Jump to content

Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot


Recommended Posts

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

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

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Posted · 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
Posted · 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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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