614 replies to this topic

[kwc]

Plaintiffs' attorney filed a "Motion for Extension of Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline" on Dec 23, citing the need to disclose expert witnesses and depose the Defendants' primary witness, Jessica Trame (director of the Firearm Services Bureau and one of the named defendants). A 90-day extension was requested.

[kwc]

Today the defendants asked to extend the deadline for filing Dispositive motions by 16 days. Curiously, one of the reasons cited is the ongoing review of new "substantially similar" survey results returned from the states (presumably those returned over a year ago now) and the possible need to update the Defendants' affidavit which addresses these surveys.

[skinnyb82]

So they're using "We're just getting around to doing what we've had two, maybe three years to do" excuse, at the precise time when pre-trial is ratcheting up. What a coincidence! That's pathetic, but not as pathetic as the "I'm a poor, overworked lawyer" garbage. Bottom line is that it isn't our fault that our politicians can't get anything meaningful accomplished (no, I do not consider passing a law repealing the tampon tax to be a "meaningful accomplishment" or forcing medical practitioners to violate their religious beliefs to be at all "meaningful" much less an "accomplishment"), maybe hire some more AAGs to pick up the slack and stop dragging out every single lawsuit filed against the State. And their lack of funds or....lack of work ethic is not a remotely reasonable justification for screwing with your civil liberties. There is no justification. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Gamma]

Unless they plan to declare all 49 other states, and territories and possessions to be "substantially similar" then whatever minor changes they may make are moot.

[skinnyb82]

The state has had years to go over these surveys (or, at minimum, months or a month, still long enough to do something rather than waiting for remand of this case) and that allowing them three months to go over a few dozen sub-20 question surveys is patently absurd. Not to mention that, as Gamma stated above, that it is more likely than not that no substantial changes will take place and this is window dressing, stalling. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[III]

The state has had years to go over these surveys (or, at minimum, months or a month, still long enough to do something rather than waiting for remand of this case) and that allowing them three months to go over a few dozen sub-20 question surveys is patently absurd. Not to mention that, as Gamma stated above, that it is more likely than not that no substantial changes will take place and this is window dressing, stalling. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

....gives some perspective on why the State is in such financial ruin as a whole though.....

[Teufel Hunden]

It will be delicious irony if Illinois is the example and cause for national reciprocity to be passed.

[kwc]

(Deleted)

Edited by kwc, 29 December 2016 - 08:58 PM.

[kwc]

Just to be clear, the state is asking for a 16-day extension (not 90). Plaintiffs requested 90 days--primarily because CA7 clearly felt the plaintiffs need to "prove" why the state should be forced to allow exercise of a right protected by the Constitution. Additional discovery will help bolster the supporting evidence, which under an appropriate level of scrutiny should never have been necessary!

[kwc]

Today the defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request to reopen Discovery.

From their response: "In short, Plaintiffs have demonstrated no good cause for extending the discovery deadlines to take depositions of parties known to Plaintiffs since the outset of this case or to disclose their own experts more than a year after they were required to do so. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs' request to extend discovery deadlines in this matter."

Edited by kwc, 29 December 2016 - 03:45 PM.

[kwc]

Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins just approved the Defendents' motion to extend the Dispositive Motions deadline to Jan 13, 2017. No order yet on the Plaintiffs' Motion to extend Discovery.

Edited by kwc, 30 December 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[skinnyb82]

Let me get this straight. They admitted that they possess new discoverable material directly relevant to the instant case (and admit that it could alter the outcome of the case) yet are basically refusing to produce? If this were a criminal action then...remember what Mosby did with the Brady violations? Well, rather than it being conduct which will result in disbarment (it will if it's a pattern), that garbage in a federal civil trial such as this is sanctionable conduct under FRCP Rule 37. Here, we have a Rule 26 (governing discovery, expert witnesses, etc) issue which triggers Rule 37 (discovery violations). "We have new, discoverable material which will materially alter the issue at hand...but you can't have it." Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways, Lisa. Either you don't have anything to hand over or you do and you must hand it over. Myerscough had better grant that extension otherwise CA7 will be reviewing another interlocutory order. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[kwc]

Let me get this straight. They admitted that they possess new discoverable material directly relevant to the instant case (and admit that it could alter the outcome of the case) yet are basically refusing to produce? If this were a criminal action then...remember what Mosby did with the Brady violations? Well, rather than it being conduct which will result in disbarment (it will if it's a pattern), that garbage in a federal civil trial such as this is sanctionable conduct under FRCP Rule 37. Here, we have a Rule 26 (governing discovery, expert witnesses, etc) issue which triggers Rule 37 (discovery violations). "We have new, discoverable material which will materially alter the issue at hand...but you can't have it." Give me a break. You cannot have it both ways, Lisa. Either you don't have anything to hand over or you do and you must hand it over. Myerscough had better grant that extension otherwise CA7 will be reviewing another interlocutory order. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins just DENIED additional discovery.  Deadline for Dispositive Motions remains Jan 13.

[kwc]

Dispositive Motions were due yesterday to the Central District Court of Illinois. Both sides filed motions for Summary Judgment.

Documents filed by the Defendants contain nothing that is radically different from prior arguments. They did, however, address their interpretation of the laws of other states and their rationale for determining substantial similarity to the Illinois statutes. Of course, the Defendants continue to claim the right of nonresidents to bear arms in Illinois is far from the core right protected by the Second Amendment.

The Plaintiffs' motion contains expanded content. It introduces the Trame deposition from the Samuel v. Trame (S.D.IL) case. It counters the State's conjecture of harm to the public by citing studies that show permit holders are at a low risk of crime compared to the general population. It covers the four substantially-similar states and their inconsistency with the established "substantially similar" criteria, and addresses the lack of criminal activity committed by nonresident CCL holders from those states. It also points out other disconnects between the requirements codified in the FCCA, and the actual implementation scheme used by the ISP.

I've attached the primary documents from the Defendants ("D -") and the Plaintiffs ("P -") below for your casual reading on a January weekend when we pay special honor to our civil rights. (I excluded other files that are not central to the arguments and those that have been posted previously.)

 

Responses are due Feb 3.

 

.

Attached Files

•  D - Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf   244.63KB   40 downloads
•  D - 44-main - Memo in support of motion.pdf   409.25KB   38 downloads
•  D - 44-1 - Trame Affidavit.pdf   5.62MB   34 downloads
•  P - 45 - Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf   295.04KB   41 downloads
•  P - 46-main - Memo in Support of Motion.pdf   495.5KB   39 downloads
•  P - 46-1 - Statement of Undisputed Facts.pdf   352.82KB   34 downloads
•  P - 47-main - List of Exhibits.pdf   58.77KB   37 downloads
•  P - 47-1 - Trame Deposition (from Samuel v Trame).pdf   3.94MB   47 downloads

Edited by kwc, 18 January 2017 - 12:40 PM.

[kwc]

At the request of the plaintiffs, and with the defendants' concurrence, the court extended the filing deadline for responses until Feb 17.

[kwc]

The Defendants just filed their response. Documents are attached. Makes my head hurt... and raises the blood pressure a bit...

The first file is the response; the second is a revision to Trame's affidavit, now citing the new substantially similar states list.


 D - 52-main.pdf   322.92KB   97 downloads

 D - 52-1.pdf   81.24KB   44 downloads

[RoadyRunner]

The Defendants just filed their response. Documents are attached. Makes my head hurt... and raises the blood pressure a bit...
The first file is the response; the second is a revision to Trame's affidavit, now citing the new substantially similar states list.
 D - 52-main.pdf   322.92KB   97 downloads
 D - 52-1.pdf   81.24KB   44 downloads

My head hurts.... Conclusions of law that are not supported by law.... Conclusions of law that are not facts. Sheesh. That's amazing.

[kwc]

Plaintiffs filed their response (see attached brief).

The changes in the list of Substantially Similar states provided an opportunity to further explore the arbitrary nature of the ISP's scheme and the resulting mayhem. The brief includes as an exhibit a copy of the revocation letter sent to "Nancy B." in New Mexico, and says the following:

Still staying with New Mexico, this flip-flopping by the State, based seemingly on arbitrariness and randomness, has real-world consequences. Attached as Exhibit P is a letter dated February 8, 2017, from ISP to Nancy B., a resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and until nine days ago, a non-resident concealed carry license-holder in Illinois. Her offense? Living in New Mexico after Illinois decided its residents were no longer trustworthy to apply for a non-resident CCL. Nancy has a New Mexico CCL (she must, to have been eligible to apply for an Illinois non-resident CCL), went through the Illinois training, paid the increased fee and met all requirements, and the only thing that changed was the ISP's attitude towards New Mexico. No real or threatened harm had come out of New Mexico as a result of non-resident CCL applications, only imagined harm.

The brief also references the recent attempted robbery of a Missouri resident in Venice, IL which resulted in the death of an assailant due to the victim's ability to carry in his car:

Finally, this case is not just academic. On February 2, 2017, while the ISP was rotating available non-resident states, a 70 year-old veteran from St. Louis, along with another man, were sitting in a vehicle in front of a residence in Venice, Illinois, when two other men approached them and attempted to rob them. The veteran, who was carrying a firearm in the vehicle pursuant to his Missouri concealed carry license, shot the two robbers. (See Vietnam Veteran Turns Table on Would-Be Robbers, Shooting Both, The Telegraph, February 3, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit Q). In discussing the incident, Thomas Gibbons, the Madison County State's Attorney, stated:

"Self-defense is an inalienable right in a free society and the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The courts have consistently recognized the right of a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense. This incident yesterday morning is the exact situation where the necessity for this right becomes crystal clear, said Gibbons, who also participates in concealed carry. I have said it before and I will not waver from this position I say to all criminals thinking about committing violent crimes in Madison County if you come here to commit your crimes, do not be surprised if you end up on the wrong side of the concealed weapon of a law-abiding citizen. We will not tolerate violent crime and we will defend ourselves, our loved ones and our community from the harm you intend to bring."

This is what this case is about. It is not about speculative harm from imaginary criminals who take the time to apply for a non-resident CCL before coming into Illinois to commit their dastardly deeds. It is about the law-abiding persons who wish to apply to obtain the same ability to defend themselves as Illinois residents. The St. Louis veteran was lucky to survive the incident, but even more nuanced than that he was lucky he was in his car, because that is about the only place in Illinois he could have been armed. The next person, who has the misfortune to be attacked by a criminal on a city street, may not be so lucky.

 P - 55-1.pdf   593.81KB   65 downloads

Edited by kwc, 18 February 2017 - 07:36 AM.

[press1280]

Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs:

 

If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened:

 

1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily)

2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 

3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box"

 

Which one is it?

[kwc]

Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs:
 
If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened:
 
1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily)
2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 
3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box"
 
Which one is it?

None of the above. The states answered the survey questions differently this time, and the ISP dug a little further into some of the other state's statutes.

There is a thread on those changes here: http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=64716

[Gamma]

Question here and apologies I haven't waded through the briefs:
 
If 3 states were dropped, that suggests that 1 of 3 things has happened:
 
1) IL requirements have changed (statutorily)
2) Those 3 states' laws have changed 
3) The questionnaires weren't sent back or those states didn't "check a box"
 
Which one is it?

None of the above. The states answered the survey questions differently this time, and the ISP dug a little further into some of the other state's statutes.

There is a thread on those changes here: http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=64716

One thing to keep in mind is that the questions asked on the surveys do not directly address the criteria that the ISP invented to evaluate "substantially similar". So someone in the ISP bureaucracy has to make a determination. And of course neither the survey questions nor the ISP's criteria are supported by actual law.

All you really need to know about how the ISP treats your civil rights, you can discern from reading the Trame deposition. Your rights are allowed at the whim of apparatchik office drones with little more concern than if they were deciding what day of the week trash pickup should happen.

[press1280]

Are the questions and responses found in any of the records? Not that it really should matter, the overall issue is that 46 states residents cannot carry in IL and have no way of doing so legally.

When it gets back to CA7, please tell me the standard of review won't be "reasonableness", right?

[kwc]

Are the questions and responses found in any of the records? Not that it really should matter, the overall issue is that 46 states residents cannot carry in IL and have no way of doing so legally.

Yes, they are included as exhibits in the motions for summary judgment. I also have the full set posted at http://morsel.info/?p=537

 

When it gets back to CA7, please tell me the standard of review won't be "reasonableness", right?

 

One can only hope the court uses strict or near-strict scrutiny next time around instead of rational basis!

 

.

Edited by kwc, 01 March 2017 - 03:29 PM.

[kwc]

The defendants requested and received an extension to file a reply to the plaintiff's response to their motion for a summary judgment.  Judge Myerscough approved an extension for both sides, now due Friday, March 10, 2017.

[kwc]

Replies to the responses to the motions for summary judgment were filed yesterday. Now the wait begins... trial is scheduled for May 23.

Edited by kwc, 11 March 2017 - 09:13 PM.

[kwc]

Judge Myerscough cancelled the pretrial conference and bench trial--she apparently intends to rule on the pending motions for summary judgement without them.

Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: On the Court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and the Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. are VACATED and will be reset, as necessary, following the Courts ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/29/2017. (GL, ilcd)

[Charles Nichols]

Deja Vu all over again.

[skinnyb82]

Myerscough doesn't need a trial, she knows it all. Just ask (former) Sangamon County Deputy Koester who was sued under 1983 and she granted summary judgment in favor of the PLAINTIFFS. Yes, Plaintiffs, nevermind that the Deputy had a very (VERY) questionable history of taser use (multiple incidents over several years), record of excessive force, but an individual capacity lawsuit skipping trial and going straight to summary judgment is...uhhh I've only seen one case, the aforementioned one. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Gamma]

Judge Myerscough cancelled the pretrial conference and bench trial--she apparently intends to rule on the pending motions for summary judgement without them.

Docket Text: TEXT ORDER: On the Court's own motion, the Final Pretrial Conference set for May 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and the Bench Trial set for May 23, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. are VACATED and will be reset, as necessary, following the Courts ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/29/2017. (GL, ilcd)

Sounds like a stall tactic. Skip the fact finding, make a summary judgement, then the appellate court remands for some requested fact finding, just add another year to the process.

[kwc]

I believe Judge Myerscough simply thinks she has enough information to rule, and is pressing ahead. We'll see. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk