Jump to content

Meyers vs Schmitz


jmeyers

Recommended Posts

--ISP replied (para.-13)

the court also noted that the STATE enjoyed broad police powers to regulate firearms

----see ILL State Constitution section-22 (SUJECT ONLY TO THE POLICE POWER)----

Illinois police powers are (ILLinois State Police & ILLinois DNR)

Wow. They take the public and the courts for fools apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their comments about the IL Constitution are curious. The case they cite is from 1979, WELL BEFORE Heller and McDonald that declared the Second Amendment was an individual, fundamental right. I think SCOTUS in McDonald even referenced the IL Constitution when it said that a fundamental right subject to police power was no right at all.

 

In Moore/Shepard v. Madigan, the 7th CA extended this individual, fundamental right outside the home.

 

Their contention that a 37 year old ruling gives them "broad powers to regulate firearms" is ridiculous in the face of these more recent rulings from SCOTUS and 7th CA that protect an individual's rights from such overreaching "police power."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the end, just delays.

 

Believe next step is a Hearing before the ISP to outline why we believe Florida is substantially similar which will have a end result of them denying it and then taking the record back to Court to continue the fight.

gotcha, that sucks. but then again could we really expect an Illinois judge to actually respect rights? haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for giggles, this has been filed :)

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

 

JOSHUA D. MEYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

 

LEO P. SCHMITZ , Director of the Illinois State Police,

 

Defendant .

 

No.: 15-MR-1066

 

 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Now comes Joshua D. Meyers, Plaintiff herein, by Carl R. Draper, one of his attorneys, and hereby moves this court to enter judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants by default for the failure of Defendants to answer the Complaint or otherwise file an appropriate motion in this cause, and in support thereof, he states the following:

1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Defendants on November 18, 2015 and summons was issued that day to the Defendants. Defendants were served with summons on November 23, 2015.

2. Defendants entered their Appearance by filing an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time on or about December 23, 2015. In that Motion, Defendants requested an extension of time to file their answers or other appropriate responsive pleading by January 14, 2016.

3. On or about January 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Remand in this cause which is presently set for hearing.

4. Defendants have not filed any answer to the Complaint, and as such, all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint must be taken as true. This court should enter judgment based upon the unopposed allegations of the Complaint.

5. There has been no Motion to Dismiss the Complaint either pursuant to Section 2-615 nor Section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Plaintiff’s Complaint was verified in accordance with Section 2-605 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a consequence, any pleading by Defendants had to be verified under oath. No pleading in this cause has been filed in accordance with this section of the law.

7. Section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes provision for motions with respect to pleadings. Such motions must point out specifically any defect complained of that would cause any portion of the Complaint to be stricken or the action dismissed. The Motion to Remand does none of those things.

8. Section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for involuntarily dismissal of pleadings that are defective in a manner that the court either has no jurisdiction or the action is somehow barred. The Motion to Remand raises no such issue.

9. While Plaintiff was willing to extend the time to file a proper responsive pleading in this case, Defendants have failed to file any appropriate pleading even eleven weeks after the agreed extension of time.

For these reasons, Joshua D. Meyers, Plaintiff, hereby respectfully prays that the court enter judgment by default for him and against Defendants and granting all of the relief requested in the prayer stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really disheartening the amount of gymnastics that the state, the ISP, and the courts go through to come up with any possible excuse for denying fairness and civil rights.

Not to mention the fact that they're using our own dollars to keep us in chains, and reimburse our attorneys when they win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed as well.

 

All 3 (Reconsideration, Preliminary Injunction and Default Judgement) all set for hearing May 4 at 130pm

 

I'm sure all of which will be handled before the ISP gets around to giving you the formality of an administrative hearing before they deny you.

 

Any other civil rights issue would have been handled in an expeditious manner by the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been filed as well.

 

All 3 (Reconsideration, Preliminary Injunction and Default Judgement) all set for hearing May 4 at 130pm

 

I'm sure all of which will be handled before the ISP gets around to giving you the formality of an administrative hearing before they deny you.

 

Any other civil rights issue would have been handled in an expeditious manner by the courts.

Whenever I read legal briefs and I see language saying "Now here comes..." I always imagine that person walking into the courtroom in a super flashy suit while his theme music plays in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Injunction denied

 

Motion for Summary Disposition filed (not sure what it contains yet) as the Order has not been scanned in

Sorry, so are you saying that the judge denied your request for relief (your motion to reconsider and injunction) and just expects you to wait for the ISP to grant you a hearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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