Jump to content


Photo

People vs Kent


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 16 December 2010 - 07:09 PM

Couldn't find my original post, so starting anew...

My local case challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois FOID card Act has been continued at the State's request. The new date is Feb. 4, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom "E". (Urbana)

Thank you for your interest.

Paul



Here's the case; type in 10cm000701

People vs Kent
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#2 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 16 December 2010 - 10:11 PM

Couldn't find my original post, so starting anew...

My local case challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois FOID card Act has been continued at the State's request. The new date is Feb. 4, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom "E". (Urbana)

Thank you for your interest.

Paul



Here's the case; type in 10cm000701

People vs Kent


Thanks. I used your links and looked it up. An interesting thing is Tracy Kent is a defendant in a criminal case (bear arms, but no FOID permission from government), not a civil case. I wish him/her (not sure) the best of luck. I don't know any details of the case. Are there court documents and other stuff anywhere that we can read? More links?
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#3 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,171 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 17 December 2010 - 08:00 AM

http://illinoiscarry...=1
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#4 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 17 December 2010 - 11:01 AM

http://illinoiscarry...=1


Thanks, Hatchet. I spent a long time searchin' and never did find it!
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#5 templar223

    Natural Born Infidel

  • Members
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 05

Posted 23 December 2010 - 01:49 PM

I'm not quite ready to get on this one with both feet and I'll tell you why:

The defendant had an expired FOID card. He now has a new, valid FOID card. Common sense would dictate that rational, thoughtful minds over at the SAs office are going to come to their senses and over-rule whoever over there has a big <ahem> for this guy and continues this prosecution even though it doesn't serve justice or the public good.

I look for the charges to be dropped sooner or later, rendering this a moot case that won't make it to the USSC.

John
Guns Save Life | GSL Defense Training

Guns Save Life meets the second Tuesday of each month at the Knights of Columbus in Rantoul, IL. Ask me how to get there! It's a great time. Join Guns Save Life today for some great benefits!

GSL Defense Training provides NRA Personal Protection in the Home courses that satisfy the training requirement for a Florida non-resident License to Carry, as well as intermediate-level pistol training and training in the use of Urban Rifles.

#6 kermit315

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 09

Posted 03 February 2011 - 06:52 PM

well, tomorrow is the day. will be staying tuned as I can for updates.
Posted Image

#7 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 03 February 2011 - 08:32 PM

Is anyone here going to be in attendance?
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#8 Gary

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 04

Posted 03 February 2011 - 11:25 PM

Is anyone here going to be in attendance?

Although, I consider it a duty to attend court proceedings such as this one, but I will not be able to attend this one. I am sorry. I know that there are some who think that the case will be dropped and I hope that happens tomorrow.

#9 kermit315

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 09

Posted 04 February 2011 - 05:41 PM

so.................does anybody know what happened?
Posted Image

#10 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 08 September 2011 - 01:15 AM

This public record......... Regards, Dan

06-25-10 Charge 01 Count 001 FIREARM W/O VALID FOID/ELIG Statute 430 65/2(a)(1) Class A Orig. Agency: CHAMPAIGN COUNTY SHERIFF Charge Instr: Information NO BOND No Bond Cause set for arraignment on Created and properly labeled court case file. Defendant arraigned. On Defendant's motion, cause is continued for appearance of counsel. Defendant is admonished as to trial and sentencing in absentia. See expanded record. Bond is to continue. Bond Type Cash 10% deposit Bond Sheriff Booking Fee Notice of arrest without warrant on file. 07-09-10 Defendant makes second motion for continuance to obtain counsel. Motion allowed. Bond to continue.

07-23-10 Defendant makes second motion for continuance to obtain counsel. Motion allowed. Bond to continue. See expanded record.

08-06-10 Motion by the Defendant for court appointed counsel. Motion allowed. Champaign County Public Defender is appointed and appears instanter. Plea of not guilty entered and Defendant requests trial by jury. Defendant is admonished as to trial and sentencing in absentia. Bond to continue. See expanded record.

08-18-10 Proof of service of discovery materials filed.

09-01-10 Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant appears personally and by Counsel. Motion by the Defendant for Continuance. Motion allowed. Cause reallotted for the trial term immediately following the pre-trial date. PD APPOINTMENT IS VACATED.

09-13-10 Affidavit of mailing of Discovery Materials filed.

10-08-10 Allotted for trial Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant appears personally and by Counsel.

10-18-10 People appear by Andrea I. Bergstrom. Appearance of Paul Vallandigham on behalf of the Defendant. No appearance by Defendant as previously ordered by the Court. Motion by People for bond forfeiture and warrant. Objection by counsel for Defendant. Motion is allowed. Defendant's bond is forfeited. Warrant issued with bond set in the amount of $ 10,000.00. Circuit clerk to send notice of bond forfeiture hearing. Motion to Declare Statute Unconstitutional filed. Motion to Continue filed.

10-20-10 Bond forfeiture notice prepared and mailed. 10-22-10 Appearance of the People by KATIE PUGH. Defendant appears personally and with counsel, PAUL VALLANDIGHAM. Cause called for hearing on Defendant's Motion to Quash Warrant. There being no objection by the People, the Motion is allowed. The warrant issued October 18, 2010 is vacated. Bond forfeiture hearing scheduled for November 16, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. is vacated. Cause is continued for hearing on the Motion to Declare Statute Unconstitutional and status hearing on November 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom E. Defendant is ordered to appear on that date. Defendant is admonished as to proceedings in absentia. Prior Order for bond forfeiture and for issuance of Prior Order for bond forfeiture vacated. Bond forfeiture hearing vacated. Warrant Quashed Warrant quashed

11-03-10 Copy of Quashed Warrant filed 11-12-10 Allotted for trial Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant appears personally and by Counsel.

12-16-10 Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant appears personally and by Counsel. Motion by the Defendant for Continuance. Motion allowed. Cause reallotted for the trial term immediately following the pre-trial date. Motion for Continuance on file.

02-04-11 People appear by Marley Nelson. Defendant appears personally and with Paul Vallandingham. Bond to continue.

03-03-11 Matter allotted for trial and trial scheduling People appear by M.Nelson. Defendant appears with P.Vallandigham. Cause called for jury trial. Potential jurors are summoned into court and are sworn. Jurors are selected and are sworn. Opening arguments heard. Evidence heard on behalf of the people. People rest. Evidence heard on behalf of the defendant. Defendant rests.Jury instruction conference held. Cause continued for jury trial on 3/4/11 at 9:30 am in courtroom E.

03-04-11 Cause continued for sentencing to People appear by M.Nelson. Defendant appears by P.Vallandigham. Cause called for trial. Closing arguments heard. Jurors are instructed as to the law. Jurors retire to deliberate. Officer informs the Court that the jurors have reached a verdict. Verdict is read into open court as follows," We the Jury, find the defendant, guilty." Cause is continued for sentencing hearing on 4/18/11 at 11:00 am in courtroom E. Order for Sentencing Report on file this date. See Order. Record of exhibits received on file.

04-04-11 Post-Trial Motions filed.

04-11-11 Misdemeanor reports on file.

04-18-11 Cause continued for sentencing to People appear by M.Nelson. Defendant appears with P.Vallandigham. Cause called for sentencing hearing. Motion by the defendant to continue is granted. Cause continued for sentencing and post trial motions on 5/4/11 at 1:30 pm in courtroom E.

05-04-11 Disposition 01/00 Count 001 Fine + Cost Disposition: Guilty FIREARM W/O VALID FOID/ELIG Disposition Type: Guilty Plea Defendant Plea: Guilty Statute 430 65/2(a)(1) Class A Orig. Sentence: 05/04/2011 Sentence: Fines and/or Cost/Penalties and Fees Fine + Cost 897.00 E-CITATION 5.00 CRIME STOPPERS 5.00 Payment Due Appearance of the People by Marley C. Nelson. Appearance of the Defendant personally and by counsel, Paul Vallandigham. Cause called for sentencing hearing. Statements of counsel heard. Statement of the defendant heard. All financial obligations shall be paid in equal monthly installments to the Champaign County Circuit Clerk by . Any bond posted is to be applied first to any court ordered bond assignment on file and then to all restitution ordered and then to all financial obligations in this case. Any remaining bond shall be discharged to the individual who posted the bond. Brief in Support of Defendant's Post-Trial Motions on file.

05-10-11 Bond 06-03-11 Notice of Appeal on file be Defendant/Appellant, by his Attorney, Paul H. Vallandigham.

06-06-11 Appeal Affidavit was mailed.

06-24-11 Order from the Appellate Court re: 4-11-0481 I have today entered the following order of the Court in the above entitled cause: "Appellant ruled to show cause, on or before 06/30/11, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file docketing statement as required by Rule 312. Failure to comply with this Rule will result in dismissal of appeal on file."

08-02-11 Court Ordered Payments 08-05-11 Appeal prepared for appellate court this date.

08-09-11 Sent letter to Appellate Court re: appeal fees not paid. Certificate of mailing prepared.

08-19-11 Order from the Appellate Court re: 4-11-0481 'Appellant rule to show cause, on or before 8/24/11, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file record on appeal as required by Rule 326. Failure to comply with this Rule will result in dismissal of appeal." On file.
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#11 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 September 2011 - 09:08 AM

Defendants attorney screwed up the appeal. Fantastic... This is exactly what Gura has warned about. You need the right lawyers and the right parties or you end up with bad case law.
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#12 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,297 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 08 September 2011 - 09:59 AM

Defendants attorney screwed up the appeal. Fantastic... This is exactly what Gura has warned about. You need the right lawyers and the right parties or you end up with bad case law.


If true, it the ruling wouldn't be precendential anyway as it wasn't in an appeals court...right?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#13 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 September 2011 - 11:44 AM


Defendants attorney screwed up the appeal. Fantastic... This is exactly what Gura has warned about. You need the right lawyers and the right parties or you end up with bad case law.


If true, it the ruling wouldn't be precendential anyway as it wasn't in an appeals court...right?


Thankfully if this case gets denied on appeal due the lawyer's incompetence, the case has no effect at all. See illinois supreme court rule 23(e)(1).

edited: "no effect" not "so effect"

Edited by NakPPI, 08 September 2011 - 09:11 PM.

Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#14 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,314 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 08 September 2011 - 03:08 PM

Defendants attorney screwed up the appeal. Fantastic... This is exactly what Gura has warned about. You need the right lawyers and the right parties or you end up with bad case law.



Everybody wants to be a hero in the gun rights arena. As usual, it's best left to those that have the cases, the knowledge and the expertise to handle it the right way the first time!! It's an uphill battle anyway, why fight it with one or both hands tied behind your back??

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#15 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 08 September 2011 - 03:12 PM

We just have to clone Gura

#16 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,314 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 08 September 2011 - 04:03 PM

We just have to clone Gura



I watched/listened to Jensen in the Moore case in Springfield. He ain't bad!!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#17 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,151 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 08 September 2011 - 04:14 PM

I suspect the defendant may have just run out of money.

I am not real sure but it looks like the fine he was assesed was minimal and it would probably cost far more to appeal than what the penalty for the infraction was.

Since it never got appealed it does not make any real difference, does it?
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#18 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 08 September 2011 - 09:12 PM

I suspect the defendant may have just run out of money.

I am not real sure but it looks like the fine he was assesed was minimal and it would probably cost far more to appeal than what the penalty for the infraction was.

Since it never got appealed it does not make any real difference, does it?


The case WAS appealed, the attorney just didn't follow the rules of the appellate court procedure.
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#19 44Brent

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 08 September 2011 - 11:18 PM

Has no one read the information regarding this case on the other thread?

Here's the deal.

The defendant was fined $500.

He doesn't want to spend several thousand dollars, but instead would prefer to pay the fine and be done with it.

If someone would like to write out a big, fat check on this to proceed to the Appellate court, then by all means, have at it. $5000 would probably get it started. $15k more might finish it.

However, I suspect it's going nowhere for the time being.

John