• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The lawsuit against Madison has been filed Link provided

M

McX

Guest
Paul, i couldn't get it to work, but i figure it's got alot of 'totality of circumstance' crap. so i'll skip it, i dont give a poop what they have to say, what matters is what our side has to say, and what the judge says. all i have to say to the other side is a string of obscenities.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Make sure you aren't signed in to your google account

Paul, i couldn't get it to work, but i figure it's got alot of 'totality of circumstance' crap. so i'll skip it, i dont give a poop what they have to say, what matters is what our side has to say, and what the judge says. all i have to say to the other side is a string of obscenities.

We had the same problem with this before. If you are not signed in to a google account it should work just fine.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Ok. Finally read it. The basic response is that they admit that they cited the Madison 5 and that the 4 people that brought the lawsuit are not any of them (duh!)

They basically deny all the allegations, want the case dismissed and want a hearing which is setup for 12/1/10 at 9:00 am.

So, unlike Racine, they are deciding to fight this.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Lack standing?

Hah!
They are basically trying to say that you must put yourself in legal jeopardy to gain standing! LOL. Seems to me that's why all this talk about the defendants not being at Culvers.

Nice try! The courts have already ruled on that. We don't need to put ourselves in jeopardy to have standing.
 
Last edited:

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Hah!
They are basically trying to say that you must put yourself in legal jeopardy to gain standing! LOL. Seems to me that's why all this talk about the defendants not being at Culvers.

Nice try! The courts have already ruled on that. We don't need to put ourselves in jeopardy to have standing.

Standard procedure for these municipalities we sue.

Admit what you cannot deny,

Deny the rest,

Claim no standing,

Motion to dismiss

no surprises in the Madison response.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Know what really makes no sense? The lawsuit was filed less than a month ago and a hearing is already scheduled for 12/1/10. The GFSZ was filed in January or so and the last activity was June and it still doesn't have a hearing scheduled.

I guess that lawyer that said the Western District was fast was right.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

FRCP said:
Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
[ ... ]
(f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery

(1) Conference Timing.

Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable — and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).

(2) Conference Content; Parties' Responsibilities.

In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.

(3) Discovery Plan.

A discovery plan must state the parties' views and proposals on:

(A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made;

(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;

(C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;

(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including — if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production — whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;

(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and

(F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).

(4) Expedited Schedule.

If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b) conferences, a court may by local rule:

(A) require the parties' conference to occur less than 21 days before the scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b); and

(B) require the written report outlining the discovery plan to be filed less than 14 days after the parties' conference, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them to report orally on their discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference.

Civil L. R. = "Civil Local Rules" He's just ordering a schedule of how to proceed.
 
Last edited:
Top