Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

On 11/28/2023 at 7:53 PM, mauserme said:

 

It sounds like your dispute is with the way the plan was implemented rather than the fact that there was a plan.

 

 

That is assuming I believe this was an actual plan to begin with, which I don't. 

 

IF if was, than I disapprove of the plan itself, AND its downstream impact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:21 PM, mauserme said:

 

So you believe a suit was filed  with no plan?

 

 

I'm not sure what you are attempting, but I'll play along. 

 

I believe a half-a** suit was rushed with little to no evidence in order to be "first" because politicians are gonna politic.   

The results of that gave everyone in Illinois a "no", and screwed over people with TRO's.    

 

I would assume his original plan was to attempt to win, not to lose and then claim someone else's leg work. 

 

It sounds like you believe his original plan was to lose all along, then come back with this. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:35 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

I'm not sure what you are attempting, but I'll play along. 

 

I believe a half-a** suit was rushed with little to no evidence in order to be "first" because politicians are gonna politic.   

The results of that gave everyone in Illinois a "no", and screwed over people with TRO's.    

 

I would assume his original plan was to attempt to win, not to lose and then claim someone else's leg work. 

 

It sounds like you believe his original plan was to lose all along, then come back with this. 

 

 

 

I made the point that in March of this year I noted a strategy of letting the biased justices step in their own mess, and tried to encourage those making things so public to step back a bit so that strategy wouldn't be jeopardized.   Despite the fact that my advice was not heeded there was no recusal and the suit, and thus the plan, proceeded.

 

I'm unclear why you've brought the TRO into this.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 7:53 PM, mauserme said:

 

It sounds like your dispute is with the way the plan was implemented rather than the fact that there was a plan.

 

 

I think you might be giving too much credit to them having a “plan”.

Devore had a state case, Devore obtained an appellate ruling in his favor and produced a TRO for his clients. That appellate ruling could have been used by ANYONE to get a TRO for themselves or others.
THEN Caulkins came along, used all of Devore’s work and got Caulkins and company their own TRO.

THEN Caulkins tried rushing ahead.

THEN the state approached Caulkins with a risky deal to appeal to ILSC. 

 

Despite what the carnival barkers state, like “Devore should have worked with Caulkins”, and people blaming Devore. 
It was Devore that was sailing along smoothly and heading for a W when Caulkins showed up and with his “plan” and derailed a lot of stuff for months on end, ruined a TRO for Devores clients, and Caulkins’s clients. 
 

Do I need to go all SteveTia with the actual history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:45 PM, mab22 said:

I think you might be giving too much credit to them having a “plan”.

Devore had a state case, Devore obtained an appellate ruling in his favor and produced a TRO for his clients. That appellate ruling could have been used by ANYONE to get a TRO for themselves or others.
THEN Caulkins came along, used all of Devore’s work and got Caulkins and company their own TRO.

THEN Caulkins tried rushing ahead.

THEN the state approached Caulkins with a risky deal to appeal to ILSC. 

 

Despite what the carnival barkers state, like “Devore should have worked with Caulkins”, and people blaming Devore. 
It was Devore that was sailing along smoothly and heading for a W when Caulkins showed up and with his “plan” and derailed a lot of stuff for months on end, ruined a TRO for Devores clients, and Caulkins’s clients. 
 

Do I need to go all SteveTia with the actual history?

 

There have been accusations recently in this thread, of Calkins trying to take credit for something he didn't do.  Yet, he says that was the plan and more than 8 months ago it was obvious that it was.  I'm sorry you're not able to see that.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:44 PM, mauserme said:

 

I made the point that in March of this year I noted a strategy of letting the biased justices step in their own mess, and tried to encourage those making things so public to step back a bit so that strategy wouldn't be jeopardized.   Despite the fact that my advice was not heeded there was no recusal and the suit, and thus the plan, proceeded.

 

I'm unclear why you've brought the TRO into this.

 

 

 

 

So his "plan" was to get the judges to NOT recuse themselves as opposed to them recusing up front?  I don't buy that.     

 

 And the TRO was brought into it because his actions got it tossed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 9:06 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

So his "plan" was to get the judges to NOT recuse themselves as opposed to them recusing up front?  I don't buy that.     

 

 And the TRO was brought into it because his actions got it tossed. 

 

There was never any chance of them recusing.

 

EDIT:  Let me rephrase that.  It was very unlikely that they would recuse themselves because recusal based on the campaign contributions would have undermined their ability to hear any cases involving the state.  If they had recused because of the 2A activity, which was also unlikely, it wouldn't have changed the outcome but would have foreclosed some of Caulkins' arguments.

 

 

 

 

Edited by mauserme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:52 PM, mauserme said:

 

There have been accusations recently in this thread, of Calkins trying to take credit for something he didn't do.  Yet, he says that was the plan and more than 8 months ago it was obvious that it was.  I'm sorry you're not able to see that.

 

 

 

 

 

Mauser I respect you very much,

Can you point out some of the accusations, I tried scrolling up but they may not be obvious to me?

 

It is very possible the he SAYS that was the plan all along, and anyone is free to believe that.

 

To risk taking this to ILSC to ultimately loose, damaging really good cases in the process, only so he can then use the "failure to recuse" to get it to SCOTUS sounds like a movie script to me. That's my opinion. He was also in a video clip somewhere when he was asked about the recusal  said "he just wanted a fair trial", and didn't state that he wanted them to recuse.

 

I would also add that Calkins and Devore were in discussions about the case going to SCOTUS and there was never mention of some "Greater Plan", which I think would have told his clients about. I'll find the Devore updates that he provided on this.

 

The state did not go to him first to bring this up to the ILSC, they went to Devore first, and Devore told them no and the video below provides why he told them no and why Calkins lost and its within the first 8 minutes. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:44 PM, mauserme said:

letting the biased justices step in their own mess, and tried to encourage those making things so public to step back a bit so that strategy wouldn't be jeopardized.

Come on though. They’re progressive democrats. I know that they couldn’t help themselves and were likely not gonna recuse lol, and that, with everything else that was dripped out along the way, set the stage to make it all so perfect, especially in their recusal denials. If anything, making everything so public (and even the route they took via Caperton lol) made it all just that much better because these two justices likely, if it gets taken up, caused a lot more damage in a lot more aspects than just the Caulkins case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:52 PM, mauserme said:

There have been accusations recently in this thread, of Calkins trying to take credit for something he didn't do.  Yet, he says that was the plan and more than 8 months

8+ months ago though, from the other thread, what started everything (first post regarding it)249BFF24-75B6-419B-A661-221B6268552B.thumb.jpeg.8a6e0b457dd0b9d9eb646a6808b04c6d.jpegeither way, we’re here now, and he and Stocks did what (at least I) had hoped they would do, and the petition is pretty solid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 9:09 PM, mauserme said:

 

There was never any chance of them recusing.

 

EDIT:  Let me rephrase that.  It was very unlikely that they would recuse themselves because recusal based on the campaign contributions would have undermined their ability to hear any cases involving the state.  If they had recused because of the 2A activity, which was also unlikely, it wouldn't have changed the outcome but would have foreclosed some of Caulkins' arguments.

 

 

 

 

It would have thought. Caulkins brought it up on 92.9 today (or was it yesterday?) and focused on the IL constitution on the Supreme Court where 4 (not a simple majority) are required for a decision. This is a good and valid point he brought up

47276A4A-5191-4115-B51E-89E1FB052FDB.thumb.jpeg.68d245098c41d71b16d88d54529daa18.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminder too that what’s happening with the Caulkins case is brewing in Wisconsin in an almost similar situation with two justices that gave the democraps the majority, and they were bankrolled in a similar way (maybe even a worse example), and JB even sunk money into it, all to get the district maps redrawn 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/21/wisconsin-supreme-court-redistricting-lawsuit

 

The Wisconsin supreme court appeared poised to strike down the current maps for the state legislature after three hours of oral argument on Tuesday, a decision that could end more than a decade of Republican dominance and eliminate some of the most gerrymandered districts in the United States.

The four liberal justices on the court all seemed ready to embrace an argument from challengers in the case, Clarke v Wisconsin elections commission, that the maps violate the state constitution because they include more than 70 districts. It was unclear, however, how the justices would handle the redrawing of a map and whether it would immediately order elections for the entire legislature next year in new districts. Wisconsin voters elect 99 assembly members every two years, but only about half of the 33-member state senate would normally be up for election next year.

 

.

The clear subtext was that the challengers were bringing the new claims now because liberals flipped control of the supreme court. The case was filed the day after Janet Protasiewicz formally took her seat on the supreme court in August, flipping control of the bench and giving liberals a 4-3 majority. Protasiewicz, who called the maps “rigged” during her campaign last year, a comment that has prompted Republicans in the legislature to threaten impeaching her.
 

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/03/28/soros-pritzker-and-uihleins-pour-millions-into-supreme-court-race/70055900007/
 

MADISON - With a week before the election for the state Supreme Court, liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz continues to eclipse her conservative opponent Dan Kelly in fundraising — this time with the help of three out-of-state billionaires who have each given $1 million to the state Democratic Party.

This year's state Supreme Court race is unlike many others, with control of the battleground state's highest court up for grabs and the issue of abortion front and center. The national implications of the race have drawn unprecedented donations from across the country.

 

Billionaire financier George Soros donated $1 million the state Democrats on Feb. 22, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave $1 million on March 14 and Tulsa philanthropists Stacy and Lynn Schusterman made four donations in March totaling $1 million. The Schustermans had previously donated $40,000 to the party. 
 

California physician Karla Jurvetson — who has focused her donations on female candidates and in 2020 gave nearly $15 million to boost Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential primary — also gave $500,000 to the state Democratic Party.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's campaign committee also gave $12,000 to the state Democratic Party on March 13.
 

Republicans were quick to criticize the Soros and Pritzker donations.

"George Soros and J.B. Pritzker's million-dollar contributions underscore that Protasiewicz will simply be a progressive rubber stamp," said Rachel Reisner, spokeswoman for the state Republican Party. "They’ll drop whatever cash needed to buy her a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat because her pro-criminal record aligns with their agenda."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 9:45 PM, mab22 said:

 

Mauser I respect you very much,

Can you point out some of the accusations, I tried scrolling up but they may not be obvious to me?

 

It is very possible the he SAYS that was the plan all along, and anyone is free to believe that.

 

 

On 11/27/2023 at 7:08 PM, steveTA84 said:

^^^^
watch/listen to that. He completely takes credit for it all coming out and said it was his legal team’s idea 😂😂😂😂

 

Where do I send the bill? 😂😂😂

 

 

Rooting for him obviously, and they did the right thing appealing to SCOTUS, but seriously!😂😂😂

 

Yes, the post I was referring to is quoted below yours.  

 

What I said is that  "we need to be open to the idea that Caulkins had a strategy in mind", pointing to my post from 3/2023 mentioning that.

 

I'll add to that your statement that "It is very possible the he SAYS that was the plan all along, and anyone is free to believe that." to the accusations.    But, again, my March observation predates that by many months.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2023 at 5:59 AM, mauserme said:

What I said is that  "we need to be open to the idea that Caulkins had a strategy in mind", pointing to my post from 3/2023 mentioning that.

 

I'll add to that your statement that "It is very possible the he SAYS that was the plan all along, and anyone is free to believe that." to the accusations.

Fair enough. I do think he had a strategy in mind, but his strategy likely was strengthened/had more weight with the public exposure/heat that was put on the justices 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2023 at 4:58 AM, steveTA84 said:

Reminder too that what’s happening with the Caulkins case is brewing in Wisconsin in an almost similar situation with two justices that gave the democraps the majority, and they were bankrolled in a similar way (maybe even a worse example), and JB even sunk money into it, all to get the district maps redrawn 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/21/wisconsin-supreme-court-redistricting-lawsuit

 

The Wisconsin supreme court appeared poised to strike down the current maps for the state legislature after three hours of oral argument on Tuesday, a decision that could end more than a decade of Republican dominance and eliminate some of the most gerrymandered districts in the United States.

The four liberal justices on the court all seemed ready to embrace an argument from challengers in the case, Clarke v Wisconsin elections commission, that the maps violate the state constitution because they include more than 70 districts. It was unclear, however, how the justices would handle the redrawing of a map and whether it would immediately order elections for the entire legislature next year in new districts. Wisconsin voters elect 99 assembly members every two years, but only about half of the 33-member state senate would normally be up for election next year.

 

.

The clear subtext was that the challengers were bringing the new claims now because liberals flipped control of the supreme court. The case was filed the day after Janet Protasiewicz formally took her seat on the supreme court in August, flipping control of the bench and giving liberals a 4-3 majority. Protasiewicz, who called the maps “rigged” during her campaign last year, a comment that has prompted Republicans in the legislature to threaten impeaching her.
 

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/03/28/soros-pritzker-and-uihleins-pour-millions-into-supreme-court-race/70055900007/
 

MADISON - With a week before the election for the state Supreme Court, liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz continues to eclipse her conservative opponent Dan Kelly in fundraising — this time with the help of three out-of-state billionaires who have each given $1 million to the state Democratic Party.

This year's state Supreme Court race is unlike many others, with control of the battleground state's highest court up for grabs and the issue of abortion front and center. The national implications of the race have drawn unprecedented donations from across the country.

 

Billionaire financier George Soros donated $1 million the state Democrats on Feb. 22, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave $1 million on March 14 and Tulsa philanthropists Stacy and Lynn Schusterman made four donations in March totaling $1 million. The Schustermans had previously donated $40,000 to the party. 
 

California physician Karla Jurvetson — who has focused her donations on female candidates and in 2020 gave nearly $15 million to boost Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential primary — also gave $500,000 to the state Democratic Party.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's campaign committee also gave $12,000 to the state Democratic Party on March 13.
 

Republicans were quick to criticize the Soros and Pritzker donations.

"George Soros and J.B. Pritzker's million-dollar contributions underscore that Protasiewicz will simply be a progressive rubber stamp," said Rachel Reisner, spokeswoman for the state Republican Party. "They’ll drop whatever cash needed to buy her a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat because her pro-criminal record aligns with their agenda."

On subject, another state Supreme Court. Dominos are falling, and this is the (IMO) main reason the Caulkins case before SCOTUS is so important 

 

47E9F515-8AA3-4FD0-BF44-6D932386724F.thumb.jpeg.d69791020e1ddc8b0914d2da26ba1e74.jpeg30D7D782-5D30-4245-A17B-9DA06B3A59D6.thumb.jpeg.97d260b3c247b51b691fabedd9978b2b.jpeg
https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_Washington_State_Supreme_Court_candidate_campaign_finance_and_court_case_outcomes_(2013_-_2022)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington Gun Law interviews Dudley Brown who interestingly brings up that his folks in NAGR think it very possible the Caulkins cert petition could somehow be combined or linked with this case and provide a vehicle for resolving these gun bans. Trying hard to stay realistic with the odds but I would love if scotus will take the opportunity they have here to set the courts straight on semi auto bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2023 at 12:47 PM, Matt B said:

Washington Gun Law interviews Dudley Brown who interestingly brings up that his folks in NAGR think it very possible the Caulkins cert petition could somehow be combined or linked with this case and provide a vehicle for resolving these gun bans. Trying hard to stay realistic with the odds but I would love if scotus will take the opportunity they have here to set the courts straight on semi auto bans.

Would be epic if these cases were combined, then everyone gets what they want (and the judicial corruption in IL could very well be part of a SCOTUS ruling killing these bans)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s what Jane Notz submitted to the IL Supreme Court 

 

https://windypundit.com/2023/05/jane-notz-is-fibbing/?amp=1

 

Yesterday, Illinois Solicitor General Jane Elinor Notz filed a brief with the Supreme Court, defending the Illinois assault weapons ban. Much of the brief is about law and procedure, which I’m not knowledgeable enough to address. But think I can shed some light on one tiny piece of Notz’s brief:

The instruments regulated by the Act are best suited for offensive combat: their defining characteristics are unnecessary (and often counterproductive) for self defense, with the result that handguns and shotguns are preferred for self-defense scenarios.

This is brazen misdirection. Maybe even a pack of lies.

The Act in question is the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) of 2023, and many of the characteristics of rifles that it outlaws — pistol grips, forward grips, adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds — are things that would make a rifle ergonomically easier to use, which obviously makes it more effective for self-defense.

(The Act also calls out and names a whole bunch of guns which are banned as de jure assault weapons, regardless of what features they have. It’s hard to argue with the justification for this, since Notz offers no justification for this.)

Furthermore, Notz’s argument that PICA outlaws certain rifles because handguns and shotguns are better for self-defense would make sense if PICA was only about rifles. But PICA also restricts handguns and shotguns. And again, many of the features listed are the kinds of improvements that would help with self defense:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...