Jump to content

Samuel v. Trame - Military Non-Resident Lawsuit


kwc

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

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 by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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 by ChicagoRonin70
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

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.pdf

Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment - Affidavit.pdf

Motion for Summary Judgment - Defendant (Trame).pdf

Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Response to and Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf

Edited by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by domin8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • 3 weeks later...

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 by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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

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 by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 orders

A. 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 by ChicagoRonin70
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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