Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 8:37:19 GMT -5
Looks like depositions will take place for certain, but discovery deadline has been vacated. Should make for interesting August.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.1 Eastern Division Laura Mullen Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:18−cv−01465 Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly GLV, Inc, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 9, 2019:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Status hearing and motion hearing held on 7/9/2019. Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P.56(d) [154] is granted in part; plaintiff is entitled to take the depositions of affiants on the matters discussed in the affidavits by 8/14/2019. The 8/6/2019 discovery deadline is vacated. Response to motion for summary judgment [144] due by 9/4/2019; replies due by 9/18/2019. Status hearing set for 8/13/2019 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (pjg, )
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 10, 2019 12:48:46 GMT -5
Looks like depositions will take place for certain, but discovery deadline has been vacated. Should make for interesting August. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.1 Eastern Division Laura Mullen Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:18−cv−01465 Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly GLV, Inc, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 9, 2019: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Status hearing and motion hearing held on 7/9/2019. Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P.56(d) [154] is granted in part; plaintiff is entitled to take the depositions of affiants on the matters discussed in the affidavits by 8/14/2019. The 8/6/2019 discovery deadline is vacated. Response to motion for summary judgment [144] due by 9/4/2019; replies due by 9/18/2019. Status hearing set for 8/13/2019 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (pjg, ) The sentence prior appears to indicate that the deadline was moved from 8/6 to 8/14.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 11:14:25 GMT -5
Looks like depositions will take place for certain, but discovery deadline has been vacated. Should make for interesting August. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.1 Eastern Division Laura Mullen Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:18−cv−01465 Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly GLV, Inc, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 9, 2019: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Status hearing and motion hearing held on 7/9/2019. Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P.56(d) [154] is granted in part; plaintiff is entitled to take the depositions of affiants on the matters discussed in the affidavits by 8/14/2019. The 8/6/2019 discovery deadline is vacated. Response to motion for summary judgment [144] due by 9/4/2019; replies due by 9/18/2019. Status hearing set for 8/13/2019 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. (pjg, ) The sentence prior appears to indicate that the deadline was moved from 8/6 to 8/14. NAL - but I read this as depositions are to be completed by 8.14 (previously they had been scheduled for week of July 22-26). There was a discovery deadline of 8.6 that has been vacated. Interesting there is a status hearing day before deposition deadline.
|
|
|
Post by why on Jul 30, 2019 10:01:06 GMT -5
I’d be thrilled if this thread just gave updates. Illinois eliminates statute of limitations on major sex crimes
|
|
|
Post by why on Jul 30, 2019 15:42:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 30, 2019 17:18:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you posted this is response to me, but I'm confident that it won't apply to Butler (or anyone else for whom the statute of limitations already passed before the passage of this new law). The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. This is not a defense of Butler in any way at all, but merely information on how this new law will apply going forward.
That is my understanding also if the statute of limitations has already passed. Generally, the laws that apply to a particular crime are the ones that were in place at the time the crime was committed.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jul 30, 2019 19:50:59 GMT -5
That is my understanding also if the statute of limitations has already passed. Generally, the laws that apply to a particular crime are the ones that were in place at the time the crime was committed.
Actually, in the case of statutes of limitations, there is more flexibility than that. Using a simple example, consider a crime with a 10-year statute of limitations. If someone committed a crime, charges must be brought within 10 years. If a new law was passed after 9.5 years abolishing the statute of limitations, that person could still be charged at any time in the future because he could have been charged at the time the new law was passed. He can be charged even though the statute of limitations that was in place at the time the crime was committed had already passed. However, if that new law was passed after 10 years and one day -- after the statute of limitations had already run -- he cannot be charged. The Supreme Court has held that is unconstitutional. In other words, because the statute of limitations had already run out and Butler could not be charged before this new law was passed, he cannot be charged now.
Yes, that is also the way I understand it. I wonder if the extension of a statute of limitations has been to court. Maybe not as these don't seem to change often.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Jul 31, 2019 7:47:55 GMT -5
I’d be thrilled if this thread just gave updates. Illinois eliminates statute of limitations on major sex crimesToo bad doesn't apply here. Nice "update" though.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jul 31, 2019 8:09:41 GMT -5
Illinois eliminates statute of limitations on major sex crimesToo bad doesn't apply here. Nice "update" though. I too thought it was a nice update, any conversation that helps keep others informed about how the law works around major sex crimes involving children while simultaneously reminding everyone that rick butler raped children, lied about it, and tried to destroy anyone's life who spoke out against it is A-OK in my book. Thanks for sharing in the sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Jul 31, 2019 10:01:32 GMT -5
Too bad doesn't apply here. Nice "update" though. I too thought it was a nice update, any conversation that helps keep others informed about how the law works around major sex crimes involving children while simultaneously reminding everyone that rick butler raped children, lied about it, and tried to destroy anyone's life who spoke out against it is A-OK in my book. Thanks for sharing in the sentiment. Problem is none of that happened. I heard they were consensual relationships. If anything I think those girls made poor decisions, or poor parenting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 10:16:34 GMT -5
victim blaming is just ugly, even if done in ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by reader on Jul 31, 2019 10:20:43 GMT -5
I too thought it was a nice update, any conversation that helps keep others informed about how the law works around major sex crimes involving children while simultaneously reminding everyone that rick butler raped children, lied about it, and tried to destroy anyone's life who spoke out against it is A-OK in my book. Thanks for sharing in the sentiment. Problem is none of that happened. I heard they were consensual relationships. If anything I think those girls made poor decisions, or poor parenting. Yes, because all minors should be strong and assertive enough to correct the criminal behavior of authority figures attempting to manipulate them. "I heard" is a cheap hack to allow anything at all to be vaguely reported as "fact". It's an intentional distortion of clearly and firmly established facts. I SAW handwritten notes from RB to underaged players that knotted my stomach. I READ court documents that refuted that consensual assertion. I "heard" that deohge is a sockpuppet account set up to make it appear that RB has allies.* See how bogus the "I Heard" looks in the context of real facts? * Where did I "hear" that? Right here: "Maybe Deohge is a sockpuppet account set up to make it appear that RB has allies." The thing is, Heard doesn't need to meet any standard for substance or truth or anything. You can repeat anything and claim to have heard it.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Jul 31, 2019 10:43:27 GMT -5
Problem is none of that happened. I heard they were consensual relationships. If anything I think those girls made poor decisions, or poor parenting. Yes, because all minors should be strong and assertive enough to correct the criminal behavior of authority figures attempting to manipulate them. "I heard" is a cheap hack to allow anything at all to be vaguely reported as "fact". It's an intentional distortion of clearly and firmly established facts. I SAW handwritten notes from RB to underaged players that knotted my stomach. I READ court documents that refuted that consensual assertion. I "heard" that deohge is a sockpuppet account set up to make it appear that RB has allies.* See how bogus the "I Heard" looks in the context of real facts? * Where did I "hear" that? Right here: "Maybe Deohge is a sockpuppet account set up to make it appear that RB has allies." The thing is, Heard doesn't need to meet any standard for substance or truth or anything. You can repeat anything and claim to have heard it. I heard you're triggered. 😁
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Jul 31, 2019 10:44:18 GMT -5
Problem is none of that happened. I heard they were consensual relationships. If anything I think those girls made poor decisions, or poor parenting. 1) They weren't legally able to consent so, by legal definition, they were not consensual. 2) You didn't hear that from the victims, which pretty much completely invalidates what you "heard" Bad parenting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 10:46:16 GMT -5
1) They weren't legally able to consent so, by legal definition, they were not consensual. 2) You didn't hear that from the victims, which pretty much completely invalidates what you "heard" Bad parenting? like sending your kid and your money to a rapist bad parenting? or another kind of bad parenting?
|
|