The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 17, 2011, 07:44 PM   #151
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Isn't the 7ths reversal and order to issue an injunction also part of the record?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 18, 2011, 02:20 PM   #152
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Yes it is. But you also saw how Chicago spun that mandate.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 18, 2011, 05:13 PM   #153
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
How long does Judge Kendall get to string this out? It seems obvious to me that she has no problem with letting the proceedings go on for as long as the City cares to go. At some point, does Gura get to demand that the Court get on the ball?

Maybe I'm seeing this wrong, but it strikes me that the judge is entirely on the side of Chicago, but knows that there's not a legal leg to stand on. So, she's willing to just let the case carry on forever, effectively keeping the ordinances in effect as if there had been no challenge at all.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old November 18, 2011, 05:32 PM   #154
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Doesn't the fact that the 7th determined there was irreparable harm turn up the heat on this matter?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old November 18, 2011, 08:47 PM   #155
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Both Judge Kendall and Chicago are relying upon the technicality that the Firing Range Ban has been dropped from the law.

Judge Kendall knows that the mandate from the 7th puts her on notice. That's why she dismissed Chicago's MTD for mootness. She knows that the current ordinances are a virtual ban, but she wants the suit to play out.

Chicago, on the other hand, has played a very stupid hand by responding to the complaint as if there is no record before the court.

I suspect the Plaintiffs can play this in one of several different ways. None of which bode well for Chicago. All of which will force Judge Kendall's hand. Look at what she is up against:

Quote:
The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement of Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-280—the prohibition on “[s]hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect. ... ... To be effective, however, the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly to prohibit range training. Similarly, the injunction should prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.
The above is from pg 49 of the Certified Decision. It is the second part that the judge virtually ignored. All the plaintiffs have to show is that the current ordinances indirectly prohibit ranges, by being so burdensome that a range could not operate as a business.

Considering the onerous requirements, it will be a cakewalk. Comparatively speaking.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 2, 2012, 07:51 PM   #156
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Looks like Ezell has awakened!
Quote:
03/23/2012 134 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for protective order and to quash depositions (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

03/23/2012 135 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion for protective order 134 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/3/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

03/23/2012 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to quash deposition subpoenas and notices. (Omitted Relief from motion 134 .) (smm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

03/25/2012 136 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's Responses to Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit Defendant's Answers to Request to Admit)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/25/2012)

03/25/2012 137 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion to compel, 136 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/3/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/25/2012)

03/26/2012 138 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit supplemental record on appeal 81[RECAP] (USCA no. 10-3525) consisting of one volume of transcripts. (smm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
#134 is plaintiffs complaining about the tactics the defendants are using that amounts to duplicative depositions and outright harassment of the plaintinffs and their witnesses.

#136 is the plaintiffs playing tit-for-tat, Chicago style, in compelling the depositions for all 50 aldermen who had any part in or voted for the new revised ordnances.

#138 is simply telling the appeals court what the heck is going on, at the district court, by supplementing the record (perhaps for later use at appeals?).

This bit of activity would appear to be aimed at forcing Judge Kendall's hand.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 2, 2012, 07:58 PM   #157
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
I actually like #136. Those depositions would become a treasure trove of comedy to adorn this forum for years.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 09:28 PM   #158
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Here are the filings in this game of tit-for-tat. Please read them carefully.

Quote:
2012-04-03 139 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's motion for protective order 134 and to quash depositions is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses 136 is entered and briefed as follows: Response by 4/17/2012. Plaintiff to reply by 4/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Fact Discovery is extended and ordered closed by 6/29/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 9/21/2012. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 11/9/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Expert discovery cut off set for 8/31/2012. Status hearing stricken for 4/23/2012 and reset for 7/9/2012 at 09:00 AM. The Court allows two (2) hours more for each deposition. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
2012-04-05 140 MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-05 141 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew Athis Muchoney for presentment of motion to quash 140 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/12/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-12 142 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas 140 is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Alternative motion for protective order is granted. The subpoena is narrowed to July.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
2012-04-17 143 RESPONSE by City Of Chicagoin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
2012-04-16 144 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable Morton Denlow pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 to perform such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States: Motion to compel 136 . Signed by Executive Committee on 4/16/12.(smm) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-18 145 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:This matter has been referred to Judge Denlow for ruling on a pending motion. If no briefing schedule has been set or if no briefing is desired, the parties are to notice the motion up on Mondays or Wednesdays at 9:15 a.m. Judge Denlow does not desire briefs on discovery disputes. Otherwise, the parties are to appear for status or argument at 10:00 a.m. on 5/10/2012. Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-23 146 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 is set for 5/2/2012 at 09:15 AM.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-23 147 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 set for 5/2/2012 is stricken. Status hearing set for 5/10/2012 at 10:00 A.M. to stand.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-24 148 REPLY by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Normally, disputes at discovery are handled by a magistrate judge. This is something that Judge Kendall should have ordered, right out of the gate. She didn't. Instead, she has personally handled this discovery dispute and sided almost exclusively with the City.

So notice that 3-26 entry (Doc #138)? The transmittal of a supplemental record? That was not Gura, as I had previously supposed. This action was taken by the Chief Clerk of the District Court. He does not act on his own. I strongly suspect that someone at the 7th ordered this, because of the nature of what was sent: The transcript of the open court proceedings of Oct. 26th. The result of that hearing, was the denial of the injunction mandated by the Circuit.

Then on Apr. 16th, we have Doc #144, an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER, assigning the discovery dispute to a magistrate.

This suggests to me that someone in a much higher pay grade, has just slapped the hands of Judge Kendall. Her bias is evident, at least to me. It will be telling if this case does not go back to her.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 10:42 PM   #159
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The City looks (depending on your view) either grossly incompetent or like they have no basis to defend the law... No science.. nothing..

#136 was laughable... I loved reading it..
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; April 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 03:54 AM   #160
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,762
Quote:
Then on Apr. 16th, we have Doc #144, an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER, assigning the discovery dispute to a magistrate.

This suggests to me that someone in a much higher pay grade, has just slapped the hands of Judge Kendall. Her bias is evident, at least to me. It will be telling if this case does not go back to her.
Does anyone know what the Executive Committee is? Is it at the circuit level or at the district level?
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 11:18 AM   #161
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Definition taken from IN RE: Michael PALMISANO (1995) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1463787.html)

Quote:
Although a district court usually acts through single judges, 28 U.S.C. § 132(c) permits the court to sit in panels, or en banc, when a local rule so provides. The Executive Committee in the Northern District of Illinois comprises the court's chief judge and four others who serve for overlapping four-year terms. N.D.Ill.R. 1.02.E. Such a panel is entitled to enter judicial orders.
This appears to be a District Court action, taken after an inquiry from the Circuit itself.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 08:16 PM   #162
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,762
Thanks, Al. I just wasn't into trying to find it at 5:00 a.m. this morning (long story).
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 12, 2012, 10:15 PM   #163
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Quote:
06/12/2012 151[RECAP] MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 6/12/2012. Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. Rule 37(a)(3)(B) motion 136[RECAP] is entered and continued to 7/9/2012 at 09:15 AM.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
This was a hearing on the plaintiffs Motion to Compel (136). Whatever happened is continued until July 9th.

Docket: http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/ite...75.docket.html
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 13, 2012, 03:59 PM   #164
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
I think you mean:

http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/ite...75.docket.html
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old August 16, 2012, 12:47 PM   #165
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Next: Status hearing Oct 9, 2012.

Quote:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Unopposed MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for extension of time to complete discovery 174 is granted. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 9/27/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 10/26/2012. Responses due by 11/30/2012. Replies due by 12/14/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Status hearing set for 10/9/2012 at 09:00 AM. Motion hearing set for 8/14/2012 on this motion is hereby stricken.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
Looks like the next decision will be (hopefully) in the first quarter 2013?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 16, 2012, 04:20 PM   #166
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
Draaaaaaaaaggggg it out, and how many people are getting victimized while the wheels of justice grind so slowly, deliberately, by this judge who thinks the city of Chicago knows better than the Circuit Court?
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 11:04 AM   #167
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
The latest docket entries:

Quote:
11/02/2012 188 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to strike interrogatory responses and bar plaintiffs from introducing new claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-H)(Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/02/2012 189 NOTICE of Motion by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch for presentment of motion to strike 188[RECAP] before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 11/8/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/08/2012 190 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion to strike 188[RECAP] is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 11/29/2012. Replies due by 12/13/2012. Ruling set for 1/29/2012 at 9:00 a.m. The Court suspends the expert discovery cut off until a ruling on the pending motion has been made. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
At the link (within the quoted docket) we see that Chicago is complaining that the Plaintiffs are not playing fair. Document 190 is Judge Kendall ordering briefs on the motion.

I can hardly wait to see Alan Gura's response.

When we talk about delays, how can Chicago, with a straight face, complain about the plaintiffs! They (Chicago) have done everything they can to string this out.

When we talk about the nature of the interrogatories, Chicago asked questions that were not even close to being on point, and the Magistrate allowed it, despite the plaintiffs objections.

I expect this Judge to bow to Chicago's demands, even as the court has done in the past.

Gura is building another set of circumstances with which to appeal.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 10, 2012, 09:28 PM   #168
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Here is the latest movement in the Ezell case. MDSHooters member jrosenberger gets credit for updating the docket... Certain files were RECAPed as necessary for this report.

Quote:
2012-11-02 188 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to strike interrogatory responses and bar plaintiffs from introducing new claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-H)(Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

2012-11-02 189 NOTICE of Motion by Rebecca Alfert Hirsch for presentment of motion to strike 188 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 11/8/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

2012-11-08 190 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion to strike 188 is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 11/29/2012. Replies due by 12/13/2012. Ruling set for 1/29/2012 at 9:00 a.m. The Court suspends the expert discovery cut off until a ruling on the pending motion has been made. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

2012-11-28 191 RESPONSE by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago to strike interrogatory responses and bar plaintiffs from introducing new claims 188 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 041112 e-mail, # 2 Exhibit 2 - 042512 letter, # 3 Exhibit 3 - KramerOne Report, # 4 Exhibit 4 - 040212 e-mail)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

2012-12-01 192 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for extension of time for Dispositive Motions (Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/01/2012)

2012-12-01 193 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of extension of time 192 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/10/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/01/2012)

2012-12-03 194 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for leave to file Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

2012-12-04 195 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion for leave to file, 194 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/10/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

2012-12-10 196 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 192 is granted. MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for leave to file Second Amended Complaint 194 is taken under advisement. Defendant to file a combined response/reply by 12/13/2012. Status hearing set for 1/29/2013 @ 9:00 a.m.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
Doc 191, is David Sigale's Response in opposition to Chicago's Motion to Strike: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....6475.191.0.pdf Followed by Doc 194, Motion to file 2nd Amended Complaint: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....6475.194.0.pdf

Doc 194.5, Proposed 2nd Amended Complaint: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....6475.194.5.pdf
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 08:40 AM   #169
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
I have to ask why we're still here with this case? This judge has showed she will side with Chicago at every turn, so it would seem prudent to go over her head........
press1280 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 09:20 AM   #170
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
I have to ask why we're still here with this case? This judge has showed she will side with Chicago at every turn, so it would seem prudent to go over her head........
Appeal is only an option after a final appealable order. If a case is a book, one has to wait until he reads the final chapter to decide he doesn't like it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:53 PM   #171
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,497
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story

Well, I'll be...
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:10 PM   #172
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Struck down and it seems from what I have read a injunction!!!!! Now the real question remains as to what kind of crazy law they now draft...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:17 PM   #173
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,162
This is great news! I've been reading important Posner opinions as part of law school for quite a while now. I thought the majority opinion was very good reading.
LockedBreech is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:19 PM   #174
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 384
I think Moore changes Ezell...

Chicago has been handed a loss with Moore, but now there will be trickle down as the lower courts are forced to follow CA7's ruling, and Chicago will be handed one defeat after another.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:45 PM   #175
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
Now the real question remains as to what kind of crazy law they now draft
Chicago complied with McDonald as little as they could get away with. I expect them to do the same here. That's what Kachalsky and Woollard will hopefully address.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Tags
alan gura , chicago , ezell v. chicago , rkba , saf , second amendment

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15416 seconds with 7 queries