solareclipse2 Posted August 16, 2013 at 04:03 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 04:03 PM Wow. Just read through that. It was awesome. Only Illinois politicians could refute that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingchairman Posted August 16, 2013 at 05:57 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 05:57 PM Isn't there a FRAP Rule 33 sit down scheduled for today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted August 16, 2013 at 06:19 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 06:19 PM Isn't there a FRAP Rule 33 sit down scheduled for today? That is what I am thinking also. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitown35 Posted August 16, 2013 at 06:59 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 06:59 PM Isn't there a FRAP Rule 33 sit down scheduled for today? That is what I am thinking also. Jim. Yep. We'll have to wait and see if any information about it becomes available from anyone on here... Then nothing til Orals on 10/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted August 16, 2013 at 07:45 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 07:45 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingchairman Posted August 16, 2013 at 08:07 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 08:07 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney..Yes I recall that too. Here's to hoping all went well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:07 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:07 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney..Yes I recall that too. Here's to hoping all went well. I would suspect it was more along the lines of a Mexican standoff. Neither side gave an inch and we'll proceed to orals. Skinny or one of the others, maybe cmsites, said that today all parties involved would be given a schedule for the proceedings that, from what I understand, they'd be wise to adhere too and that would be about the extent of the negotiations. but I could be wrong, it's happened before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:17 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:17 PM http://i500.listal.com/image/1468263/500full.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:59 PM Share Posted August 16, 2013 at 09:59 PM http://i500.listal.com/image/1468263/500full.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted August 17, 2013 at 03:29 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 03:29 PM so i guess nothing happen than? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted August 17, 2013 at 07:42 PM Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 07:42 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney. Yes they met, yes they are barred from speaking about it publicly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booxone Posted August 17, 2013 at 08:00 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 08:00 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney. Yes they met, yes they are barred from speaking about it publicly I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted August 17, 2013 at 08:05 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 08:05 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney. Yes they met, yes they are barred from speaking about it publicly Probably barred from speaking about it privately as well.... Although I too would love to have been a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted August 17, 2013 at 09:40 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 09:40 PM Todd said in an earlier post that he would check with the lawyers about disclosure. The conference was scheduled this morning. Here is what I pulled from the rules for the conference. > Are Rule 33 conferences confidential? Yes. The Court requires all participants to keep what is said in these conferences strictly confidential. Communications, oral and written, which take place in the course of Rule 33 proceedings may not be disclosed to anyone other than the litigants, their counsel, and the conference attorney. Yes they met, yes they are barred from speaking about it publicly *purple font on* Is it safe to assume they didn't reach an agreement? *purple font off* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM Maybe the question concerning the rule 33 conference should be more tailored to another event such as oral arguments that were scheduled for 10/3, such as I take it the oral arguments scheduled for 10/3 are still a go? A question like this would tell us whether or not an agreement was reached that would end this round of discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted August 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM Share Posted August 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM Maybe the question concerning the rule 33 conference should be more tailored to another event such as oral arguments that were scheduled for 10/3, such as I take it the oral arguments scheduled for 10/3 are still a go? A question like this would tell us whether or not an agreement was reached that would end this round of discourse. I'm assuming they didn't reach an agreement, hence the *purple font* = sarcasm. LOL But maybe they did.....and maybe I'll win the Lotto tonight even though I didn't buy a ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted August 19, 2013 at 02:58 AM Share Posted August 19, 2013 at 02:58 AM I'm sorty if I wasn't clear. I understood your sarcasm. I was just stating that if people want info they should tailor the questions about something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgun80 Posted August 21, 2013 at 02:53 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 02:53 PM So, I guess we are in limbo until the orals more than a month away. And then how long for a ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted August 21, 2013 at 03:31 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 03:31 PM Probably January, right when ILSP start issuing permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgun80 Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:14 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:14 PM Probably January, right when ILSP start issuing permits.Then what's the point?I was hoping like everyone else that this would be resoved much faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:21 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:21 PM Probably January, right when ILSP start issuing permits.Then what's the point?I was hoping like everyone else that this would be resoved much faster. actually with this process looming over their heads it should hopefully give them a little more incentive to come in compliance with the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:28 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 04:28 PM Maybe, MAYBE, but I don't think we'll get anything great out of the court. They ruled in Dec 2012 that it was a right, a right they allowed to be denied 180 days, then 210 days, and now 270+ days and counting. Why would they do anything instead of let the clock run out? I know I'm pessimistic when it comes to the judicial system, but it moves SLOWLY. Why stir things up when they can let the time expire and blame the slow speed of the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostspring Posted August 21, 2013 at 05:07 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 05:07 PM Maybe, MAYBE, but I don't think we'll get anything great out of the court. They ruled in Dec 2012 that it was a right, a right they allowed to be denied 180 days, then 210 days, and now 270+ days and counting. Why would they do anything instead of let the clock run out? I know I'm pessimistic when it comes to the judicial system, but it moves SLOWLY. Why stir things up when they can let the time expire and blame the slow speed of the system? This sadly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted August 21, 2013 at 05:23 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 05:23 PM · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Maybe, MAYBE, but I don't think we'll get anything great out of the court. They ruled in Dec 2012 that it was a right, a right they allowed to be denied 180 days, then 210 days, and now 270+ days and counting. Why would they do anything instead of let the clock run out? I know I'm pessimistic when it comes to the judicial system, but it moves SLOWLY. Why stir things up when they can let the time expire and blame the slow speed of the system?The law requires that the ISP have a list of approved trainers and a list of approved curriculum no later than September 7 and if they do not comply it will give our side plenty of ammo for the orals in the 7th circuit which I suspect is why the 7th circuit chose that date that way one way or another we would know if the ISP is abiding by the law or breaking it. Link to comment
lockman Posted August 21, 2013 at 06:21 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 06:21 PM · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Have they even given a contact or address for instructors to submit their names? Link to comment
milq Posted August 21, 2013 at 07:09 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 07:09 PM · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given lockman, not that I know of but I do know they've sent some requests to my local sheriff's office to ask if some of the deputies wanted to get involved. Link to comment
TyGuy Posted August 21, 2013 at 07:57 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 07:57 PM · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given The law requires eh? Requires with no penalty for non-compliance, just like the law requiring FOID turn around within 30 days. Maybe we'll get lucky, but I am not betting on anything before Jan 2014. Link to comment
jd11201 Posted August 21, 2013 at 08:32 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 08:32 PM It would never happen, but I can fantasize about CA7 sua sponte ordering ISP to timely process FOID pursuant to existing law, at the same time CA7 is dealing with other aspects of IL CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted August 21, 2013 at 08:47 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 08:47 PM · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:31 AM - No reason given It would never happen, but I can fantasize about CA7 sua sponte ordering ISP to timely process FOID pursuant to existing law, at the same time CA7 is dealing with other aspects of IL CC. It's not that far fetched as the delay in issuing a FOID is also a denial of the right that relief was sought for... Fact is you are not going to get your carry permit until you get your FOID.. Link to comment
DoktorPaimon Posted August 21, 2013 at 10:27 PM Share Posted August 21, 2013 at 10:27 PM The law requires that the ISP have a list of approved trainers and a list of approved curriculum no later than September 7 and if they do not comply it will give our side plenty of ammo for the orals in the 7th circuit which I suspect is why the 7th circuit chose that date that way one way or another we would know if the ISP is abiding by the law or breaking it. Yeah, but this is Illinois. What you're going to have is a half dozen or so instructors who have been carefully chosen put up on a website at 11:59pm on September 7th along with the approved curriculum. Those instructors will only be available to people with the right connections. Meanwhile, everyone else waits while the ISP drags it's feet on all the rest of the instructors until the 7th gives them 180 days to meaningfully comply... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.