Hammond is looking for trouble

[Roadie]

Heck no me no wanna be no redneck! Me gangster!

 

[mainjet]

Neither one since the JBT will pull a gun on you, drop you to the ground and make you eat pavement as they pump you full of lead before you can even pull out your piece.

Are you saying that JBT is a 5 y.o. little girl?

 

[sharkey]

But up here "you people"

Who is "us people"?

 

[Roadie]

ok

Just an FYI, it's 50 QUALITY posts..

 

[Hammerhead]

I do not know which courthouses allow carry, but there are a couple that have been discussed here before.

And I agreed several times that it's not a good idea to carry there.

Yes, the definition from dictionary.com may say "against the rules" but we don't say that it's illegal to carry in a location with a "rule" and a gunbuster sign.

Sheepdog may have meant that "illegal" was against the rules of the court, but that's not how it's going to be read by some people. It is not illegal to carry in a court, it is a violation of court ordered rules. Those rules don't have to exist, and do not exist in the IC.

I'm merely clarifying, and agreeing that it is not anywhere near a good idea to carry there.

And no, I'm not going to be there, but I'll send Guy some good mojo for it. I'll be dealing with family and friends at a funeral for the next couple of days.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Some of us are waiting to hear how things are going with the case. Very few of us are tuned into this pissing match. Take it somewhere else, please.

I'm not discounting anyones opinion on if you can or can't carry in a courthouse anywhere in the state. It could be a great discussion...somewhere else.

 

[jedi]

Going to be a llllllooooonnnnnggggggg day then LockStocksAndBarrel as TODAY is the day that I'm sure Hammond will find a way to post-pone this. *sigh*

 

[Bill B]

I spoke to Guy yesterday. Although it could be a very interesting hearing, don't expect any rulings today. The city has withdrawn their motion for dismissal, but not their motion for summary judgement. It seems they have three different law firms defending them, and the three firms aren't talking to each other as well as they should.

 

[hooky]

Anyone know how many of the 3 have a direct connection to Mayor McCheese? I'm curious if he's just padding the coffers of 3 campaign contributors.

 

[jedi]

I spoke to Guy yesterday. Although it could be a very interesting hearing, don't expect any rulings today. The city has withdrawn their motion for dismissal, but not their motion for summary judgement. The mayor has 3 mouths to feed and will push this as long as he can to continue to feed those mouths to gain political favors later.[STRIKE]It seems they have three different law firms defending them, and the three firms aren't talking to each other as well as they should.[/STRIKE]

FTFY

 

[Bill B]

Anyone know how many of the 3 have a direct connection to Mayor McCheese? I'm curious if he's just padding the coffers of 3 campaign contributors.

At least one of them does, I'm sure they all do but I cannot find the most recent campaign finance stuff online.

 

[Rookie]

Did the judge issue a gag order?

 

[LanceRobbins24]

Any kind of update on this? Been waiting to hear all freakin' day.

 

[Bill B]

Todays action was merely arguments about the motions for summary judgement. It took a little more than an hour and a half and was actually pretty boring from an objective point of view. I'll let INsheepdog comment about the legal stuff, but to me the city's arguement was pretty convoluted. The Judge said, surpisingly, that he would rule next week on the motions.
Thanks to the other Ingoer that showed up, I forget your name sir.
@JEDI: You loser, why weren't you there? You're supposed to be the godfather! BTW, I saw some pink handcuffs today and thought of you.

 

[jedi]

Todays action was merely arguments about the motions for summary judgement. It took a little more than an hour and a half and was actually pretty boring from an objective point of view. I'll let INsheepdog comment about the legal stuff, but to me the city's arguement was pretty convoluted. The Judge said, surpisingly, that he would rule next week on the motions.
Thanks to the other Ingoer that showed up, I forget your name sir.
@JEDI: You loser, why weren't you there? You're supposed to be the godfather! BTW, I saw some pink handcuffs today and thought of you.

For us simple people WTH is "motion for summary judgement". Unlike you Bill B who loves to be in court some of us have never stepped into such a place.

As to why I was not there. Heck NO GUNS = PINKfather not giving that establishment any biz.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Motion for Summary Judgment- Basically a Statement (Notion) to the Court similar to the "move along, there is nothing to see here". It is a request by a party to have the Court determine there is no material fact in dispute and therefore the case should be either Dismissed (in the case of the Plaintiffs being granted, or a judgment or determination that the Defendent was in the wrong and therefore liable for damages. If the Judge rules BOTH Motions are denied then it can then move forward to the discovery/deposition/trial phase.

Short Synopsis: started on time at 2:30. Guy is sitting at one table, All by his lonesome, with 7 (yes SEVEN) attorneys for Hammond sitting at or behind the other. Argued over the Motion to Strike first which was the Senator Tomes affidavit. (The City obviously does not want to have the opinion of the bills writer and drafter considered. Then they moved to the Motions for Summary Judgment....

In a nutshell, I would sum up the "performances" as follows. Guy did a great job with staying with the facts, and citing of the law and its application. The primary attorney for the City could best be defined with the description,, If you cant dazzle them with Brilliance, befuddle them with Bull*&%T.... This lawyer is highly competant and experienced, but it appeared obvious (at least to me) that he himself did not seem confident of his own case. He talked in somewhat circular arguments, and took long pauses as he tried to put together His presentation. The interesting part was that since Guy went first, he had already addressed a good share of the atty's argument, and in his own powerpoint slides, he kept saying... "lets move on, lets move on" to the guy running the computer. My OPINION is that he had structured his argument around a certain path, but after Guy's presentation, he was trying to song and dance a different tack "on the fly". Additionally he did not want to leave the ppoint images on the screen which effectively were supporting Guy's position, not his own.

Bottom line is that the Judge stated he would have a decision by the end of next week. I would say based on my own past experiences with Lake County Courts that this is highly unusual (note to the hair splitters: I said this is not just unusual, but HIGHLY unusual.... ) and would indicate the Judge already has a good idea of what his rulings are going to be, but not necessary how to word it... What is that decision we will have to wait and see....
-
Guy, you did a great job and represented the pro Pre-emption positions well. His analogy of comparing this regulation to a city putting their own posted signs on state highways appeared to be especially effective. He got all the necessary points before the Court and really did not have to go into a "defensive Mode" because the law as it is written is pretty clear. City admitted numerous times that the Ordinances in question were Illegal, and I was waiting for the Court to ask them.. " well then WHY didnt you just RePEAL them?" and save yourself all this trouble, but he didnt.

What a great way to spend an afternoon...

Entertainment and personal interest value... 10.
Productivity in my office... 0. ah well...

Guy, be sure to let us all know what/when you find out the Court's Ruling...

 

[sdman11890]

Great synopsis, thank you!

 

[mainjet]

excellent recap.

I would have loved to have been there today but I just couldn't leave the office right now.

When the judge makes his decision will there be another court hearing or no?

 

[actaeon277]

I was the "other INGO'er". Hello Bil.

The decision next week will be:
There is a leg to stand on, let's move the case along,
Or
There isn't a case. Drop it.

At least, that's what it looked like to me.
I have to make sure I know English. After court, I wasn't sure.

Of course, I'm predjudiced in this case.
But to me, it looked as if the city's attorneys arguements were clay pigeons. And Guy was shooting them down.

I took notes. When I get to my computer, I'll try to type in something a little better.
Don't expect to much, they were talking "shop", and legaleze is slightly different.

I did understood Guy's arguements better.
City's atty was in ful "razzle dazzle" mode.

 

[spartan933]

I am looking to move out of Hammond and head for Valpo or Chesterton. I am just worried, that the problems that live in and around Hammond will make their way to Porter County.