Langley et al v Kelly - IL Gun/Magazine Ban - Thomas Maag Attorney

[Molly B.]

We need links to this please.  What was the reason for recusal?

 

[Molly B.]

Steve, these are screen shots without links . . . we would like the links, please.

[cbunt32]

I dont have any links but I saw the state is trying to consolidate all cases in front of the judge on this case. 

[Matt B]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66754338/langley-v-kelly/

 

I don’t have Pacer so I can’t access the documents, but yeah I see the consolidation just popped up. 

[steveTA84]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:21 AM, Matt B said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66754338/langley-v-kelly/

 

I don’t have Pacer so I can’t access the documents, but yeah I see the consolidation just popped up. 

https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=r&q=id%3A223653523

[DaveIL]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:41 AM, steveTA84 said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=r&q=id%3A223653523

Click on Text not PDF and you can read the whole thing. 

[cbunt32]

I dont know the attorneys involved in this case and their ability to handle this. My hunch is the attorneys on the other cases might be more qualified considering the amount of 2A cases they handle. All that to say if this judge is our worst option wouldn't it make more sense to voluntarily dismiss this case and let the other cases get consolidated with one of the other judges?

[Matt B]

Its pre Bruen so who knows but the new judge ruled in favor of the state in an 18-20 Foid related challenge.

Edited January 26, 2023 at 04:56 PM by Matt B

[Talonap]

Anyone have an idea why Judge Gilbert was recused? Sounds like he did it himself?

[Upholder]

The docket does not provide a link to the order, which itself may not have reasons why.. it's likely it's a very dry and factual order.

[Euler]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:39 AM, Molly B. said:

We need links to this please.  What was the reason for recusal?

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:10 PM, Upholder said:

The docket does not provide a link to the order, which itself may not have reasons why.. it's likely it's a very dry and factual order.

 

Indeed. CourtListener says "Buy on PACER," but there is no document to buy. It's just a statement that the judge has been recused, signed by the judge himself.

[Upholder]

Response to motion to consolidate: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94440/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94440.11.0.pdf

[Upholder]

Quote

Longstanding practice of this Court, going all the way back to when it was the Eastern
District of Illinois, with few exceptions, is and was if consolidation was to take place, to
consolidate into the lowest case number, which would be 23-CV-141-SPM. The reason was
two-fold. First, for administrative convenience, making it easier to determine what case was the
case consolidated into. The second reason, more substantive, to avoid judge shopping.

Quote

That being said, while consolidation may well make sense for these files, which likely do
have common questions of law and fact to be decided, there is no compelling reason to deviate,
as suggested by Defendant Kelly, from the usually policy of consolidating into the lowest case.
To that end, Plaintiffs in this case TAKE NOT POSITION on whether to consolidate this
case with the above listed cases, but they DO NOT OBJECT to same. That being said, if
consolidation is to take place, all such consolidated files should be consolidated into the lower
case number of file in this Court, which is 23-cv-141-SPM.

 

 

The lowest case number would be the ISRA case (Harrel v. Raoul).

[steveTA84]

^^^^
 

well put statement Maag did 

[steveTA84]

Holy moly the Obama judge smacked down the state’s attempt to consolidate all cases to get, all cases now go to the pro-2A judge 

in the ISRA case 

Edited January 30, 2023 at 08:19 PM by steveTA84

[Onytay]

Question on consolidation, does council for each case/plaintiff argue argue their cases only or do they all get lumped into ISRAs representation? I guess what I'm asking is what does these cases being consolidated mean as far as representation and which lawyers actually get to argue the case before the judge?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/30/2023 at 2:06 PM, steveTA84 said:

Holy moly the Obama judge smacked down the state’s attempt to consolidate all cases to get, all cases now go to the pro-2A judge 

 

I'm just as happy, but we should learn our lesson from talking about Judge Gilbert being a pro-2A judge and posting examples as to why he is a good judge. 

We don't really know why Gilbert recused, but I have my suspicions, and Todd had to jump in and asked us to keep quiet about Gilbert's decisions.  

 

[Euler]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:02 PM, Onytay said:

Question on consolidation, does council for each case/plaintiff argue argue their cases only or do they all get lumped into ISRAs representation? I guess what I'm asking is what does these cases being consolidated mean as far as representation and which lawyers actually get to argue the case before the judge?

 

The parties can decide among themselves, but if they each believe that their own case is sufficiently different from the others, then their argument time is split among them, while the state gets to keep all its time. For example, if the plaintiffs get 20 minutes to argue their case and there are 4 plaintiffs, then each plaintiff gets 5 minutes. Meanwhile the state gets 20 minutes to defend its case all to itself.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:56 PM, Euler said:

 

The parties can decide among themselves, but if they each believe that their own case is sufficiently different from the others, then their argument time is split among them, while the state gets to keep all its time. For example, if the plaintiffs get 20 minutes to argue their case and there are 4 plaintiffs, then each plaintiff gets 5 minutes. Meanwhile the state gets 20 minutes to defend its case all to itself.

^ This, and I believe the appeals are separate entities?   

[steveTA84]

 

[Tvandermyde]

We have our own arguments to make......... It is not clear that the cases have been combined, they have been all assigned to Judge McGlynn and may be heard separately much like in the cases before Judge Benitez in Cali 

[Benbow]

what this means as far as representation goes, kind of depends on what the judge does and wants to handle it.  When I sued Quinn, in the state pension case a few years back, which is kind of the closest thing I can think of to this, the judge let each attorney have their argument.  Sometimes, we would agree who would start the argument, and the rest of us would just say "join".  Other times there were disagreements on what was the best point to focus on, or, the fact that, in that case, it felt like one of the lawyers was trying to sell out the rest of the Plaintiffs, to we had to watch what they actually said.

 

In the TRIAL COURT, which is where this case is right now, and knowing Judge McGlyn, having appeared in front of him numerous times, in both state and federal court, I would expect he will let one lawyer from each case have their say at any given argument.  Forcing another parties lawyer onto a given Plaintiff is neither desirable, nor practical, as each lawyer has a duty to their own clients, not the other lawyers clients.  For instance, and read nothing into this.  ISRA's lawyer's first duty is to the ISRA.  The ISRA is a political organization, whose goals are not  ipso facto completely in line with GOA, a different political orgainization, or ether of them with a given individual defendant.  

 

Now, in the appellate courts, I would expect time between attorneys to be much more rationed, but then, the arguments by that time will be much more refined.

[Craigcr2]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:15 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

We don't really know why Gilbert recused, but I have my suspicions

 

 
We know exactly why he recused himself. He has a conflict of interest as a trustee of SIU. There was a complaint and he agreed to recuse himself  in any case with the state, a state agency, or state employee as a party as a corrective action. 
 

“

SIU's Board administers public funds. This makes a member of its Board a fiduciary for the State of Illinois as a whole. Any suit that affects the state's finances could indirectly affect the finances available to the University system, and members of the Board make decisions that affect how much money the University needs (or wants) and thus affect the state's general finances.

This implies that disqualification from all cases to which the State of Illinois, or any of its employees, is a party, would best serve to avoid any appearance of partiality. “

https://casetext.com/case/in-re-complaint-against-dist-judge-j-phil-gilbert

[Euler]

On February 1, the judge granted a motion for extension of time for the defendants to respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants have until February 28 to respond to the motion.

[Benbow]

For those interested, first bit of data on the cases, the contracts signed by the State with purported experts.  Looks like the state is paying $30,000 an expert to reinivent history.

contract spitzer.pdf contract.pdf

[Euler]

The plaintiffs FOIA'd the state to find any record of the criminal use of a revolving cylinder shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle. ISP has responded that no such records exist. On February 9, plaintiffs submit the absence of evidence as evidence that there were no such crimes.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 2/9/2023 at 9:23 PM, Euler said:

The plaintiffs FOIA'd the state to find any record of the criminal use of a revolving cylinder shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle. ISP has responded that no such records exist. On February 9, plaintiffs submit the absence of evidence as evidence that there were no such crimes.

 

Need more info.  Did the plaintiffs actually introduce that into the case, or was it in response to an argument from the defense?   If so, this is what I was afraid of - we don't need to introduce or even engage in an interest balancing argument. 

 

If the plaintiffs state that 50bmg is not being used in crimes, then the state will argue that semi-autos were used in all of these other crimes and mass shootings. 

We just have to argue that they are not dangerous and unusual. 

 

 

 

[Euler]

On 2/10/2023 at 2:14 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Need more info.  Did the plaintiffs actually introduce that into the case, or was it in response to an argument from the defense?  ...

 

On 2/9/2023 at 10:23 PM, Euler said:

... On February 9, plaintiffs submit the absence of evidence as evidence that there were no such crimes.

[apex84]

On 2/6/2023 at 3:42 PM, Benbow said:

For those interested, first bit of data on the cases, the contracts signed by the State with purported experts.  Looks like the state is paying $30,000 an expert to reinivent history.

contract spitzer.pdf 2.61 MB · 25 downloads contract.pdf

5.52 MB · 14 downloads

 

What can be expected. I skimmed it, page 14 of the PDF caught my attention.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 at 02:06 PM by apex84
Highlight page 14

[davel501]

On 2/10/2023 at 1:14 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Need more info.  Did the plaintiffs actually introduce that into the case, or was it in response to an argument from the defense?   If so, this is what I was afraid of - we don't need to introduce or even engage in an interest balancing argument. 

 

If the plaintiffs state that 50bmg is not being used in crimes, then the state will argue that semi-autos were used in all of these other crimes and mass shootings. 

We just have to argue that they are not dangerous and unusual. 

 

 

 

 

No better argument for them not being dangerous than the fact the ISP has no record of anyone being hurt by one.