Jump to content


Photo

Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#91 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 April 2016 - 10:25 AM

Surprisingly, the defendants did not ask for an extension.  In fact, they beat the April 28 deadline to file their response to the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend.

 

Unsurprisingly, their motion asks the court to deny the plaintiff's motion:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied for two reasons. First, Plaintiff fails to identify a

purpose authorized under FRCP 59 for the reconsideration of the Court’s March 21, 2016, and

merely rehashes her previous arguments or presents new legal theories not previously asserted

prior to judgment. Second, even if the Plaintiff could raise new legal theories at this late date,

Plaintiff’s reference to the constitutional right to travel does not present the Court with grounds

to alter its March 21, 2016, judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.

 

Motion is attached.

 

 

Attached Files


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#92 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 22 April 2016 - 01:03 PM

Is ISP taking over a new leave?  No Extension fort me?  Im shocked...



#93 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 April 2016 - 12:54 PM

As previously stated, Maag being counsel of record is quite scary. I know of at least one IC member who contacted him in regard to Horsley v. Trame and he was dismissive, opted to use arguments that haven't been used in a 2A case before and paid the price. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#94 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 23 April 2016 - 01:13 PM

If the plaintiff appeals, what is the likelihood CA7 will hear this one?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#95 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 23 April 2016 - 01:56 PM

I find a CA7 hearing very slim



#96 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 24 April 2016 - 08:48 AM

Appeal is an appeal by right and...I would rather this case not go to CA7. The only question is will the merits panel assigned to the case actually hear arguments or will it issue a per curiam because it doesn't believe that the case needs to be argued. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#97 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:35 PM

Judge Rosenstengel has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the case.

On June 8, the plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority." The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Maag) introduced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's recent ruling on Scott Bach et al v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, and asked the Judge to review the logic applied in this case when reconsidering (if she chooses to do so) Samuel v. Trame.

Scott Bach and the ANJRPC filed suit against the NH Dept of Safety for refusing to issue nonresident carry permits to residents of New Jersey. At the heart of the argument is this: New Hampshire has a shall-issue scheme in place, and the statute allows nonresidents to apply for a permit. However, the administrative rules in NH go one step further and require nonresident applicants to possess licenses or permits from their home states. New Jersey is a may-issue (or more accurately, a "no-issue") state. Effectively, this disconnect means that residents and nonresidents are treated differently.

The case was not settled on Constitutional arguments. Instead, the court ruled that the administrative rules went "ultra vires" (beyond the powers) of the statute and essentially became de facto legislation. The court holds that the administrative rules are therefore invalid.

Mr. Maag leaves it to the imagination of Judge Rosenstengel to intepret the applicability of this ruling to Samuel v. Trame.

IMHO, the clearest parallel between Bach and Samuel would revolve around the definitions of "resident" and "nonresident" and demonstrating that the administrative code in Illinois is more restrictive than the statute. The statute (FCCA) defines a nonresident as someone who has not resided in Illinois for more than 30 days. The administrative code (Title 20, Section 1231) defines a resident as someone who qualifies for an Illinois driver's license due to his or her intent to establish a permanent domicile in this state. Military members who are stationed in Illinois reside here for much longer than 30 days, and could arguably be considered residents under the statute. The "clarification" in the administrative code removes this option. Essentially, the administrative rules are imposing legislation, contrary to their intent. That is precisely the logic behind the NH Supreme Court's decision.

.

Attached Files


Edited by kwc, 11 June 2016 - 04:16 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#98 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:46 PM

Judge Rosenstengel has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the case.

On June 8, the plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority." The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Maag) introduced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's recent ruling on Scott Bach et al v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, and asked the Judge to review the logic applied in this case when reconsidering (if she chooses to do so) Samuel v. Trame.

Scott Bach and the ANJRPC filed suit against the NH Dept of Safety for refusing to issue nonresident carry permits to residents of New Jersey. At the heart of the argument is this: New Hampshire has a shall-issue scheme in place, and the statute allows nonresidents to apply for a permit. However, the administrative rules in NH go one step further and require nonresident applicants to possess licenses or permits from their home states. New Jersey is a may-issue (or more accurately, a "no-issue") state. Effectively, this disconnect means that residents and nonresidents are treated differently.

The case was not settled on Constitutional arguments. Instead, the court ruled that the administrative rules went "ultra vires" (beyond the powers) of the statute and essentially became de facto legislation. The court holds that the administrative rules are therefore invalid.

Mr. Maag leaves it to the imagination of Judge Rosenstengel to intepret the applicability of this ruling to Samuel v. Trame.

 

Yea, I don't see that particular case of much value to this one.

.



#99 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:49 PM

Yea, I don't see that particular case of much value to this one.


I edited my post #97 to explain a possible similarity between the two cases. It would have been helpful for the plaintiff's attorney to explain this, too, if that was his rationale for making this motion. It's hard to know if that was even his point. He doesn't say.

Would a district judge even consider reviewing a ruling of a state Supreme Court? I dunno.


.

Edited by kwc, 11 June 2016 - 04:18 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#100 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 June 2016 - 01:17 PM


 


Would a district judge even consider reviewing a ruling of a state Supreme Court? I dunno.
 

 

The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Cite Additional Authority and gave the Defendant until July 5, 2016 to respond if they wish to do so.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#101 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 03 July 2016 - 02:39 PM

Surprise!  State of IL has asked for a 3 Day Motion for Extension of Time (to July 8) due to:

 Attorney Aziz will be out of the office on July 5 due to a religious holiday



#102 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 03 July 2016 - 03:16 PM

If you and I have a commitment on tax day (usually April 15) and will be unable to submit our taxes on that day, what do we normally do? Yes, boys and girls, we file them on April 14. (Or far sooner if we expect a refund.)

Edited by kwc, 03 July 2016 - 03:17 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#103 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,880 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 03 July 2016 - 03:24 PM

If you and I have a commitment on tax day (usually April 15) and will be unable to submit our taxes on that day, what do we normally do? Yes, boys and girls, we file them on April 14. (Or far sooner if we expect a refund.)

Accountability and consequences only apply to the common folk. 


"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#104 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 08 July 2016 - 07:17 PM

Not surprisingly, the Defendent opposes the Plaintiff's introduction of the NH Supreme Court's Bach decision. The Defendent's response is attached.

This sums up the argument: "Plaintiff offers no explanation as to what aspect of this case is relevant to this matter. An examination of Bach reveals that the issue before the New Hampshire Supreme Court was purely one of New Hampshire state law, and has no bearing on the constitutional issue pleaded in Plaintiffs Complaint."

.

Attached Files


Edited by kwc, 08 July 2016 - 07:21 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#105 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 July 2016 - 04:25 AM

I'd agree with the state for once. Bach is of no consequence here.



#106 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 11 July 2016 - 09:06 PM

Plaintiff's attorney filed a reply outlining the possible relevance of the Bach case (see attached). His 3rd point hits the issue I addressed in post #97 above. I wish he had pointed this out originally during his motion to cite supplemental authority.

Third and finally, the administrative code in Illinois is more restrictive than the statute, which falls into the ultra vires argument New Hampshire found. The Illinois concealed carry act statute defines a nonresident as someone who has not resided in Illinois for more than 30 days. 430 ILCS 66/40(a). The administrative code (Title 20, Section 1231) defines a resident as someone who qualifies for an Illinois driver's license due to his or her intent to establish a permanent domicile in this state. These are not the same things. Equating residence to domicile is the equivalent of equating residence to citizenship, something this Court is doubtless quite familiar with in applying to called diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1332).

Military members, such as Plaintiff, who are stationed in Illinois reside here for much longer than 30 days, and thus are, in fact, residents under the statute. The "clarification" in the administrative code removes this option, and is, in fact, just like Bach, an ultra vires addition to the statute. Essentially, the administrative rules are imposing legislation, contrary to the intent of the people who actually wrote the statute. That is precisely the logic behind the NH Supreme Court's decision, and precisely why it is relevant to the outcome of this case.

Attached Files


Edited by kwc, 11 July 2016 - 09:18 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#107 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 November 2016 - 08:22 PM

The Central District Court of Illinois denied the motion to alter judgment, citing multiple reasons, depending upon the issue raised: irrelevance, should have introduced argument before ruling, raised argument already and the court rejected it, and the "reasonableness" of the state's substantially similar requirements for nonresident application rules as held by CA7 in the Culp v. Madigan preliminary injunction denial.

Attached File  Order on Motion to Alter Judgment.pdf   111.66KB   80 downloads
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#108 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:27 AM

Myerscough will grasp at straws all day long to find BS reasons to ignore the plain language of the statute, precedent both binding and guiding, and the Constitution. Interesting fact, every single district judge in the Central District is an Obama appointee. Wanna get a fair shake, get the bleep outta this district's jurisdiction. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#109 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:31 AM

My previous post had a typo--this is a Southern District Court of Illinois, not Central. My mistake--"Central" has been my primary focus. :)

This ruling was from Judge Rosenstengel.

Edited by kwc, 18 December 2016 - 11:32 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#110 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 December 2016 - 12:44 PM

Oh, Rosenstengel is just as bad and also an Obama appointee. She replaced Judge G. Patrick Murphy, another Obama appointee who went back to private practice. ILSD courthouse is in East St. Louis....eek, would wanna be armed if I'm around there. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#111 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,191 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:52 AM

Looks like the plaintiff appealed to the CA7 in Dec 2016 but didn't file the Docketing Statement in time. The court ordered the cause dismissed.

From the order, issued Jan 20, 2017:

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3©, a Docketing Statement must be filed within seven (7) days of the filing of the notice of appeal. The appellant failed to do so. The court issued a show cause order directing that the appellant file a Docketing Statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order or face a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. To date, the appellant has not filed the required Docketing Statement.

IT IS ORDERED that this cause is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Circuit Rule 3©.


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#112 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,285 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 17 February 2017 - 02:24 PM

Are you kidding me? Maag screwed up that badly? Meh, shame Illinois doesn't require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users