82Bulldog Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:10 PM On 05/09/2013, a class action complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Andre Queen v Alvarez and Berlin, 13 cv 03483. The complaint essentially seeks to enforce the Moore ruling. [i looked but could not find another thread on this case].Queen v. Alvarez.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMonarch Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM That's Andre Queen from Fidelity Investigative Services, one of the few places in Chicago that offer the Chicago Firearms Permit class. This is interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM Ooh this is going to be good. I like where that is heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:25 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:25 PM That's Andre Queen from Fidelity Investigative Services, one of the few places in Chicago that offer the Chicago Firearms Permit class. This is interesting to say the least. ...and Charles Cooper (NRA). Interesting indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glockready Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM Should have included Tom Dart as a defendant in this lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted May 10, 2013 at 11:59 PM Share Posted May 10, 2013 at 11:59 PM But how can they file before June 9th ? There still is a UUAW law until then with the stay the court gave the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:11 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:11 AM Alvares's office has already said they dont care what the court says and will violate the 7ths order so the suit makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:01 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:01 AM Way to go, Andre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:54 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:54 AM Trust me Andre will represent us well. I love that it is in the northern district. Great strategy. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 11, 2013 at 02:09 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 02:09 AM Trust me Andre will represent us well. I love that it is in the northern district. Great strategy and is class action. I cant wait to see what her response will be. Of course after she asks for more time to respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidelity Academy Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:00 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:00 AM The next few weeks will be interesting, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:31 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:31 AM Nice! Good luck, Andre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:39 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:39 AM Thanks Andre! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:14 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:14 AM Good Luck Andre!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMonarch Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM Thanks Andre! . +1Took my CFP class at fidelity with Jose as my instructor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:51 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:51 AM (edited) 37. Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive and will have no effective remedy. The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple individual actions throughout the State or to piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and litigators and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication. Thanks and good luck to Andre and Maria ! (and thanks to whomever is paying our lawyers, maybe it's the NRA, but I'm not sure, doesn't matter). One State, One Law on the Right to Bear Arms. Edited May 11, 2013 at 04:52 AM by Howard Roark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:14 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:14 AM (edited) Oh you've gotta be kidding me. I just lost an entire write-up. OK basic issues here (I'm NOT going into this again, not tonight). Is the class certifiable? Yes. It meets all of the four prerequisites under FRCP Rule 23(a) and then meets at least two, maybe all three of the (one one requried) requirements under subsection b. The issue is that WHEN will it be certified. Sometimes it takes years, sometimes months. One thing I will say, it's a VERY good thing having Judge St. Eve presiding over this case. She's the one who sentenced Rezko to 10.5 yrs in prison. She issued a scathing opinion in the Abbate civil case last December, denying vacatur and upholding the civil judgment and verdict in the Obrycka v. City of Chicago and Anthony Abbate case. Remember that one? CPD officer beats a woman in a bar, CPD does nothing, Chicago says screw you even though said beating was caught on surveillance and disseminated to every news outlet in the Western Hemisphere, Chicago loses at trial, $850k judgment awarded, BIG SURPRISE! She's a Bush II appointee. Put on the bench at the ripe old age of 36, youngest woman to ever be appointed to the federal bench. Good chance her name will come up for a SCOTUS nomination as she's not very old. Reading the prayer for relief makes me just roll my eyes. Just having to ask the Court to enjoin Alvarez and Berlin from enforcing a law that they will be enjoined from enforcing on June 10th...uh yeah, that's right, it's come to this. Asking the Court to rule...in line with precedent set by CA7, that's a no-brainer that St. Eve would do that as she could be removed from the bench for not doing so. She has to follow Circuit precedent, but how narrowly or widely, who knows. Also take note, this isn't just people who live in Cook and DuPage. The class also includes those who travel to Cook and DuPage. It could theoretically include ALL FOID card holders. It also asks for "relief the court deems proper" aka compensatory damages. If this were an individual capacity suit, punitive damages would be on the table but even $10/pop for 700k people, $7M. No way would it be $10/each card holder. Can't compensate for a lifetime's worth of civil rights deprivation but if you could, it sure wouldn't be $10. Eh, more on all of this tomorrow but here's Amended Exhibit "A" from the docket, a scan of a piece from the Tribune from March 28th Guess what that's about hehe.AmendedExhibitA.pdf Here's the docket for the case, I'll keep it updated. It's not linking the docket entries to any actual documents, just go to the root directory for the case.http://ia601702.us.a...3284.docket.htm This part, not great. In short, first hearing is set for 10 days AFTER default carry set to begin, 10 days AFTER civil rights violations commence."MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Initial status hearing set for 6/20/13 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by 6/17/13 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 05/10/2013)" Edited May 11, 2013 at 05:22 AM by skinnyb82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:42 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:42 AM Also take note, this isn't just people who live in Cook and DuPage. The class also includes those who travel to Cook and DuPage. It could theoretically include ALL FOID card holders. May be broader. Could include the whole country, limited to people who have the right to keep arms under the 2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2013 at 06:02 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 06:02 AM It should be. Otherwise another lawsuit for depriving people from 49 other states from carrying in Crook and DuPage. 14th Amendment. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted May 11, 2013 at 07:33 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 07:33 AM Nice! Good luck, Andre!+1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM Andre and the Miss's Thank you for standing up and making the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjachDjach Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:27 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 01:27 PM Thank you, Andre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalVideo Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:21 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:21 PM Thank you Andre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:29 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 03:29 PM So how does this affect a possible may issue state wide or from Chicago/cook ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:26 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:26 PM It doesn't have any effect if a permit system is introduced. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:46 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:46 PM So even this wont stop tom darts foolishness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:53 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 04:53 PM Well actually its very probable that Dart's garbage will be shot down but it depends on how Judge St. Eve interprets Moore. "Reasonable restrictions" remember? Dart's restrictions are not even close to reasonable and the judge is, well I'm still reading her opinions and orders in a bunch of other civil cases to get an idea of how she might rule in this case. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:35 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:35 PM I'm glad you guys like my handy work. One down one more to go. . . and thatnsk to Andre for agreeing to be a plantiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:41 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 05:41 PM Ooohhh Todd's scheming this isn't good...for "them" Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted May 11, 2013 at 06:28 PM Share Posted May 11, 2013 at 06:28 PM Also take note, this isn't just people who live in Cook and DuPage. The class also includes those who travel to Cook and DuPage. It could theoretically include ALL FOID card holders. May be broader. Could include the whole country, limited to people who have the right to keep arms under the 2A. I don't think it would include ALL FOID card holders. There are quite a few here on record as saying they would never come north of our very own Mason Dixon Line, LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now