abolt243 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:28 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:28 PM Here's the response from the plaintiffs to Lisa Madigan's motion to stay the mandate. Plaintiffs_Response_to_Motion_to_Stay_Mandate.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:34 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:34 PM Sounds like another will be filed as well, from the other thread: Shepard attorneys are working on a response as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:36 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:36 PM Simply awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjames Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:44 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:44 PM Here's the response from the plaintiffs to Lisa Madigan's motion to stay the mandate. Plaintiffs_Response_to_Motion_to_Stay_Mandate.pdf Thanks. That was a very enjoyable read with solid arguments. Edit: My favorite parts are where they mention the governor needs more time now but for the other bills (2193, orig 183, etc) the gov was tweeting out his opinions on them in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:48 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:48 PM Oh snap legalease beat down! I love it! I would love nothing more than to watch Gov. Potatohead , Rham and Lisa squirm come June 9th until Mr. Potatohead comes to his senses and signs the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22cal Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:52 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:52 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhawk99 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:53 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:53 PM That was a great read. Our Lawyers crushed every point that Lisa and Quinn tried using to delay the start of the new law. Thanks to all involved in defending our 2nd amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jfl0 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:53 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:53 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No, this was the plaintiff's response. The AG has shown her complete disrespect of the judicial system and is toying not only with it, but our 2nd amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:54 PM Author Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:54 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAXD9 Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:56 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 03:56 PM I am glad to see that the response was filed so quickly. That may encourage the court to also act on this quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:04 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:04 PM I am glad to see that the response was filed so quickly. That may encourage the court to also act on this quickly. I think they are going to have to.. they are only working today tomorrow and Thursday. then they aren't back in until the 13th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalVideo Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:04 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:04 PM How does this request for more time even valid when the ILGA has not formally given a bill to the governor? The ILGA site still does not provide a status indication that the bill has been transmitted to the governor's desk? This is all a sham and CA7 should shoot it down in flames. This is nothing but a clear case of Illinois politicians playing games and continuing to deny Illinois citizens of their Constitutional Rights! "They" operate under the assumption they can break any law or any part of the Constitution that fits their needs and then ignore court orders that tell them they can't operate in this fashion. This needs to STOP and stop NOW. EDIT: http://www.suntimes.com/news/20524014-761/attorney-general-asks-appeals-court-to-extend-deadline-for-conceal-carry-law.html The governor’s office welcomed the move by Madigan, who has not ruled out a possible 2014 primary challenge against Quinn for governor.“We think the request for a 30-day stay is appropriate,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said. “The bill has not yet arrived. Ordinarily, under the Illinois Constitution, the governor has 60 days to review a bill upon its arrival.”Last week, the governor’s office would only say Quinn intends to “review” the legislation but would not offer any sense of the governor’s leanings on the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:06 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:06 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again. little harsh there? I hope it's denyed but bet she gets the time to let gov potatoe head take his sweet time While it shouldn't matter to them I doubt the court wants anything to do with 'court carry' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krm3051 Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:07 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:07 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No. Not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:09 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:09 PM How does this request for more time even valid when the ILGA has not formally given a bill to the governor? The ILGA site still does not provide a status indication that the bill has been transmitted to the governor's desk? This is all a sham and CA7 should shoot it down in flames. This is nothing but a clear case of Illinois politicians playing games and continuing to deny Illinois citizens of their Constitutional Rights! "They" operate under the assumption they can break any law or any part of the Constitution that fits their needs and then ignore court orders that tell them they can't operate in this fashion. This needs to STOP and stop NOW. You're right. Its a blatant, deliberate, exploitative, and frivolous stall tactic, giving additional time for local home rule to pass more AWB ordinances. Nothing more. You dont have to be a judge to see that, and the response exposes that perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeyl Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:12 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:12 PM From page 1. "This Court has spoken. The People of Illinois, throughtheir representatives, have spoken." Any comments I wish to add besides this quote would only put me afoul of the I.C. standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk067 Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:18 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:18 PM lol.....Gov. Quinn shouldn't have gone and tweeted to the world that he was well up to speed on the goings on in the legislative process. That alone negates Lisa's claim that he needs any additional time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear226 Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:19 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:19 PM Many thanks to the people who helped with this. It was great reading. I have been following this site for months before I decided to join. Many great people out here trying to defend our Constitutional rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:44 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:44 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again. Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:48 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:48 PM Now when will the court rule on the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:49 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:49 PM Facebook Twitter, ruining relationships since inception. Potatohead and baby Lisa, you got a little egg on your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:54 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 04:54 PM Now when will the court rule on the motion? After June 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scough Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:00 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:00 PM So Lisa's motion was denied? Now what else will Lisa and Quinn try? No, Lisa's motion was not denied. Read the document. This is a request from the Plaintiff's (good guys) to the court to deny the motion. Please, read it, comprehend it, if you don't understand it, read it again.Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong? Par for the course from some of the mods here. Same attitude the legislature got miffed by with the got 'em by the balls attitude after the 7th decision. Unfortunately, we're paying for it now. The great and almighty Abolt has spoken, so you better duck. Ahem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:00 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:00 PM The gov has had as much or more time to analyze the bill as we have. His staff had reviewed it all through the drafting in order to determine his position just like we did. He could be examining it now, and probably is. Easy enough for him to figure out whether or not to veto/sign before the cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:04 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:04 PM Abolt. The guy was wrong. Why is it that you have be insulting and disrespectful to those who don't understand? Have you not ever been wrong? Par for the course from some of the mods here. Same attitude the legislature got miffed by with the got 'em by the balls attitude after the 7th decision. Unfortunately, we're paying for it now. The great and almighty Abolt has spoken, so you better duck. Ahem... We played the cards we had against a deck attacked against us in a rigged game. I think we did well considering what is going on in other states. We don't live in Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:05 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:05 PM I believe that due to the speed with which the response was filed, Sigale et al were notified that a judge intends to rule on it today or tomorrow. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:06 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:06 PM I believe that due to the speed with which the response was filed, Sigale et al were notified that a judge intends to rule on it today or tomorrow. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Agreed - the speed and quality of the response was an indicator to me that they were prepared. Maybe a tip, or maybe they're just that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:09 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:09 PM I believe that due to the speed with which the response was filed, Sigale et al were notified that a judge intends to rule on it today or tomorrow. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Agreed - the speed and quality of the response was an indicator to me that they were prepared. Maybe a tip, or maybe they're just that good.I think todd mentioned he was on the phone with them last night about a hour after madigans filing became public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:10 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:10 PM Shouldn't they get X amount of days so they can prepare a response? Why is that the State needs all the time in the world to do anything, yet our side has to jump immediately? I think we should get 30 days to respond to IL AG request so we can decide if we want to oppose her stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:10 PM Share Posted June 4, 2013 at 05:10 PM Well FRAP Rule 27 explicitly states that respondents must file a response within 10 days unless the judge notifies counsel that he/she intends to act sooner. It must be a timely notification as well. Then petitioner must file reply to response within 7 days of the response but she may not get that time. And Rule 27 specifically addresses motions for stays under Rule 41. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.