840 replies to this topic

[stm]

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?

[mrmagloo]

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

[Talonap]

Has anyone heard anything else about the letter?

[Molly B.]

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.

[colt-45]

so our side sent the letter than.

[Bud]

colt-45, on 05 November 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

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.

[colt-45]

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 B.]

colt-45, on 05 November 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

so our side sent the letter than.

Not necessarily, we just want to make it clear this is not the thing to do.

[Molly B.]

colt-45, on 05 November 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

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.

[colt-45]

sorry for that Molly but ok i got it now.

[abolt243]

colt-45, on 05 November 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

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

[colt-45]

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

[NakPPI]

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

[Sidartha]

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.


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

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

[Yas]

Sidartha, on 05 November 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:

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.


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.

[billzfx4]

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

[stm]

Sidartha, on 05 November 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:

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.


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...

[Sidartha]

stm, on 05 November 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.  

[Steve O]

billzfx4, on 05 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:

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

That was my first thought

[m4434]

NakPPI, on 03 November 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

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!!!

[w00dc4ip]

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...

[colt-45]

w00dc4ip, on 29 November 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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

[Molly B.]

w00dc4ip, on 29 November 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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.

[Buzzard]

colt-45, on 29 November 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

w00dc4ip, on 29 November 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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?

[colt-45]

Buzzard, on 29 November 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:

colt-45, on 29 November 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

w00dc4ip, on 29 November 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

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.

[Davey]

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.

[blackhalo]

Davey, on 20 December 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

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.

[dmefford]

blackhalo, on 20 December 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

Davey, on 20 December 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

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

[w00dc4ip]

And another month goes by...

[bob]

w00dc4ip, on 29 December 2011 - 10:33 AM, said:

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.