Schoenthal v. Raoul - State Wins 7th Circuit Appeal Judgement Against Carry Ban on Public Transportation

[skinnyb82]

On 9/26/2024 at 12:16 PM, mab22 said:

I don’t think we pay for sanctions against attorneys if they are the ones getting sanctioned? Hope not!

Nah. Government never gets sanctioned. It's an unwritten rule. Only private parties get sanctioned for conduct. Think of all the crap they have pulled and weren't even made to answer for it much less be sanctioned.

[mab22]

On 10/8/2024 at 3:41 PM, skinnyb82 said:

Nah. Government never gets sanctioned. It's an unwritten rule. Only private parties get sanctioned for conduct. Think of all the crap they have pulled and weren't even made to answer for it much less be sanctioned.

Like I sez. 
“we’re democrats, it’s OKAY when WE do it!”

 

[WilsonCQB1911]

Could a named plaintiff now carry on public transit within the guidelines laid down by the federal judge?  Would they need to carry a copy of the judge's order? 

Edited October 9, 2024 at 01:14 PM by WilsonCQB1911

[2A4Cook]

I'd like to know how we allegedly have "rights" when we're seemingly required to sue individually to enforce them against the tyrannical state.  Corporations are protected against having to defend against a slew of individual lawsuits through class actions.  The state doesn't want any such protection, as it knows full well the vast majority of its citizens can't afford the vast amount of time and expense required to sue them.  They're too busy working to try and survive in our "economy of opportunity."

Edited October 9, 2024 at 03:21 PM by 2A4Cook

[Molly B.]

On 10/9/2024 at 8:14 AM, WilsonCQB1911 said:

Could a named plaintiff now carry on public transit within the guidelines laid down by the federal judge?  Would they need to carry a copy of the judge's order? 

 

 

My understanding is that law enforcement cannot prosecute the named plaintiffs for carrying as described by the judge. It would be wise to carry the judge's order but I do not think it is required.
 

However, to be sure, I would recommend the plaintiffs ask their attorney.

[WilsonCQB1911]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:40 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

My understanding is that law enforcement cannot prosecute the named plaintiffs for carrying as described by the judge. It would be wise to carry the judge's order but I do not think it is required.
 

However, to be sure, I would recommend the plaintiffs ask their attorney.

 

Thank you. 

[Jeffrey]

On 10/9/2024 at 8:14 AM, WilsonCQB1911 said:

Could a named plaintiff now carry on public transit within the guidelines laid down by the federal judge?  Would they need to carry a copy of the judge's order? 

If I had no choice but to ride public transportation, I would carry a copy of the order in my front pocket.  No I'm not named on it but I feel an obligation to force my name onto it if there were a situation.

[Black Flag]

On 10/9/2024 at 3:08 PM, Jeffrey said:

If I had no choice but to ride public transportation, I would carry a copy of the order in my front pocket.  No I'm not named on it but I feel an obligation to force my name onto it if there were a situation.

No need.
"Today I identify as..,."

[TomKoz]

Perfect !!  Shows how stupid the Left is !!

[skinnyb82]

On 10/9/2024 at 3:08 PM, Jeffrey said:

If I had no choice but to ride public transportation, I would carry a copy of the order in my front pocket.  No I'm not named on it but I feel an obligation to force my name onto it if there were a situation.

Won't save you from arrest but it might save you from an overzealous prosecutor who's looking for a conviction. I don't think they wanna play games with this one since they're already on notice it's unconstitutional as applied to the names plaintiffs. Or it might not but generally speaking they like to win and this is not a winner for them. 

[JTHunter]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:37 AM, skinnyb82 said:

Won't save you from arrest but it might save you from an overzealous prosecutor who's looking for a conviction. I don't think they wanna play games with this one since they're already on notice it's unconstitutional as applied to the names plaintiffs. Or it might not but generally speaking they like to win and this is not a winner for them. 

 

🤔 That idea almost makes me wish I was in the Chicago area so I could be a "test case".  ALMOST. 🤣

[skinnyb82]

On 10/12/2024 at 2:08 PM, JTHunter said:

 

🤔 That idea almost makes me wish I was in the Chicago area so I could be a "test case".  ALMOST. 🤣

They'd be demanding that you be remanded to Cook County Jail because of how dangerous you are and the banger who's been dinged for 20 felonies, including armed robbery and attempted murder, will get out on an NTA. 

[Euler]

On October 10, the appeals court remanded the district judgment back to the district for amendment, but retained jurisdiction of the case.

On October 11, the district court amended the judgment. (I haven't read it, so I'm not sure what changed.)

On October 17, the appeals court set the following schedule:

11/15: state brief due
12/16: Schoenthal response due
01/16: state reply, if any, due

On November 8, the state asked for an extension for its brief to December 16.

[Tvandermyde]

Euler --

 

do you have a link to the COA docket on pacer?

[Euler]

For a link on CourtListener (RECAP):

On October 1, 2024 at 12:18 AM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 20, both Raoul and Foxx filed appeals. The court ordered them consolidated into Schoenthal v Raoul immediately. (docket) The court also noted that the judgment is deficient, in that the prevailing party was not granted any relief. It ordered both parties to submit memoranda by October 4 as to why the appellate court should not remand the case back to the district court for a proper judgment.

[Euler]

On November 10, 2024 at 08:14 PM (CST), Euler said:→

...
On November 8, the state asked for an extension for its brief to December 16.

On November 12, the court granted the extension until December 16.

On December 3, Foxx was replaced by O'Neill Burke.

On December 9, O'Neill Burke asked for an extension.

On December 11, the court granted the extension and set the following schedule:

1/15: defendants' (Cook, DuPage, IL State) briefs due
2/14: plaintiffs' (four named) consolidated brief due
3/07: defendants' reply briefs, if any, due

[Euler]

On January 15, defendants met their deadline.

[Euler]

On January 24, the court set the following schedule:

3/14: plaintiffs' response due
4/04: defendants' reply, if any, due

[Tango7]

On 1/26/2025 at 12:45 AM, Euler said:

On January 24, the court set the following schedule:

3/14: plaintiffs' response due
4/04: defendants' reply, if any, due

Love how they added a month just because...

[Euler]

On January 29, 2025 at 03:04 PM CST, Tango7 said:→

Love how they added a month just because...

Plaintiffs (Schoenthal et al.) had asked for an extension.

[Tvandermyde]

do you have the link to the appeal docket? can you post it

[Euler]

On November 15, 2024 at 09:42 AM CST, Tvandermyde said:→

Euler --

do you have a link to the COA docket on pacer?

On November 15, 2024 at 05:37 PM CST, Euler said:→

For a link on CourtListener (RECAP):

On October 1, 2024 at 12:18 AM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 20, both Raoul and Foxx filed appeals. The court ordered them consolidated into Schoenthal v Raoul immediately. (docket) The court also noted that the judgment is deficient, in that the prevailing party was not granted any relief. It ordered both parties to submit memoranda by October 4 as to why the appellate court should not remand the case back to the district court for a proper judgment.

[Molly B.]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69182318/benjamin-schoenthal-v-kwame-raoul/

[Ranger]

Thanks for the updates!

[Euler]

On March 24, defendants filed a motion to extend the deadline for their reply briefs.

On March 25, the court extended the deadline to file reply briefs from April 4 to May 2.

[JTHunter]

On 3/30/2025 at 6:37 PM, Euler said:

On March 24, defendants filed a motion to extend the deadline for their reply briefs.

On March 25, the court extended the deadline to file reply briefs from April 4 to May 2.

 

    Delay, rinse, repeat. 🤮

[MrTriple]

Honestly if I were a judge I'd be rejecting all of these motions for an extension and simply keep to the original schedule.

 

If the government can't get it's act together that's their own problem, not mine.

[Black Flag]

On 3/31/2025 at 4:48 PM, MrTriple said:

Honestly if I were a judge I'd be rejecting all of these motions for an extension and simply keep to the original schedule.

 

If the government can't get it's act together that's their own problem, not mine.

 

If the government loses the case, Black Flag would prefer it be on the merits and that they be left without an excuse like "the judge didn't give us enough time."

[Euler]

On April 10, the court set oral arguments for May 28.

[Molly B.]

Finally!