Jump to content


Photo

Meyers vs Schmitz


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
257 replies to this topic

#91 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 17 March 2016 - 01:03 PM

Proposed Orders filed by both parties

 

Attached File  Plaintiff Proposed Order.pdf   52.41KB   487 downloads

 

Attached File  ISP Proposed Order.pdf   282.17KB   566 downloads

 



#92 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 17 March 2016 - 01:18 PM

Proposed Orders filed by both parties

 

attachicon.gifPlaintiff Proposed Order.pdf

 

attachicon.gifISP Proposed Order.pdf

 

how long will it take for the judge to make a decision? 


FOLLOW ME!


#93 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 17 March 2016 - 01:37 PM

No one can predict the judiciary timelines, however attorneys and I are guessing 7-14 days perhaps?



#94 stockboyy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 14

Posted 17 March 2016 - 02:12 PM

--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)

#95 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 17 March 2016 - 03:23 PM

--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.


Edited by Gamma, 17 March 2016 - 03:27 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#96 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 17 March 2016 - 04:30 PM

Eh

 

Theres some comments from our peanut gallery but Ill refrain from sharing them at the moment :)



#97 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 18 March 2016 - 08:56 AM

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."

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#98 stockboyy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 14

Posted 18 March 2016 - 12:10 PM

After all the current court-cases We are yet Infringed by the Extreme Over-reach
of administrative rule making.
In this case here the over-reach is of one of the most lawful/vetted citizen groups in ILL(FCCA).
I feel to stop this the ILL constitution should be amended.
(Infringed only by the police power by administrative rule).

#99 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 25 March 2016 - 08:35 AM

And the verdict is..........

03/24/2016 Order Signed Judge: BRAUD

 

 

Remanded to ISP



#100 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 25 March 2016 - 08:38 AM

sooooooo that's the end of that?


FOLLOW ME!


#101 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 25 March 2016 - 08:40 AM

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.



#102 EnCrypt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 16

Posted 25 March 2016 - 08:42 AM

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.


FOLLOW ME!


#103 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:41 AM

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.



#104 wrangler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 16

Posted 31 March 2016 - 11:45 AM

I suspect that giggles will be all you'll get from it.



#105 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 31 March 2016 - 02:26 PM

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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#106 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,920 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 31 March 2016 - 07:05 PM

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.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#107 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 07 April 2016 - 04:26 PM

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

 

Attached Files



#108 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,417 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 April 2016 - 04:34 PM

Excellent!
"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)

#109 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,508 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 April 2016 - 06:00 PM

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.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#110 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,899 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 April 2016 - 06:34 PM

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.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#111 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 18 April 2016 - 11:38 PM

And....? It's been 6 weeks since the scheduled hearing.
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#112 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 19 April 2016 - 06:00 AM

The initial hearing resulted in the Judge taking it under advisement an issuing a REMAND on March 24 as shown above.

 

There are now additional motions scheduled for hearing on May 4 which include:

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Motion to Reconsider Amend

Motion for Default Judgement



#113 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 19 April 2016 - 08:44 AM

May 4 is the next deadline. Ok.
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#114 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 04 May 2016 - 03:03 PM

Arguments heard, judge to take it under advisement reading all the supporting law of memo's



#115 paul1911

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 13

Posted 06 May 2016 - 12:09 AM

Good luck and keep up the fight. You are going a lot faster then the other case that has been a roller coaster for me.

#116 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 17 May 2016 - 03:08 PM

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



#117 AuroraInstructor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,188 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 17 May 2016 - 04:00 PM

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?


http://IllinoisGunPros.com
http://facebook.com/...ealedCarryClass
State Certified Concealed Carry Trainer / NRA Certified Instructor


#118 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 17 May 2016 - 04:26 PM

I have no clue.  Docket was updated and no one has seen what this Motion for Summary Disposition says yet.  Im hoping it atleast has a timeline for a hearing in it.



#119 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 18 May 2016 - 10:41 AM

Hand written order denying Motion to Reconsider and Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 

Off to see if we can't get the state to schedule a hearing (you know, that thing they denied in the first place) and now have a court order to give but won't talk about it?



#120 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 10 June 2016 - 08:58 AM

78 Days since a Court Order for REMAND was issued

32 Days since the 2nd Request for Setting a Date was sent

2 Days since the 3rd Request for Setting a Date was sent

 

Anyone want to bet when they'll stop ignoring Court Order and set a date and stop infringing on my Due Process right?