BobPistol Posted September 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM Share Posted September 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM "I know nothing, NOTHING" I wonder where I heard that before? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w_bI4uLSS1I/UZTaK2i7YgI/AAAAAAAAK7Y/2r362PwHfZc/s1600/AA+-+Sgt+Schultz.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 22, 2015 at 03:28 AM Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 03:28 AM (edited) Today's docket entry shows the discovery hearing was held today. Status conference will be held on Jan 21, 2016. Trame filed a motion for a stay on the motion for summary judgment. She needs time to investigate the plaintiff's claims of Montana legal residency, current residence in Illinois, and impact of the plaintiff's status as a member of the military as it pertains to her ability to possess and carry firearms concealed in Illinois. Trame also says she needs time to investigate the plaintiff's standing to maintain a claim before the court, based in part on the above factors.Motion to Stay Summary Judgment (Trame).pdf Edited September 24, 2015 at 12:07 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teufel Hunden Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:01 PM Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:01 PM Is Trame's securement truly: "I can't say that the license shouldn't be issued, but I can't say that it should, either. So I denied it. I'm not sure what the rules are.". WTH? Unless Trame can provide definitive proof that an applicant does not qualify, shouldn't she be required to issue the license? The ISP is part of the executive branch in Illinois. It is disappointing that this type of thing is still going on with a ® in the governor's mansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:29 PM damn kwc, your quick, i haven't even logged in pacer yet today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM (edited) Teufel Hunden, that sounds close... but she never actually denied it since there is no mechanism for the plaintiff to even apply. It may be a stretch, but I interpret Trame's affidavit to hint (ever so subtly) she is having doubts about their own policies. The optimist in me wants to believe that, at least. Edited September 22, 2015 at 12:38 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:39 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 12:39 PM jmeyers, pronounce "kwc" and it kinda sounds like "quick." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted September 22, 2015 at 01:40 PM Share Posted September 22, 2015 at 01:40 PM touche` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM Author Share Posted September 23, 2015 at 10:47 AM Mr. Maag doesn't let any grass grow under his feet and has already filed a response to Trame's Motion to Stay the briefing and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. He accepts a 30-day extension for Trame to respond, but requests anything beyond that be denied. Maag makes it clear that there is little that needs to be "discovered." Things like verifying military status and driver's license are easy to confirm. His sarcasm is entertaining: There is a large building in Springfield, Illinois, full of people that do this for a living, and to think that it has not already been done stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. Simultaneously, the court established the discovery schedule timeline. Discovery is due by 4/15/2016 and Dispositive Motions are due by 5/15/2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebillybob Posted September 23, 2015 at 01:54 PM Share Posted September 23, 2015 at 01:54 PM Mr. Maag doesn't let any grass grow under his feet and has already filed a response to Trame's Motion to Stay the briefing and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. He accepts a 30-day extension for Trame to respond, but requests anything beyond that be denied. Maag makes it clear that there is little that needs to be "discovered." Things like verifying military status and driver's license are easy to confirm. His sarcasm is entertaining: There is a large building in Springfield, Illinois, full of people that do this for a living, and to think that it has not already been done stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.Simultaneously, the court established the discovery schedule timeline. Discovery is due by 4/15/2016 and Dispositive Motions are due by 5/15/2016. Laughing out loud at lawyer sarcasm.. almost as good as my pharmacist satirical wit... almost :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted September 23, 2015 at 06:02 PM Share Posted September 23, 2015 at 06:02 PM Mr. Maag doesn't let any grass grow under his feet and has already filed a response to Trame's Motion to Stay the briefing and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. He accepts a 30-day extension for Trame to respond, but requests anything beyond that be denied. Maag makes it clear that there is little that needs to be "discovered." Things like verifying military status and driver's license are easy to confirm. His sarcasm is entertaining: There is a large building in Springfield, Illinois, full of people that do this for a living, and to think that it has not already been done stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.Simultaneously, the court established the discovery schedule timeline. Discovery is due by 4/15/2016 and Dispositive Motions are due by 5/15/2016. Can you post a link to Maag's filing? I'd like to read that myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 23, 2015 at 11:59 PM Author Share Posted September 23, 2015 at 11:59 PM (edited) I can't link directly to PACER... so here it is. I just attached the defendant's Motion to Stay to post #32 above.Response to Defendant's Motion to Stay.pdf Edited September 24, 2015 at 12:08 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:36 AM Share Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:36 AM (edited) I can't link directly to PACER... so here it is. I just attached the defendant's Motion to Stay to post #32 above. Man, the legal representation for agencies in this state have been taking such massive butt-whippings, you would think that the plaintiff's co-counsel was a dominatrix. Edited September 24, 2015 at 05:07 AM by ChicagoRonin70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:38 AM Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:38 AM (edited) Yep, they're gettin' whooped, IMHO! Edited September 24, 2015 at 10:20 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:42 AM Share Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:42 AM (edited) Deleted Edited September 24, 2015 at 05:07 AM by ChicagoRonin70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:51 AM Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 at 01:51 AM (edited) Well, that's disappointing... Just looked at the scheduling order entered by Magistrate Judge Williams. Presumptive trial date is September 2016. Yikes. Edited September 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 16, 2015 at 12:00 AM Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 at 12:00 AM (edited) I missed posting about the Sep 30 update. The defendant's motion to stay the summary judgment was partially granted. Defendant now has until Nov 30 to respond to the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. Edited October 16, 2015 at 12:13 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted October 16, 2015 at 06:09 AM Share Posted October 16, 2015 at 06:09 AM Imo, it won't really matter after Culp v Madigan. That case has a huge head start on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 at 10:27 AM Since one focuses on nonresidents overall and the other specifically on military members, both cases have value. My prayer would be that the legislature, via HB4258/SB2150, or the ISP via changes to the administrative code, make Samuel v. Trame no longer necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted October 20, 2015 at 02:46 PM Share Posted October 20, 2015 at 02:46 PM kwc, Mine shall put some pressure on the administrative code and its guaranteed to stay in State Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 1, 2015 at 01:29 AM Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 at 01:29 AM (edited) Today the State replied to Samuel's motion for Summary Judgment and filed one of their own. Looks like they borrowed heavily from their response to Culp v. Madigan. Since Samuel v. Trame involves a military plaintiff, currently stationed in Illinois on active duty orders, I'm surprised the State doesn't realize (or at least doesn't acknowledge) they have full visibility into Samuel's criminal behavior and mental health status, since she currently lives here in Illinois. All of the whining about the expense and inability to get information on her is completely misguided when an applicant physically resides here. Any legal infractions or mental health assessments would be reported to the State as with any Illinois resident, and the State even does regular checks to validate her qualifications to maintain a FOID card. I'm equally surprised the plaintiff's counsel hasn't pointed that out, either (unless that is his next move). Documents are attached. .Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.pdfResponse to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - Affidavit.pdfMotion for Summary Judgment - Defendant (Trame).pdfMemorandum in Support of Defendant's Response to and Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf Edited December 1, 2015 at 01:35 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted December 3, 2015 at 07:18 AM Share Posted December 3, 2015 at 07:18 AM (edited) I suspect their concern isn't about current requirements, but prior, including prior to joining the Air Force. I get where you're coming from. I'm just trying to get into Illinois head. Being able to see the argument before it's made is my favorite part of debate. Edited December 3, 2015 at 07:20 AM by domin8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted December 3, 2015 at 08:15 AM Share Posted December 3, 2015 at 08:15 AM Their point is that they can't make everyone around the country report voluntary mental health treatment to them. The utter failure of their argument is that the same situation also applies to Illinois residents. An Illinois resident could seek treatment in another state and presumably avoid reporting just as residents of other states do. What it boils down to is they are trying to prove a negative which can't be done. They only have an illusion of success for Illinois residents. The voluntary mental health prohibition is unenforceable and counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 22, 2015 at 04:43 AM Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 at 04:43 AM (edited) Plaintiff's attorney scheduled a deposition with Jessica Trame (defendant) on Jan 7, and as a result has requested an extension of time until Jan 29 to reply to Trame's response. Boy would I love to be a fly on the wall during that deposition. It should at least provide interesting reading material when filed with the reply (assuming it is included). . Edited December 22, 2015 at 04:44 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted December 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM Share Posted December 22, 2015 at 12:59 PM Oh Goody. Reading material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted January 26, 2016 at 02:23 PM Share Posted January 26, 2016 at 02:23 PM Isn't this nice of the State of Illinois Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams: Status Conference held on 1/21/2016. Tom Maag for Plaintiff. Bilal Aziz for Defendant. Defendant reports that a settlement conference would be futile in this case. Parties agree that case will be decided by outcome of motions currently being briefed. Should the case survive summary judgment, the parties are directed to contact the Court upon receipt of a ruling on the pending motions for the purpose of scheduling a status conference. (Court Reporter n/a.) (amv)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/21/2016) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted January 26, 2016 at 02:30 PM Share Posted January 26, 2016 at 02:30 PM Thank you, kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 30, 2016 at 05:06 AM Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 at 05:06 AM (edited) Today the plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant's Motion for a Summary Judgment and a Reply In Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for a Summary Judgment. The response/reply and both exhibits are attached. Exhibit B is a deposition from Jessica Trame (director of the ISP's Firearm Services Bureau) and contains some intriguing statements. Plaintiff's Response and Reply.pdf Plaintiff's Response and Reply - Exhibit A.pdf Plaintiff's Response and Reply - Exhibit B.pdf . Edited January 30, 2016 at 05:06 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 30, 2016 at 05:27 AM Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 at 05:27 AM Argh! My PDF uploads don't seem to work... no idea why. I've temporarily uploaded these to another site: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Plaintiffs-Response-and-Reply.pdf http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Plaintiffs-Response-and-Reply-Exhibit-A.pdf http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Plaintiffs-Response-and-Reply-Exhibit-B.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 30, 2016 at 09:00 AM Share Posted January 30, 2016 at 09:00 AM Exhibit B is a deposition from Jessica Trame (director of the ISP's Firearm Services Bureau) and contains some intriguing statements. Indeed it does. In addition, something occurred to me in reading through part of that. Is there a precedent in this circuit on requiring ID for voting? ISP has created a system that requires a state DL or ID card before being allowed to apply for a FOID or CCL. There is something else that has been nagging at me for a long time. Their process for establishing the "substantially similar" states was extremely informal for something that would carry such weight. Many states did not even respond to the survey they sent out. They sent out a survey on other state's laws to licensing agencies or other police departments instead of state Attorney Generals or the like which I would think is normally how legal issues between states are addressed. Plus just the nature of sending out a survey rather than actually conducting a legal review, although that's really their whole approach to non-resident licensing, just get other states to do their work for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 31, 2016 at 12:07 AM Share Posted January 31, 2016 at 12:07 AM (edited) 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 ordersA. 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." Edited January 31, 2016 at 12:29 AM by ChicagoRonin70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now