Jump to content


Photo

Moore vs IL Attorney General


This topic has been archived.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

#631 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:27 AM

My guess is that if the letter contained a threatening message, the USMS would be investigating it as a criminal matter, and the letter would have been handled differently.

But it still makes me very curious about who sent it and what it said. Is this like the suspicious manilla envelope in the OJ trial, and we'll never know what was in it?

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


#632 mrmagloo

    Member

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

Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:28 AM

That all said, I just hope this nutcase's letter doesn't have the effect of resetting this 6 month clock?

#633 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,022 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 05 November 2011 - 05:41 AM

Has anyone heard anything else about the letter?

#634 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,658 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 November 2011 - 06:54 AM

The attorneys have asked the plaintiffs not to discuss the letter. However, I would say this - if anyone
else is thinking of contacting the judge, DON'T.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#635 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 07:59 AM

so our side sent the letter than.

#636 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,008 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:05 AM

so our side sent the letter than.



Let's hope not. But it really needs to be stressed to everyone that any attempt to contact the Judge about this case is not only illegal it is monumentally stupid.

The only way to look at this whole process is that the facts have been presented by both sides and the judge will use law and precedence to deliver a decision.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#637 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:11 AM

Molly just said the judge asked the plaintiffs not to discuss the letter. or i'm i reading it wrong Moore is the plaintiff right?

#638 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,658 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:19 AM

so our side sent the letter than.

Not necessarily, we just want to make it clear this is not the thing to do.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#639 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,658 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:22 AM

Molly just said the judge asked the plaintiffs not to discuss the letter. or i'm i reading it wrong Moore is the plaintiff right?


I said the attorneys, I am sure the other side was instructed the same.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#640 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:32 AM

sorry for that Molly but ok i got it now.

#641 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

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

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:35 AM

Molly just said the judge asked the plaintiffs not to discuss the letter. or i'm i reading it wrong Moore is the plaintiff right?


Molly is saying that because she has contact with the plaintiff's attorneys. We don't have contact with the defendant's attorneys as Illinois Carry is named as a plaintiff also. But we assume that the Judge asked both sides to keep quiet. Just take it for what it was. The letter won't be discussed by anybody, and if anyone, from either side, is considering contacting a federal judge about an ongoing case, DON'T.

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


#642 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:40 AM

ok, good to know. i wonder if something might be coming soon than. or don't read much into it.

#643 NakPPI

    Member

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

Posted 05 November 2011 - 08:51 AM

As I've indicated before, it's not uncommon for this sort of thing to happen. The letter won't influence the case, but again as Budman said, sending a letter to a Judge is ex parte communication and can only be described as monumentally stupid.

There are various groups that do this sort of thing in Cook County courts all the time, the Moorish Temple convinces homeowners in foreclosure to deed their properties to their temple. The sheikh of the temple then proceeds to send all kinds of legal nonsense to the Judge. Or various mafia-type groups record all kinds of nonsense against the property to cloud title and confuse the court record or militia-type pleadings that claim that the court doesn't have jurisdiction because the person is a sovereign nation, etc. etc.

While these actions have no legal implications on the outcome of the case, these are actions are SANCTIONABLE which could mean jail time, fines, etc. Federal Rule 11
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.

#644 Sidartha

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 10

Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:15 AM

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.
So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

However.
The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.
:clap:

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.

Edited by Sidartha, 05 November 2011 - 09:16 AM.


#645 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,620 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:36 AM

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.
So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

However.
The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.
:clap:

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.




Unfortunately your just way too familiar with Illinois politics. How many times have political parties here run extra candidates in opponents parties just to split up the others votes? Yea it could have been something from a poser trying to cast a bad light on one side or the other.

#646 billzfx4

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 08

Posted 05 November 2011 - 03:14 PM

It was probably just Dickie Daley telling the federal judge how to decide the case. :clap:
Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.

#647 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 05:42 PM

Just throwing my opinion out there for the fun of it.

This case, to my knowledge, has not been widely publicized by the anti's.
So it seems more likely that any letter would come from our side, since we've said time and again that we're waiting for a ruling before going forward with legislation and someone didn't learn patience as a child.

However.
The Defendants know this and could have sent a letter under false pretenses in an attempt to force a mistrial.
:clap:

I say this with absolutely no inside information using nothing but my own warped mind.

I might be wrong, but you can't have a mistrial without a jury. However, an anti posing as one of us to bring discredit to our cause isn't out of the question. Or vice versa...

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


#648 Sidartha

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 10

Posted 05 November 2011 - 06:37 PM

I might be wrong, but you can't have a mistrial without a jury. However, an anti posing as one of us to bring discredit to our cause isn't out of the question. Or vice versa...

Given the level of intelligence shown by the Defense in their arguments thus far I wouldn't put it passed them to try and argue that an Ex Parte communication taints the ruling and forces the whole sorry exercise to be started all over again.

Unfortunately your just way too familiar with Illinois politics.

I said I don't have any inside info.
In Il the politicians wear their corruption on their sleeves. :tongue:

#649 Steve O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 11

Posted 05 November 2011 - 11:12 PM

It was probably just Dickie Daley telling the federal judge how to decide the case. :jerry:


That was my first thought :tongue: :mad(
"The more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership." ME

"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878"]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

#650 m4434

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:01 AM

35 is just the number for the entry on the electronic docket, it's not a page number count.

As for the content of the letter, there is no reason to speculate. I will say that jail house "lawyers" and local crazies send letters to judges all the time, so my best guess is some violence victim wrote a letter expressing a point of view. The judge will pay it no mind, she just has an ethical obligation to tell everyone in the case that she received it.

The sealing could be for any number of reasons, there could be personal information in it, etc. that the judge doesn't want the whole world to see, crazies dig up all kinds of bizarre things.


Like People!!!

#651 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:52 AM

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#652 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:59 AM

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...


i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases. there going to drag it out until then.IMO

#653 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,658 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:14 PM

Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...

There is no way to spur the progress of either case. Both cases have been presented to the judges and now we wait
for one or both of them to make a move or issue a judgement.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#654 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,882 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:52 PM


Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...


i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases.
there going to drag it out until then.IMO


I am far from being a judicial study, but I would hardly think that two judges would sit on ruling on two separate cases for a year and possibly more. And if the coming election is the catalyst . . . .what do they have to loose or gain?
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#655 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,358 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 29 November 2011 - 10:27 PM



Just a question to those who have more knowledge of the case than I do...

While the judge sits on the decision regarding the preliminary injunction, is the actual case at least still proceeding? Is there any way to spur progress on the case at all, or is it just going to sit in the hands of the judge until after the next election? Are we in the catch 22 of the Moore judge waiting for the Shepard judge to do something, who is in turn waiting for the Moore judge to do something? My guess is if this was a 1A case it would be rushed through the stages, apparently having the ability to protect oneself from attack doesn't seem as important as holding a controversial march...


i think that is what's going to happen is they are going to wait tell after the election to make there ruling on all these cases.
there going to drag it out until then.IMO


I am far from being a judicial study, but I would hardly think that two judges would sit on ruling on two separate cases for a year and possibly more. And if the coming election is the catalyst . . . .what do they have to loose or gain?

well i would think if that's the case of loose or gain than they should of ruled on the cases by now, but no they haven't cause one is waiting on the other one to rule this has been done before i heard.

#656 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,370 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:11 AM

Transcript from August 4 has been made available here.

http://ia700603.us.a....52015.37.0.pdf

Has this been posted before? I find it hard to believe that I may have passed over this?

Edited by Davey, 20 December 2011 - 12:20 AM.


#657 blackhalo

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 11

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:15 AM

Transcript from August 4 has been made available here.

http://ia700603.us.a....52015.37.0.pdf

Has this been posted before? I find it hard to believe that I may have passed over this?


It was noted a couple weeks ago here.

#658 dmefford

    Member

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:05 PM


Transcript from August 4 has been made available here.

http://ia700603.us.a....52015.37.0.pdf

Has this been posted before? I find it hard to believe that I may have passed over this?


It was noted a couple weeks ago here.


Thanks to both for appending the link to the transcript. I will get that read...... Regards, Dan
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

#659 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted 29 December 2011 - 10:33 AM

And another month goes by...
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#660 bob

    Member

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

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:00 PM

And another month goes by...



It is quite possible that several more years will go by before it is finally adjudicated. I think we will eventually prevail, but it will likely take a while. Have patience.

Edited by bob, 29 December 2011 - 12:01 PM.

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/