attitude after the 7th decision. Unfortunately, we're paying for it now. The great and almighty Abolt has spoken, so you better duck. Ahem...

 

We played the cards we had against a deck attacked against us in a rigged game. I think we did well considering what is going on in other states. We don't live in Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that due to the speed with which the response was filed, Sigale et al were notified that a judge intends to rule on it today or tomorrow.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Agreed - the speed and quality of the response was an indicator to me that they were prepared. Maybe a tip, or maybe they're just that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that due to the speed with which the response was filed, Sigale et al were notified that a judge intends to rule on it today or tomorrow.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Agreed - the speed and quality of the response was an indicator to me that they were prepared. Maybe a tip, or maybe they're just that good.

I think todd mentioned he was on the phone with them last night about a hour after madigans filing became public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't they get X amount of days so they can prepare a response? Why is that the State needs all the time in the world to do anything, yet our side has to jump immediately? I think we should get 30 days to respond to IL AG request so we can decide if we want to oppose her stay. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well FRAP Rule 27 explicitly states that respondents must file a response within 10 days unless the judge notifies counsel that he/she intends to act sooner. It must be a timely notification as well. Then petitioner must file reply to response within 7 days of the response but she may not get that time. And Rule 27 specifically addresses motions for stays under Rule 41.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

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...