Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[jcable2]

Dan said they had over 1,500 people request to join. At $200 a piece that over $300,000 that Devore didn't get. Dan made it clear no one had to pay anything to join. 

 

 

 

This topic was split from the Caulkins v Pritzker Recusal Thread - mauserme

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 at 02:06 PM by mauserme
Added link to original topic

[jcable2]

From the 1:30 appearance today. Hopefully the transcript will be available soon. 

Plaintiffs present by counsel Mr. Stocks and Mr. Eck.
Defendants Governor Jay Robert Pritzker, in His Official Capacity as Governor and Kwame Raoul, in His Official Capacity as Attorney
General present by counsel Mr. Kinkead.
No appearance by Defendants Emanuel Chirstopher Welch, in His
Capacity as Speaker of the House, or Donald F. Harmon, in His
Capacity as Senate President.
Cause called for hearing on Plaintiff's Combined Motion for Decloratory Judgment.
Arguments heard.
Motion taken underadvisement Parties are given leave to submit proposed orders by the close of business on February 6th, 2023.

 

 

[jcable2]

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I did not see the case filed by Dan Caulkins listed here in the forums. The following is from his facebook page... 

 

Greetings to one and all. We filed our lawsuit on 1/26 in Macon County (Decatur). If you want to check it out, search for Docket 2023 CH3. We have a hearing scheduled before Judge Forbes at 1:30 on February 3rd.

There is some confusion about who is NAMED as individual plaintiffs and who is not. Some of you may have thought that this was going to follow all aspects of Tom DeVore's trailblazing suits, including the naming of a thousand (literally or figuratively) individual plaintiffs.

We opted to try to do something similar to Mr. DeVore's, and at the same time make it better. We opted to file without exposing the individuals supporting us to some of the potential risks of listing yourself as a named plaintiff. That's where our unincorporated association comes in, the Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County.

Again, those who joined our effort were not specifically named for very good, legal reasons, but know that we will all benefit if we win a ruling to stop the enforcement of this law.

Obviously I've been pressed to explain why.

I decided that there are many of us that wanted to challenge Governor Pritzker’s law because we know it’s unconstitutional. A lot of us have donated to FFL IL and other organizations to fund a challenge in Federal Court. Knowing that effort could take months to be heard, we’ve decided to go to the State courts for hopefully a more immediate ruling.

My plan was/is to put together a group that wanted to ban together to support that litigation (a legal definition of an “Association”). By responding to my call to join in, the law considers that to be "voluntary consent for a common purpose" which is to get the law overturned. If we are successful, and get a judgement in our favor, it does not require any individual member of the Association to be named for you to get the benefit.

Why not list specific individual plaintiffs? Well, for one, the Illinois Attorney General's Office could schedule depositions with each and every named plaintiff. The folks over at the Illinois AG's office have the time and resources to do such a thing. Do you think Tom Devore's going to represent you and hundreds (thousands?) of others through a four to six-hour deposition with multiple Attorney General lawyers like the one John Boch sat through as part of Guns Save Life's FOID challenge lawsuit? They grilled Mr. Boch for hours, in large part to prove he had standing. Not only did they want a list of all his firearms, they wanted a list of all of his gun safes including serial numbers, instruction books and sales receipts! Are these individual named plaintiffs in Mr. DeVore's lawsuits ready for that level of exposure?

As if that wasn't enough, as I understand it, in any outcome of Mr. DeVore's suit, there's the potential that all of the named plaintiffs would have to sign off on the agreement. Unless of course he had everyone execute some sort of waiver of those rights as part of signing on to the suit when he collected their payment.

There's more, but you get the idea.

If any of you feel this legal strategy we've employed in this endeavor is not what you expected, and would like your donation returned, please send me an email. I will promptly send you a refund. If you're still on the fence about this, after having learned of the reasoning behind how we did things to protect the people behind our lawsuit, I'd urge you to wait a week (or three) to see how this develops.

Dan Caulkins

dan@dancaulkins.com

[Book'm]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/macon-county-judge-issues-third-temporary-restraining-order-against-illinois-gun-ban/article_cb3ae2bc-a7e1-11ed-9d4f-1beeb03f03dc.html

 

Only applies to named plantiffs

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

TRO granted in Caulkins case. 

[Molly B.]

[THE KING]

On 2/8/2023 at 2:56 PM, Molly B. said:

Does this TRO  include everyone in the state.  

[ITguy1686]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:22 PM, THE KING said:

Does this TRO  include everyone in the state.  

It doesn't. Just the named plaintiffs.

[mauserme]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:22 PM, THE KING said:

Does this TRO  include everyone in the state.  

 

No, plaintiffs only.

 

 

[jcable2]

We need a copy of Exhibit A that was attached to the requested order so we can see who all was included in the Association. Hopefully Dan gives that soon. 

[Upholder]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:22 PM, THE KING said:

Does this TRO  include everyone in the state.  

 

No.

[MrTriple]

On 2/8/2023 at 3:28 PM, mauserme said:

 

No, plaintiffs only.

 

 

Is there reason why none of these TROs cover the entire state? Is it a matter of precedence, or perhaps normal court procedure?

 

I'd think the lawyers would be asking for statewide TROs if they could, so I wonder if it's a procedural thing.

[Jeffrey]

My vague understanding is that its part of procedure dependent on which court you are in front of.  It all seems strange considering the large part of our argument is a lack of equal protections of law.

[Molly B.]

On 2/8/2023 at 4:02 PM, MrTriple said:

Is there reason why none of these TROs cover the entire state? Is it a matter of precedence, or perhaps normal court procedure?

 

I'd think the lawyers would be asking for statewide TROs if they could, so I wonder if it's a procedural thing.

They are being heard in circuit court districts throughout the state - as circuit courts, they cannot issue statewide TROs.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

For the life of me I can't remember where I heard this, but I recall hearing the Caulkins' case TRO would most likely not be extended statewide because that level of court lacks the authority.  And that Raoul was probably waiting for a statewide TRO to be issued so he could challenge it on the grounds that the court exceeded its authority in issuing a statewide TRO. 

 

My lawyer friend thinks the AG Office will file with the IL SCOTUS against the current TROs very soon and the only thing that would stop the AG is if they calculate that the IL Supremes would reinstate the other counts against the IL Legislature for violating their procedures.  

 

 

[jcable2]

Here is the order with all of the names

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jNdLHXJ_xnsOZC6xYZn3km7FBA3LpUuj/view?usp=sharing

 

[jcable2]

My number my not be 100% but looks like there is about 2022 people covered by Dan's lawsuit. Now we can see why Tom is so angry that Dan done this for free. That is $404,400 worth of $200 per person he didn't get. He has already gotten over $1,000,000 from the 3 he has done. Waiting for the number of plaintiffs in his third to know exactly how much but is over a million dollars he made in less than 30 days on these lawsuits. Tom already made a new post bashing Dan on Facebook. 

[BAT]

Has anyone found the "exhibit A" mentioned in the tro?

[jcable2]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:30 PM, BAT said:

Has anyone found the "exhibit A" mentioned in the tro?

It is on the Google drive link I just shared.

[jcable2]

 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.pdf

[BAT]

 

 

Thank you!

[2smartby1/2]

I'm a bit lost on the fight here.  If the Circuit Courts cannot issue state-wide TRO's, what is the exact argument?   It seems like the Circuit decision are not state-wide, but are binding.  So could any lawyer in any other county file a similar suit? 

 

[jcable2]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:13 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

I'm a bit lost on the fight here.  If the Circuit Courts cannot issue state-wide TRO's, what is the exact argument?   It seems like the Circuit decision are not state-wide, but are binding.  So could any lawyer in any other county file a similar suit? 

 

Yes, any lawyer can file a similar lawsuit and get a TRO right now due to the Appeals Court ruling. 

[gunuser17]

Not exactly.  The Illinois appellate court ruling is binding on the county courts within that appellate court area.  Effingham is within the 5th District Illinois appellate court.  The Fifth District Appellate Court is located in Mt. Vernon and hears cases appealed from trial courts in 48 counties (Alexander, Bond, Champaign, Christian, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Coles, Crawford, Cumberland, DeWitt, Douglas, Edgar, Edwards, Effingham, Fayette, Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Lawrence, Macon, Madison, Marion, Massac, Monroe, Montgomery, Moultrie, Perry, Piatt, Pope, Pulaski, Randolph, Richland, Saline, Shelby, St. Clair, Union, Vermillion, Wabash, Washington, Wayne, White, and Williamson).  So if you file a new case in any one of those counties, then the appellate ruling is binding on the local court. 

Edited February 9, 2023 at 04:15 AM by gunuser17

[steveTA84]

Someone I know sent me this

Edited February 9, 2023 at 07:51 PM by steveTA84

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Advised by whom? No need to answer. I can guess. 

[Rev Jim]

Mr. Devore has posted a video on this twitter feed that explains his misgivings about the organization named as a plaintiff in the Caulkins case.  Seems very reasonable to me. 

 

So far, one of the supposed advantages claimed by Rep. Caulkins - anonymity for members of the organization - has not panned out with the publication of Exhibit A.  

 

[steveTA84]

On 2/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, Rev Jim said:

Mr. Devore has posted a video on this twitter feed that explains his misgivings about the organization named as a plaintiff in the Caulkins case.  Seems very reasonable to me. 

 

So far, one of the supposed advantages claimed by Rep. Caulkins - anonymity for members of the organization - has not panned out with the publication of Exhibit A.  

 

Explains things very well and makes total sense

[jcable2]

On 2/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, Rev Jim said:

Mr. Devore has posted a video on this twitter feed that explains his misgivings about the organization named as a plaintiff in the Caulkins case.  Seems very reasonable to me. 

 

So far, one of the supposed advantages claimed by Rep. Caulkins - anonymity for members of the organization - has not panned out with the publication of Exhibit A.  

 

My problem is some of the straight up lied Tom is saying. He said they never asked for it to apply Statewide. If you look at my screenshot from the Combined motion you can see that it was requested to apply Statewide to all citizens. Tom bashed Dan for setting up a group, then he sets up one for his Federal Lawsuit. Tom than said that no one listed in Exhibit A is actually exempt and cannot purchase guns or magazines under the TRO, even though the Judge said the TRO applied to all names in Exhibit A. Then the court had to tell Tom he didn't properly, under the correct rules, file his motion to intervene. He tried to get into Dan's lawsuit and have the group thrown out. There was no reason for him to try and harm Dan's lawsuit.