skinnyb82

Judge St. Eve will crush him. I need to read the MTD it oughtta be really good. Argument - "This is Cook County, we don't have to follow your stupid rules, federal and state law, or appellate court rulings!" Sigma, yeah hahahaha she can't do anything anyway. Its literally above her pay grade or at least her position in the pecking order. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Paul Castiglione, Esq. has his own ZoomInfo profile page and it's hilarious... http://www.zoominfo....glione/92915594 Get a chuckle our of these gems, it says they're from Capitolfax but I seem to recall some of them originating here...I think, oh well they're funny. This Zalewski citation is straight up hilarious and I'd love to buy him a beer for this even though he wasn't as crude as one would be led to believe... "Chicago Democrat Mike Zalewski said unless and until Castiglione has a different court order or legal opinion, he should keep his mouth shut." "Judge Posner will teach Mr. Castiglione and others about how our federal system works." "Castiglione must not be a scholar of Constitutional Law." "The cost to all of us in Castiglione abiding by his threat is that the state and local government will be exposed to possible financial costs related to the legal liability inherent in that approach, i.e., a new law suit and punitive costs assessed by the federal court. Nice way to put taxpayers' dollars at risk." He's also a legendary litigator, as per the IARDC: Full Licensed Name: Nicolas Paul Castiglione Full Former name(s): None Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: November 10, 2011 Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.) Awesome, little known fact, attorneys in IL are not mandated to carry malpractice insurance. He's been admitted to the bar for a whopping 19 months give or take. If I were Alvarez, I'd want someone uhh...more competent.

Most likely. The most compelling portion of the complaint is the narrative of how the plaintiffs are unable to defend themselves because of this law though. I dunno I don't know much about the judiciary out there but its a case nonetheless. Plus a bunch more sheriffs joined in on the federal lawsuit against the SAFE Act claiming they can't even enforce it. That one has a bit more traction. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

This is gonna get reaaaal good. "05/22/2013 17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Anita Alvarez by Paul Anthony Castiglione (Castiglione, Paul) (Entered: 05/22/2013)" and a second Cook County ASA also filed a docket entry appearing on behalf of Alvarez, but Castiglione is lead on this...oh dear. Berlin has one of his ASAs representing him.

This didn't take long. Suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (CTD) on May 22nd against Dan Malloy and company. Challenging the "Act Concerning Gun Violence and Children's Safety" (which is at the expense of, well, read below). Several individual plaintiffs here, ALL compelling. One is an 80 year old widowed woman who lives alone. Another, a bona fide Jewish Rabbi who is also a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves. Another, a woman who survived cancer at age 12 but lost an arm in the process. Then there's the SEAL with multiple sclerosis. The man who suffered a stroke and has all but lost function in an entire side of his body. Finally, a 73 year old widower who lives with his son's family. One thing in common is that they ALL have Connecticut permits to carry. The business plaintiffs are FFLs whose business has actually been harmed by this. Then association plaintiffs, CCDL and CCS. Oh boy Dan Malloy, who happens to be a named plaintiff along with the head of the CT State Police, the "Chief" SA, and every SA in the entire state...you have (to paraphrase Lee Goodman) a storm of excrement headed your way. Even before the complaint starts with the facts of the matter, it flat out states that the Act is a facial violation of the Second Amendment. Count one challenges the magazine ban under the Second and 14th Amendments (McDonald...dunno why Heller or McDonald were not cited). Count two challenges the AWB under the Second and 14th (McDonald again). Count three alleges the mag ban violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th. Count four alleges the AWB violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th. This is where it gets really good *cackle*. Count five alleges unconstitutional vagueness, violation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, as to the definition of "assault weapons," citing inaccurate names where the Act specifically cites the "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47" (as in full-auto, NFA Title II, already banned in CT) as a banned weapon...it's already banned if it's a legit AK-47 that's Russian full-auto spec! Plus could the average person tell if their non-Title II AK-47 falls under that, assuming it's even legal which it is not, and the name of the inventor is not engraved on it either? Nooooo. The Act also cites a model of a Remington pump action as one having "features of a semiautomatic rifle that are banned" (paraphrased). A pump action has features that are banned in semi autos? Yeah a lot of thought went into this...and we're not done. Then there's the "Springfield Armory BM59" specifically cited in the Act as a banned weapon (with no mention of features), but one small problem...that it's both a Springfield Armory product and a Beretta product, same model name, different manufacturing period, different rifle, is it a copy? Who knows! Wow these people are idiots, they may as well just hand a check over now but we're not done yet! Under the same count and citing , it also cites the language "in production prior to or on the effective date of this section" but doesn't refer to which list (the specific or "copies" list) of firearms banned and the average person has no idea when the gun was in production. This one keeps going and ripping apart more vague terms but I'll move on. The same count alleges unconstitutional vagueness in the definition of "large capacity magazines" specifically "can be readily restored or converted to accept." I really love the brilliance in this...Plaintiffs' counsel argues and I'm paraphrasing here, "How is one to tell that, if a magazine is disassembled and it is simply a pile of parts, whether it is readily restorable or converted to accept more than 10 rounds? The average citizen cannot be expected to know whether it can or cannot be much less make the alterations him or herself."). Here's the complaint (I hope everyone has Adobe Reader 9.0 or above) Shew.et.al.v.Malloy.et.al.pdf Docket Link: http://ia801705.us.a...021.docket.html

The only reason I go there is because a ton of my old college friends live up there. My best friend lives in gun friendly Todd-ville (Montgomery in Kendall County). A few of my ex's from college live in Cook (actually that's why I'm not married. She wanted to live in Chicago and I did not...dealbreaker.) Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

May be broader. Could include the whole country, limited to people who have the right to keep arms under the 2A. I don't think it would include ALL FOID card holders. There are quite a few here on record as saying they would never come north of our very own Mason Dixon Line, LOL! Functional word is "theoretically." I mean, I'm a member of the class because I head up there a couple times a year. To both counties actually. I have a lot of friends up there, I drive to DuPage, go to concerts in Cook (Aragon, Allstate, Congress, Vic's, etc.).

Ooohhh Todd's scheming this isn't good...for "them" Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Well actually its very probable that Dart's garbage will be shot down but it depends on how Judge St. Eve interprets Moore. "Reasonable restrictions" remember? Dart's restrictions are not even close to reasonable and the judge is, well I'm still reading her opinions and orders in a bunch of other civil cases to get an idea of how she might rule in this case. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

It doesn't have any effect if a permit system is introduced. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

It should be. Otherwise another lawsuit for depriving people from 49 other states from carrying in Crook and DuPage. 14th Amendment. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Oh you've gotta be kidding me. I just lost an entire write-up. OK basic issues here (I'm NOT going into this again, not tonight). Is the class certifiable? Yes. It meets all of the four prerequisites under FRCP Rule 23(a) and then meets at least two, maybe all three of the (one one requried) requirements under subsection b. The issue is that WHEN will it be certified. Sometimes it takes years, sometimes months. One thing I will say, it's a VERY good thing having Judge St. Eve presiding over this case. She's the one who sentenced Rezko to 10.5 yrs in prison. She issued a scathing opinion in the Abbate civil case last December, denying vacatur and upholding the civil judgment and verdict in the Obrycka v. City of Chicago and Anthony Abbate case. Remember that one? CPD officer beats a woman in a bar, CPD does nothing, Chicago says screw you even though said beating was caught on surveillance and disseminated to every news outlet in the Western Hemisphere, Chicago loses at trial, $850k judgment awarded, BIG SURPRISE! She's a Bush II appointee. Put on the bench at the ripe old age of 36, youngest woman to ever be appointed to the federal bench. Good chance her name will come up for a SCOTUS nomination as she's not very old. Reading the prayer for relief makes me just roll my eyes. Just having to ask the Court to enjoin Alvarez and Berlin from enforcing a law that they will be enjoined from enforcing on June 10th...uh yeah, that's right, it's come to this. Asking the Court to rule...in line with precedent set by CA7, that's a no-brainer that St. Eve would do that as she could be removed from the bench for not doing so. She has to follow Circuit precedent, but how narrowly or widely, who knows. Also take note, this isn't just people who live in Cook and DuPage. The class also includes those who travel to Cook and DuPage. It could theoretically include ALL FOID card holders. It also asks for "relief the court deems proper" aka compensatory damages. If this were an individual capacity suit, punitive damages would be on the table but even $10/pop for 700k people, $7M. No way would it be $10/each card holder. Can't compensate for a lifetime's worth of civil rights deprivation but if you could, it sure wouldn't be $10. Eh, more on all of this tomorrow but here's Amended Exhibit "A" from the docket, a scan of a piece from the Tribune from March 28th Guess what that's about hehe. AmendedExhibitA.pdf Here's the docket for the case, I'll keep it updated. It's not linking the docket entries to any actual documents, just go to the root directory for the case. http://ia601702.us.a...3284.docket.htm This part, not great. In short, first hearing is set for 10 days AFTER default carry set to begin, 10 days AFTER civil rights violations commence. "MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Initial status hearing set for 6/20/13 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by 6/17/13 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 05/10/2013)"

The absolute last thing they want is for Gura to take Lisa's counsel to school. It's like an amateur playing golf against a PGA pro. Word is Madigan is gonna bring 997 back up soon. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Good luck with that one. Getting Madigsn to give up his immunity....pfft. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Two words: legislative immunity. You CANNOT sue legislators, period. Only those who enforce the unconstitutional legislation. The logic is very simple. If politicians are not immune, well, look at how many would be sued. "Oh I don't like this law I'm gonna sue everyone who voted for it. I'm gonna sue the Governor." They gotta draw a line though. It can't be absolute. This has gone on way too long. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

The FBI is pretty ****ed at Eric Holder right now. They'll come in and investigate civil rights violations if the SHTF on June 10th. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

I haven't checked the docket for this case since early this month but ILSD is notoriously SLOW. Like it takes months for a judge to rule on anything that doesnt have "EMERGENCY" in front of it. They don't schedule status hearings. I've never seen a federal district court that operates like that even Cook County is more efficient. It's just like "eh well I'll get to it when I get to it." If Horsley's attorney had any clue what he's doing, he'd be able to shred the FOID card to pieces no pun intended but the most likely end result of this will just be an injunction. That county is filled with toxic tort litigators, asbestos is their specialty. One attorney down there is so incompetent that he accidentally sued himself in a class action. They know little about con law. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

You made me double-take haha. Yeah it's Judge William Stiehl, born in 1925, appointed to the bench by Reagan in 1986. Served as a Lt. in the USN during WWII. He's either 88 or pushing 88, which means that unless he pulls a Rehnquist and dies on the bench or lives to 91-92, Obama will at least get a chance to nominate someone to replace him. Not saying the confirmation will occur though. You got him confused with the Judge Sue Myerscough ("Myerscrotch") in ILCD, Moore case before consolidation. Myerscough is an Obama appointee so, yeah. Anyway, I just think he didn't wanna touch the whole firearm outside the home issue. Here's his profile, this dude's been around. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2296&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

Yeah he's (she? William Stiehl? Heh) the judge who dismissed Shepard. That was uncharted territory, this is requiring an adult to get parental permission to exercise a Constitutional right afforded to them. I would comport it with some other right but I can't think of one. Either way, no other state does this AFAIK. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Children 18 and older huh? Maybe he should have a guardian appointed to him because he's obviously "mentally retarded" (to quote the un-policitically correct FOID app that was just changed). Oh well they had a chance now it's going to the courts and they'll lose because the it requires absolutely no thought on the part of the judge to chuck the parental permission part. In fact he could make a ruling right on the spot if he didn't have to write an opinion. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

I read one lawsuit challenging the ban on handguns for 18-20 yr olds. It was chucked. Not appealed AFAIK. I believe it was in NY (which would explain a lot). Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

As would I. I'm not sure whether he's aware as I'm guessing (wildly) that Maag is a tort lawyer specializing in asbestos litigation.. Again, wild guess. There's some wonky stuff going on down there. A few years ago, Maag's father Gordon Maag ran for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court and lost, apparently his opponent had some quid pro quo thing set up where State Farm would chuck a giant settlement in exchange for backing his campaign. So now State Farm (among others) has been sued for under the RICO Act. Uh yeah, I'll take "Judicial Hellholes" for $500, Alex.

I really like this... "10. That on or about March 27, 2013, Defendant returned to Plaintiff her application, with a cover letter indicating that the application was “incomplete” because it lacked a notarized parental signature. Accordingly, Defendant has constructively denied Plaintiff’s application. 11. That Plaintiff has no legal guardian, as she is in excess of 18 years of age, and thus, is an adult, having reached the age of majority. 12. In fact, under Illinois law, it would be impossible to even appoint a legal guardian for Plaintiff, unless she was in some way disabled, which she is not." Basically saying, it requires you to have a legal guardian, but if you have a legal guardian, then you can't own a firearm. Big Catch-22 there. And to further rip on Biden, "26. That by being denied a FOID card Plaintiff is being denied her constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and thus, is suffering irreparable harm, as she cannot lawfully purchase or otherwise acquire and lawfully possess a double barrel shotgun, as suggested by Vice-President Joe Biden, or any other firearm for self defense."

Horsley v. Trame, 13-cv-00321 in ILSD. Ugh crap, Judge Stiehl is presiding over the case. The same Judge Stiehl who stomped on Shepard v. Madigan on grounds that...well, everyone's read the memorandum and order. Oops, Judge, looks like someone was wrong. I've recapped the docket, complaint, and summons. Looking over the complaint, this is beyond cut and dry it's not even funny. It's being brought under Title 42 Section 1983. She can't get a FOID card because she's not 21, her parents won't sign paperwork for her to get one, she wants to buy a gun to defend her home, she can't own a gun without a FOID card, and the icing on the cake is that if she were to have a legal guardian, that would also mean that she is mentally handicapped or otherwise incapable of managing her own affairs and thus disqualified from owning a firearm. http://ia601704.us.a...825.docket.html

There's a judge in ILSD, Judge Murphy. He's a Marine vet, Vietnam. I'll do some digging on PACER when I get home. If he drew the case then the ISP is all but boned. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2