transplant Posted December 19, 2013 at 02:49 AM Share Posted December 19, 2013 at 02:49 AM According to the bio page on HP's site, the mayor used to be an attorney. http://www.cityhpil.com/index.aspx?nid=196 http://www.mwe.com/services/uniGC.aspx?xpST=ServiceList Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQ Posted December 19, 2013 at 02:43 PM Share Posted December 19, 2013 at 02:43 PM According to the bio page on HP's site, the mayor used to be an attorney. http://www.cityhpil....ex.aspx?nid=196 http://www.mwe.com/s...pST=ServiceList She is just another crazy liberal who only cares about the law when it suits her agenda.....I can't stand her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted December 19, 2013 at 03:27 PM Share Posted December 19, 2013 at 03:27 PM According to the bio page on HP's site, the mayor used to be an attorney. http://www.cityhpil....ex.aspx?nid=196 http://www.mwe.com/s...pST=ServiceList She is just another crazy liberal who only cares about the law when it suits her agenda.....I can't stand her. The problem is these "crazy liberals" fight... Northfield spent like 30 years fighting the widening of Willow Road, something like 2 mil in legal expenses...and that was over a ROAD, not an emotional issue like guns. These people don't care about pissing away money if its an issue progressive soccer moms will grab onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 19, 2013 at 03:27 PM Share Posted December 19, 2013 at 03:27 PM Motion for TRO (I assume that's the motion anyway) up this Friday. It's in one of the courtrooms I frequent, I'll try to be there. It'll probably just be a briefing schedule anyway. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:51 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:51 AM According to the Tribune the city is trying to remove the case to federal court. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:22 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:22 AM Anyone got a copy of the "court documents" mentioned in the Tribune article (article is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/highland_park_deerfield/ct-assault-weapon-lawsuit-met-20131220,0,2010121.story)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:28 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:28 AM I only have PACER (federal) access. Perhaps one of our ILJD's has access I do not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RECarry Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:41 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:41 AM They want the benefits of home rule status, then run to the feds when they need deep pockets to defend their position? Just like a spoiled child running to mommy with fabricated claims of "he hit me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:43 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:43 AM In federal court Wilson v Cook County is persuasive rather than binding and seeing how the basis for the suit is the "common use" issue, it hurts our case. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPDan Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:56 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:56 AM I figured I would chime in seeing as I am the guy in the photo in the new article. This is awesome news, and great that it is out in the open. It will be interesting to see if it gets kicked to federal level. I have been trying to get the co to answer some hard questions about this, and they have been silent. Time to see them squirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 20, 2013 at 05:13 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 05:13 AM Yeah I've got the removal petition, I can't post it because it's 3MB and either the clerk or (let's hope) HP's genius attorney screwed it up when he filed it on ILND's CM/ECF and flipped every page from 17 until the end (125 pages total) upside down, and it starts on the second page of a motion. Here's the notice of removal, 28 USC Sec. 1331, original jurisdiction *darr*. Judge Bucklo drew the short straw. Defendants.Notice.of.Removal.D1.0.pdf @HPDan, there's a reason why this was filed in state court rather than federal. And why it was filed in the Second, not First District (Cook). My opinion about this whole thing...ahh I'll keep that to myself but this isn't all butterflies and sunshine with a Clinton nominee presiding over this case now and it certainly will not be remanded. I also have a theory as to who's footing the legal expenses for this whole thing and anyone who's been around here long enough knows exactly what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted December 20, 2013 at 05:40 AM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 05:40 AM It would seem that this "removal" from the lower court to an upper court would benefit both parties, since any ruling by a lower court is virtually guaranteed to be appealed by the losing party. Seems good to both the plaintiffs and the taxpayers of Highland Park (who are the ultimate losers of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM It's not a removal from upper or lower court, it's a parallel or horizontal move, state circuit court to federal district court. Either way this is forum shopping, and there is a federal question so federal court has jurisdiction. Skinny is 100% right, there's no way that Highland Park is paying for Holland and Knight as their attorney... Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted December 20, 2013 at 01:56 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 01:56 PM It's not a removal from upper or lower court, it's a parallel or horizontal move, state circuit court to federal district court. Either way this is forum shopping, and there is a federal question so federal court has jurisdiction. Skinny is 100% right, there's no way that Highland Park is paying for Holland and Knight as their attorney... Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Perhaps they got a call from New York offering their assistance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:18 PM Author Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:18 PM Holland and Knight is the Firm that their guy Elrod works for. We here it is being done pro-bono. more to follow, but the fact is they saw what we saw with the difference in the Second District vs the First (cook co). and they are scared to death of the Second and our State Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:34 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:34 PM Pro-bono...??? That's too bad -- I like spending that other guy's money even if there are 12 other people in the world with more money than he has.... Incidentally, I was always pro-bono... Cher not so much. They were a better act as a duo in the 60's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:39 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:39 PM more to follow, but the fact is they saw what we saw with the difference in the Second District vs the First (cook co). and they are scared to death of the Second and our State Supreme Court. That would be forum shopping. Totally legit in this case. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:50 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 02:50 PM I suspect that there is a pretty good chance that the state courts will eventually just toss AWB entirely. The latest rounds of court cases have essentially removed the "subject to the police power" qualifier to the state constitution RTKBA clause. The rest of that clause is even stronger than the 2A as a RTKBA guarantee since it says nothing about the militia to muddy up the waters. State courts in IL have traditionally taken a fairly expansive view of the rights enumerated in the state constitution, although they have also shown a great deal of deference to LE. However, LE is not involved in this so that should not make much difference. However, given that the FCCA specifically allows for AWBs, I think there is a good chance that the lower court will pass on saying it is unconstitutional and leave that up to an appeals court to do. The lower courts tend to give considerable weight to the legislature in such matters, as they should. There is no federal case law that says AWB are unconstitutional that would apply in this case, so I don't see that going anywhere. I think they might well have been better off to at least make a claim that the state constitutional RTKBA is being violated, if nothing else to add it into the mix, because a state court is more likely to want to go with a state constitutional clause than a federal constitutional clause. State courts rarely want to try and determine just what federal law means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 03:16 PM Well, bad news is that Berrones would have ruled this morning or at least heard arguments. His words, "the removal of the gun control case really freed up my morning." Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 20, 2013 at 09:16 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 09:16 PM I think they might well have been better off to at least make a claim that the state constitutional RTKBA is being violated, if nothing else to add it into the mix, because a state court is more likely to want to go with a state constitutional clause than a federal constitutional clause. State courts rarely want to try and determine just what federal law means. Which is why I wish counts alleging Article I, Sections 2 and 16 were included. Sec 2 is the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause, ironically it's because of Chicago that the Takings Clause from the Fifth has been incorporated into the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. State courts are applying the state constitution's Due Process Clause to government seizure for non-public use without recompense. Section 16, ex post facto laws, as in they're a violation of the IL Constitution. They're both state claims that could've kept this in state court, or at least the judge would've remanded those counts back to the Second. Instead, it's 100% federal question and I don't know how Bucklo plans on dealing with Wilson as they're basically identical for all intents and purposes especially since the district has original jurisdiction over Wilson. Meh...heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjachDjach Posted December 20, 2013 at 09:52 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 09:52 PM Wishing Dr. Friedman the best of luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQ Posted December 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM Share Posted December 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM I think they might well have been better off to at least make a claim that the state constitutional RTKBA is being violated, if nothing else to add it into the mix, because a state court is more likely to want to go with a state constitutional clause than a federal constitutional clause. State courts rarely want to try and determine just what federal law means. Which is why I wish counts alleging Article I, Sections 2 and 16 were included. Sec 2 is the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause, ironically it's because of Chicago that the Takings Clause from the Fifth has been incorporated into the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. State courts are applying the state constitution's Due Process Clause to government seizure for non-public use without recompense. Section 16, ex post facto laws, as in they're a violation of the IL Constitution. They're both state claims that could've kept this in state court, or at least the judge would've remanded those counts back to the Second. Instead, it's 100% federal question and I don't know how Bucklo plans on dealing with Wilson as they're basically identical for all intents and purposes especially since the district has original jurisdiction over Wilson. Meh...heh I agree, I question the logic of the complaint but I hope that people who know this stuff a lot longer and better than me have a plan. This is a game of chess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:14 AM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:14 AM Good news, new judge. Well I'm pretty sure it's good news. Today, the Executive Committee reassigned the case to Judge Holderman. He was the Chief Judge up until July of this year (now it's Castillo, who has already been overturned by CA7 once this year...and Posner was on that panel heh). Holderman was appointed by Reagan. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:19 AM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:19 AM Is this the case that was in limbo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:41 AM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 05:41 AM Not sure what you mean by in limbo but I think this complaint was filed in the last two weeks or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:15 AM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:15 AM no, a different one then, one that wasn't being ruled on for years or something Too many cases to remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted December 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM no, a different one then, one that wasn't being ruled on for years or something Too many cases to remember Might you be thinking of Wilson v Cook Co? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted December 24, 2013 at 01:47 PM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 01:47 PM The HP action rated a mention in TTAG's daily digest: http://www.thetrutha...23/#more-282535 Remember last year when several Chicago suburbs rushed assault weapons ban ordinances through under home rule before the state concealed carry law went into effect? Well, the first of those is being challenged in a lawsuit filed by a Highland Park pediatrician, Arie Friedman, with the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association. The lawsuit requests an injunction against the ban on Second Amendment grounds. Mr. Friedman owns several rifles prohibited by the ban, and is now storing them outside the city to comply with the law, which the suit claims infringes on his ability to keep and bear arms for home protection. At the request of the city attorney, the case has been removed from local circuit court and taken before a federal judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:54 PM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:54 PM Motion for a preliminary injunction filed today, Merry Christmas, Highland Park! Motion, the memorandum in support, and exhibits. The Motion itself:Plaintiffs.Motion.for.Preliminary.Injunction.DE9.0.pdf Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Prelimary Inunction plus Exhibits 2-6 (Exhibit 1 is the ordinance and Ex. 7 is Kleck's affidavit, which is available elsehwhere)Plaintiffs.Memo.in.Support.of.Motion.for.Prelim.Injunction.DE10.0.pdfMemo.in.Support.of.Preliminary.Injunction.Pltfs.Verified.Complaint.Exhibit.2.DE10.2.pdfMemo.in.Support.of.Preliminary.Injunction.Decl.David.Lombardo.Exhibit.3.DE10.3.pdfExhibit 4 (Curcuruto Affidavit/Declaration) - Too big - See HereMemo.in.Support.of.Preliminary.Injunction.Decl.Dr.Gary.Roberts.Exhibit.5.DE10.5.pdfMemo.in.Support.of.Preliminary.Injunction.Decl.James.Supica.Exhibit.6.DE10.6.pdf Some interesting excerpts from the memorandum in support of the motion blah blah "In Wilson v. County of Cook, 2012 IL 112026, 968 N.E.2d 641 (Il. 2012), the Illinois Supreme Court applied the Heller and McDonald decisions and reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a Second Amendment challenge to an 'assault weapons' ordinance nearly identical to the Highland Park ban. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, including an 'empirical inquiry' into whether the ordinance prohibited ownership of firearms that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and fall outside the scope of the dangers sought to be protected under the ordinance.” (While addressing the two-pronged approach used to determine the constitutionality of a gun control statute, the brief points out that rational basis is NOT the standard)"The Court in Heller and McDonald did not articulate what standard of review should be applied to government actions infringing on Second Amendment rights, but it rejected rational basis review." I LOVE THIS! "When the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims are reached in this case, the Ordinance should be found categorically unconstitutional because it prohibits activity firmly within the Second Amendment right. The evidence will establish that the Ordinance bans possession of a large category of firearms and magazines that are owned and used by millions of law-abiding citizens in the United States for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. But regardless of whether the Ordinance is found categorically unconstitutional or analyzed under the strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny test, Defendant should be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the Ordinance because Plaintiffs can demonstrate (a) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim; ( there is no adequate remedy at law; and © irreparable injury. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm’r of Indiana State Dep’t of Public Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). And no harm will be imposed on Defendant should it be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the ordinance. Id.; see also ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 590-91 (7th Cir. 2012) (the public interest is not harmed by preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a statute that is probably unconstitutional). In contrast, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights will remain violated if the injunction is not granted." Forcing their hand when it comes to both abortions and eavesdropping hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:57 PM Share Posted December 24, 2013 at 06:57 PM What is the irreparable injury cited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.