Jump to content

Denied By ISP Board of Review - Official Help Topic


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

 

Please let us know what happends in this. When you called the ISP and asked them what documentation they used for that, what did they say?

they said they dont have this information that they only send the objection to board and the leo sends their evidence over to them. But i still dont know what evidence if i got my records and their is nothen that is in there that would consider me to be a danger to my self or others. Maybe they just objected and have no evidence to back up.. and thats why ima waist my mulah to gett it over turned and fallow by a law suit in witch i want all my money back .
You've already admitted you were arrested twice in gang sweeps and once for discharging a firearm. I don't know if it should be considered sufficient evidence to back up an objection, but it's certainly evidence.
Dr Rat why do you post things like this ? He states he has never been convicted and no gun was ever found. Now maybe he doesn't spell the best, and maybe he doesn't use the best grammar but why do you continue to tear people apart on this board ? We don't need this kind of posting here let's be supportive of our fellow IL citizens. Many times by the grace of God in my youth I have escaped things I am not proud of and I am sure I can speak for most of us here in this regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in this category really need to be honest with themselves. The Board is not upholding objections with no evidence. That's crazy.

 

 

So your position is that the Board is not upholding objections with no evidence, do I understand you correctly?

 

When I texted The State's Attorney in the next county (The Chief Judge of the Circuit's son until the judge's retirement last year) that I took my class with, about my denial he texted back "Absurd!" He then said "Sounds like it's personal rather than a non biased objection."

 

Unless you have some inside information that you wish to share, you might want to stick to things about which you have actual knowledge rather than agitating and insulting others with naked speculation.

 

:flowers:

Everything is speculation at this point - that's a given. Why is it agitating to give an opinion on how the Board is operating? Even in your example, you say the SA said it sounds personal, not that there wasn't any evidence.

 

I don't believe the Review Board, which knows it's under scrutiny at this point and that every denial they make is eligible for a judicial appeal, is upholding objections without evidence. Could I be wrong? Sure.We may find that they're a group of complete mental incompetents that aren't capable of evaluating evidence and automatically uphold all objections and that all denials will be overturned on appeal. If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead.

 

The truth is that the Board is a group of intelligent people with a ton of experience who the last numbers show are upholding only about half the objections. They know both sides are scrutinizing every decision. They may be a little swamped at this point and I would expect they're being a little conservative in their findings until they see which denials are upheld on appeal. They will make mistakes and some denials will be overturned, but this constant chorus of how they're upholding objections with no evidence is ridiculous. We've seen lots of people that had their apps objected to because of old, irrelevant arrests get approved after being reviewed by the Board.

 

Only the people who have been sent to the Board really know what issues are involved. I'hm sure some of it is based on borderline issues that will eventually be tossed, but those issues are still there. I suppose it's remotely possible that there could be an issue of mistaken identity, but it's really difficult to see how in this day and age. People sent to the Board because of a mistake won't have any difficulty clearing that up and know they will get their licenses. The group that seems most worried are those that know they screwed up in the past and are hoping that somehow their actions weren't serious enough to sustain a denial. It's not up to those of us on this forum to make that decision, the judge will do that.

 

Well, of course the SA couldn't possibly know whether there is any 'evidence' or not as the board gives no indication of the bases for its conclusion in my denial letter and the act makes it clear that accessing the information received by the board takes nothing short of a court order, which is somewhat disturbing if you ask me. Even as someone who has been denied after board review, I honestly have no idea what issues are involved. Not one shred of information is given in the letter I received other than the conclusory statement that the Board has determined me to be dangerous.

 

I suppose any debate on this point depends on what is meant by the word 'evidence' in this context. "Because Joe Schmo said so" is a pretty loose definition of 'evidence.' If that is what passes for 'evidence,' that fact is alarming. If what is meant by 'evidence' is testimony or physical evidence that would be competent in a court of law (which is usually what is meant by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of court proceedings) then I have reason to believe the board is making decisions without evidence and that the objection in my case is politically motivated.

 

I personally take umbrage and am insulted by the suggestions that I am somehow not being honest with myself or that I am engaged in some sort of fantasy in an effort to "feel better." I suspect I am not alone in that respect. Something to consider when commenting on the situation of fellow 2nd Amendment advocates.

 

I have heard much of the Board's intelligence, experience, etc. However, I am not impressed thus far. For example, my denial letter cites a nonexistent provision of an unrelated act. Such shoddy work does little to boost my confidence in the Board's decision making.

 

As another member here that I spoke with put it so well. "We are all in this together." I hope that is true.

 

THREAD WINNER! I couldn't agree with you more. In the past 14 years I have seen nothing but politically motivated decisions and I don't trust this board anymore than I trust the the Governor.

 

And welcome to the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 and might I suggest joining the NRA, contributing to the SAF, ISRA, any group that foots litigation expenses. Not just because of this either but because IL is a huge fiscal black hole for the NRA. It spends A LOT of money on litigation here. Return the favor, please. The SAF has also involved itself in several cases in IL and the ISRA...well duh. Besides the NRA membership, you get all kinds of benefits like free admission to the Annual Meeting and Exhibits next month, firearm theft insurance (up to $2500 for free, can be increased, CCL liability is available too for a nominal yearly premium), discounts (rental cars, hotels, etc) and you can get an annual membership for $25 right now I believe. Freedom isn't free. It's very unfortunate that we have to spend money to fight for rights which are spelled out plain as day in the Constitution, but we do, that's reality. Contribute to the cause, Shepard/Moore was not free (attorneys' fees and expenses total about a million bucks between the two cases), although I see so many people who are taking it for granted. Don't get complacent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dr Rat why do you post things like this ? He states he has never been convicted and no gun was ever found. Now maybe he doesn't spell the best, and maybe he doesn't use the best grammar but why do you continue to tear people apart on this board ? We don't need this kind of posting here let's be supportive of our fellow IL citizens. Many times by the grace of God in my youth I have escaped things I am not proud of and I am sure I can speak for most of us here in this regard.

 

Sorry. Did I say something that wasn't true? Is this about getting accurate information out to people or trying to make them feel better by lying to them? How is pointing out what he told us "tearing someone apart"? He's been going on and on about there not being any evidence against him to support an objection, but he's told us otherwise. If you want to tell him he's right and that everything is going to be OK and have him spend $5000 on an appeal, be my guest. I'm just pointing out how I believe the Board is looking at his record. People in this category really need to be honest with themselves. The Board is not upholding objections with no evidence. That's crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUYS SORRY FOR SCREAMING BUT PLEASE DONATE $25 TO THIS WEBSITE AS VALINDA AND TODD HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR US. SHE IS TAKING EVERYBODY WHO GOT DENIED AND GOING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. WE ALL NEED TO CONTRIBUTE. GO TO THE SUBSCRIPTION LINK $25 IS FOR 1YR MEMBERSHIP. PLEASE DONATE AND HELP. I JUST DONATED!

I just donated. I hope more of you out there do the same!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in this category really need to be honest with themselves. The Board is not upholding objections with no evidence. That's crazy.

 

 

 

So your position is that the Board is not upholding objections with no evidence, do I understand you correctly?

 

When I texted The State's Attorney in the next county (The Chief Judge of the Circuit's son until the judge's retirement last year) that I took my class with, about my denial he texted back "Absurd!" He then said "Sounds like it's personal rather than a non biased objection."

 

Unless you have some inside information that you wish to share, you might want to stick to things about which you have actual knowledge rather than agitating and insulting others with naked speculation.

 

:flowers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe he said it was because they thought someone had discharged a firearm somewhere in his building but that a gun was never found. Can they arrest everyone in a building because someone reported they heard a gunshot?

 

 

"...because of a firearm being discharged somewhere in my building complex. they didn't recover any gun because there wasnt any and everyone in my party got to visit lock up."

 

He later told me it went down as a disorderly conduct charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dr Rat why do you post things like this ? He states he has never been convicted and no gun was ever found. Now maybe he doesn't spell the best, and maybe he doesn't use the best grammar but why do you continue to tear people apart on this board ? We don't need this kind of posting here let's be supportive of our fellow IL citizens. Many times by the grace of God in my youth I have escaped things I am not proud of and I am sure I can speak for most of us here in this regard.

 

I'm not sure how what he said could be considered "tearing people apart".

 

Multiple arrests for gang related and firearm related issues, conviction or not, is still enough evidence for a LEO objection and for the board to uphold it. I'm not sure I see how pointing that fact out is considering not being supportive.

 

If the poster is sitting here saying he fails to see what the problem is with his objection and someone points out exactly where the problem is, again, I'm not sure why you take issue with that.

 

He didn't insult him. He didn't tear into him. He simply pointed out what the poster himself had said previously. He even said, "I don't know if that should be considered sufficient evidence, but...".

 

I just don't understand why you thought the lecture was necessary.

Go back and look at some of the other posts the Dr has posted. A lot of his stuff is big me, little you he thinks he is cute I can't say I do. I am not going to banter words here but I do think people are innocent until proven guilty. The man has said he has never been convicted of any crime that would prevent him from holding a CCL and holds other licenses. The concealed permit for IL the laws states if you have been convicted of these crimes, not arrested. I just don't see any good coming from the post the good Dr posted in this thread.

However I respect your opinion and others here I just think we should hold our fingers before posting some of this stuff I am here to support my buddies ( and I have never meet him) with like interests and concerns about the safety of their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God forbid Dr. Rat should ever find himself on the receiving end of an unsubstantiated claim of criminality or just plain caddish behavior. (I had a nut-job woman threaten to make false claims against me many years ago before I met my wife of 15 years so I hade a taste of what that is like.) His attitude seems to be: well if someone said something you must have done something wrong.

 

I count myself lucky I grew up out in the sticks (and back in the late 70's-early/mid 80's. I dare say I probably would not have come thru my teens-early 20's unscathed and with no record had I grew up in Chicago or even the suburbs. On top of that, I can see how thru no fault of your own having been in the wrong place at the wrong time during "gang sweeps", whatever the heck that is, someone can end up with a record without having done any wrong. (again I'm glad I grew up out in the country) Some people are just so damn holier than thou it turns my stomach. That's you Doctor! Perhaps if you attended church, if you don't already, you may learn some humility and to not be so judgmental.....and o let go of some of that holier than thou...hubris you sport......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

People in this category really need to be honest with themselves. The Board is not upholding objections with no evidence. That's crazy.

 

 

 

So your position is that the Board is not upholding objections with no evidence, do I understand you correctly?

 

When I texted The State's Attorney in the next county (The Chief Judge of the Circuit's son until the judge's retirement last year) that I took my class with, about my denial he texted back "Absurd!" He then said "Sounds like it's personal rather than a non biased objection."

 

Unless you have some inside information that you wish to share, you might want to stick to things about which you have actual knowledge rather than agitating and insulting others with naked speculation.

 

:flowers:

 

Everything is speculation at this point - that's a given. Why is it agitating to give an opinion on how the Board is operating? Even in your example, you say the SA said it sounds personal, not that there wasn't any evidence.

 

I don't believe the Review Board, which knows it's under scrutiny at this point and that every denial they make is eligible for a judicial appeal, is upholding objections without evidence. Could I be wrong? Sure.We may find that they're a group of complete mental incompetents that aren't capable of evaluating evidence and automatically uphold all objections and that all denials will be overturned on appeal. If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead.

 

The truth is that the Board is a group of intelligent people with a ton of experience who the last numbers show are upholding only about half the objections. They know both sides are scrutinizing every decision. They may be a little swamped at this point and I would expect they're being a little conservative in their findings until they see which denials are upheld on appeal. They will make mistakes and some denials will be overturned, but this constant chorus of how they're upholding objections with no evidence is ridiculous. We've seen lots of people that had their apps objected to because of old, irrelevant arrests get approved after being reviewed by the Board.

 

Only the people who have been sent to the Board really know what issues are involved. I'm sure some of it is based on borderline issues that will eventually be tossed, but those issues are still there. I suppose it's remotely possible that there could be an issue of mistaken identity, but it's really difficult to see how in this day and age. People sent to the Board because of a mistake won't have any difficulty clearing that up and know they will get their licenses. The group that seems most worried are those that know they screwed up in the past and are hoping that somehow their actions weren't serious enough to sustain a denial. It's not up to those of us on this forum to make that decision, the judge will do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Dr Rat why do you post things like this ? He states he has never been convicted and no gun was ever found. Now maybe he doesn't spell the best, and maybe he doesn't use the best grammar but why do you continue to tear people apart on this board ? We don't need this kind of posting here let's be supportive of our fellow IL citizens. Many times by the grace of God in my youth I have escaped things I am not proud of and I am sure I can speak for most of us here in this regard.

I'm not sure how what he said could be considered "tearing people apart".

 

Multiple arrests for gang related and firearm related issues, conviction or not, is still enough evidence for a LEO objection and for the board to uphold it. I'm not sure I see how pointing that fact out is considering not being supportive.

 

If the poster is sitting here saying he fails to see what the problem is with his objection and someone points out exactly where the problem is, again, I'm not sure why you take issue with that.

 

He didn't insult him. He didn't tear into him. He simply pointed out what the poster himself had said previously. He even said, "I don't know if that should be considered sufficient evidence, but...".

 

I just don't understand why you thought the lecture was necessary.

Go back and look at some of the other posts the Dr has posted. A lot of his stuff is big me, little you he thinks he is cute I can't say I do. I am not going to banter words here but I do think people are innocent until proven guilty. The man has said he has never been convicted of any crime that would prevent him from holding a CCL and holds other licenses. The concealed permit for IL the laws states if you have been convicted of these crimes, not arrested. I just don't see any good coming from the post the good Dr posted in this thread.

However I respect your opinion and others here I just think we should hold our fingers before posting some of this stuff I am here to support my buddies ( and I have never meet him) with like interests and concerns about the safety of their families.

 

I know you don't like hearing it, but you're wrong about the convictions issue and people need to know that before they spend big money on an appeal. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to have been arrested for them to find you a danger to others. Those are just the facts. You can support your buddies better by giving them the information they need to make good decisions rather than just telling them everything is going to be all right, even if that's what they want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., March 24, 2014 at 03:14 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., March 24, 2014 at 03:14 PM - No reason given

Dr. Rat,

 

weren't you also convinced that the ISP was doing everything in good faith with earnest competence?

 

Last I knew you were still waiting on your permit submitted sometime around 1-5?

 

I submitted on 1-7 and have had mine on 3-11. Are you sure there's not something in your past you are not telling us.

Link to comment

 

 

People in this category really need to be honest with themselves. The Board is not upholding objections with no evidence. That's crazy.

 

 

 

So your position is that the Board is not upholding objections with no evidence, do I understand you correctly?

 

When I texted The State's Attorney in the next county (The Chief Judge of the Circuit's son until the judge's retirement last year) that I took my class with, about my denial he texted back "Absurd!" He then said "Sounds like it's personal rather than a non biased objection."

 

Unless you have some inside information that you wish to share, you might want to stick to things about which you have actual knowledge rather than agitating and insulting others with naked speculation.

 

:flowers:

 

Everything is speculation at this point - that's a given. Why is it agitating to give an opinion on how the Board is operating? Even in your example, you say the SA said it sounds personal, not that there wasn't any evidence.

 

I don't believe the Review Board, which knows it's under scrutiny at this point and that every denial they make is eligible for a judicial appeal, is upholding objections without evidence. Could I be wrong? Sure.We may find that they're a group of complete mental incompetents that aren't capable of evaluating evidence and automatically uphold all objections and that all denials will be overturned on appeal. If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead.

 

The truth is that the Board is a group of intelligent people with a ton of experience who the last numbers show are upholding only about half the objections. They know both sides are scrutinizing every decision. They may be a little swamped at this point and I would expect they're being a little conservative in their findings until they see which denials are upheld on appeal. They will make mistakes and some denials will be overturned, but this constant chorus of how they're upholding objections with no evidence is ridiculous. We've seen lots of people that had their apps objected to because of old, irrelevant arrests get approved after being reviewed by the Board.

 

Only the people who have been sent to the Board really know what issues are involved. I'm sure some of it is based on borderline issues that will eventually be tossed, but those issues are still there. I suppose it's remotely possible that there could be an issue of mistaken identity, but it's really difficult to see how in this day and age. People sent to the Board because of a mistake won't have any difficulty clearing that up and know they will get their licenses. The group that seems most worried are those that know they screwed up in the past and are hoping that somehow their actions weren't serious enough to sustain a denial. It's not up to those of us on this forum to make that decision, the judge will do that.

 

 

Well, of course the SA couldn't possibly know whether there is any 'evidence' or not as the board gives no indication of the bases for its conclusion in my denial letter and the act makes it clear that accessing the information received by the board takes nothing short of a court order, which is somewhat disturbing if you ask me. Even as someone who has been denied after board review, I honestly have no idea what issues are involved. Not one shred of information is given in the letter I received other than the conclusory statement that the Board has determined me to be dangerous.

 

I suppose any debate on this point depends on what is meant by the word 'evidence' in this context. "Because Joe Schmo said so" is a pretty loose definition of 'evidence.' If that is what passes for 'evidence,' that fact is alarming. If what is meant by 'evidence' is testimony or physical evidence that would be competent in a court of law (which is usually what is meant by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of court proceedings) then I have reason to believe the board is making decisions without evidence and that the objection in my case is politically motivated.

 

I personally take umbrage and am insulted by the suggestions that I am somehow not being honest with myself or that I am engaged in some sort of fantasy in an effort to "feel better." I suspect I am not alone in that respect. Something to consider when commenting on the situation of fellow 2nd Amendment advocates.

 

I have heard much of the Board's intelligence, experience, etc. However, I am not impressed thus far. For example, my denial letter cites a nonexistent provision of an unrelated act. Such shoddy work does little to boost my confidence in the Board's decision making.

 

As another member here that I spoke with put it so well. "We are all in this together." I hope that is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUYS! SORRY FOR REPEATING MYSELF BUT I URGE EVERYBODY HERE TO GO TO THE SUBSCRIPTION TAB AND DONATE $25 FOR A 1YR MEMBERSHIP TO THIS SITE. VALINDA AND TODD HAVE BEEN WORKING THEIR BUTTS OFF FOR OUR RIGHTS. PLEASE HELP. I KNOW PROTEAN, MYSELF, AND CFAN ALREADY DONATED. WE NEED EVERYBODY TO CONTRIBUTE. AGAIN VALINDA HAS BEEN WORKING SO HARD FOR US. WHAT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET VALINDA TO THREATEN A LAWSUIT UNLESS THE BOARD REVERSES THEIR FRIVILIOUS DENIALS AND APPROVE ALL OF US. WE NEED EVERYBODY HERE TO CHIP IN AND HELP .I AM ALREADY AN NRA MEMBER. I PLAN ON DONATING $25 PER MONTH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

 

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

 

That form does t do me any good as they want proof of the reason I was revoked is wrong... I don't know the reason other than a danger to myself and others... If I am going to appeal I want all the info

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I just read that Tom Dart will object to anybody for any reason. He is even objecting to people who had a restraining order placed on them by wife's lawyer, DUI arrests 20 years ago, arrests that were dismissed, and even underage drinking at college. I think it is quite obvious when we take our cases to district court this will all be reversed and we all will get out license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course the SA couldn't possibly know whether there is any 'evidence' or not as the board gives no indication of the bases for its conclusion in my denial letter and the act makes it clear that accessing the information received by the board takes nothing short of a court order, which is somewhat disturbing if you ask me. Even as someone who has been denied after board review, I honestly have no idea what issues are involved. Not one shred of information is given in the letter I received other than the conclusory statement that the Board has determined me to be dangerous.

 

Are you saying that you believe some local LEO filed an objection without any supporting documentation and the Board upheld that objection without any documentation?

 

I suppose any debate on this point depends on what is meant by the word 'evidence' in this context. "Because Joe Schmo said so" is a pretty loose definition of 'evidence.' If that is what passes for 'evidence,' that fact is alarming. If what is meant by 'evidence' is testimony or physical evidence that would be competent in a court of law (which is usually what is meant by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of court proceedings) then I have reason to believe the board is making decisions without evidence and that the objection in my case is politically motivated.

 

Number one, this is an administrative hearing, not a court proceeding. Number two, there isn't going to be any testimony or physical evidence in these cases (unless the Board asks for testimony to clarify a point). They're based primarily on police and mental health records.

 

I personally take umbrage and am insulted by the suggestions that I am somehow not being honest with myself or that I am engaged in some sort of fantasy in an effort to "feel better." I suspect I am not alone in that respect. Something to consider when commenting on the situation of fellow 2nd Amendment advocates.

 

I admit I'm skeptical of the claims that everyone is completely innocent, but I have no evidence on which to judge those claims except for the objections lodged and Board decisions. If you really have no issues in your background and this is all a misunderstanding, then a judge will find in your favor at the appeal.

 

I have heard much of the Board's intelligence, experience, etc. However, I am not impressed thus far. For example, my denial letter cites a nonexistent provision of an unrelated act. Such shoddy work does little to boost my confidence in the Board's decision making.

 

If you got the same denial letter we've all seen, yes it contained a typo. It wasn't confusing to anyone who had read the FCCA and, incidentally, the letter came from the ISP and not the Board.

 

As another member here that I spoke with put it so well. "We are all in this together." I hope that is true.

 

Nobody knows your situation but you, the agency that objected, and the Board members that reviewed the case. If you prove you were denied unfairly, I hope and expect that the decision will be reversed. Best of luck to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

That form does t do me any good as they want proof of the reason I was revoked is wrong... I don't know the reason other than a danger to myself and others... If I am going to appeal I want all the info

 

I have begun drafting my own administrative review complaint. The draft complaint requests the entry of an order for the reason you suggest. I am willing to be a "guinea pig" of sorts in that respect. Unfortunately, the fact is that you have 35 days from when the Board dropped their decision in the mail to file your appeal. That's not a lot of time to file your appeal, and the ISP knows it. No appeal and the Board's decision stands by default, no matter how flimsy. If I am certain of one thing, I won't have any real indication of what the likely outcome, and unanticipated pitfalls will be, within that 35 day window.

 

I have sent Molly B my initial draft complaint and will provide her with a redacted version of the complaint that I ultimately file on my own behalf with the circuit court (not the district court). I note that such filings are public record available to anyone who knows what they are looking for and is willing to pay the Circuit Clerk an exorbitant amount for copies.

 

Obviously, doing this on one's own is a very risky proposition but I believe that given the strength of my position (I think - I have no idea what might have been fabricated out of whole cloth), I can manage this successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

 

 

 

That form does t do me any good as they want proof of the reason I was revoked is wrong... I don't know the reason other than a danger to myself and others... If I am going to appeal I want all the info

 

 

 

I have begun drafting my own administrative review complaint. The draft complaint requests the entry of an order for the reason you suggest. I am willing to be a "guinea pig" of sorts in that respect. Unfortunately, the fact is that you have 35 days from when the Board dropped their decision in the mail to file your appeal. That's not a lot of time to file your appeal, and the ISP knows it. No appeal and the Board's decision stands by default, no matter how flimsy. If I am certain of one thing, I won't have any real indication of what the likely outcome, and unanticipated pitfalls will be, within that 35 day window.

 

I have sent Molly B my initial draft complaint and will provide her with a redacted version of the complaint that I ultimately file on my own behalf with the circuit court (not the district court). I note that such filings are public record available to anyone who knows what they are looking for and is willing to pay the Circuit Clerk an exorbitant amount for copies.

 

Obviously, doing this on one's own is a very risky proposition but I believe that given the strength of my position (I think - I have no idea what might have been fabricated out of whole cloth), I can manage this successfully.

 

 

I don't recall who said this, but there is a famous saying to the effect that a man who represents himself in court has a fool fir a client. Don't do it. You may have a great argument, but it's the procedural stuff that could kill your case before you ever get to make a substantive argument. Get a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

 

 

 

That form does t do me any good as they want proof of the reason I was revoked is wrong... I don't know the reason other than a danger to myself and others... If I am going to appeal I want all the info

 

 

 

I have begun drafting my own administrative review complaint. The draft complaint requests the entry of an order for the reason you suggest. I am willing to be a "guinea pig" of sorts in that respect. Unfortunately, the fact is that you have 35 days from when the Board dropped their decision in the mail to file your appeal. That's not a lot of time to file your appeal, and the ISP knows it. No appeal and the Board's decision stands by default, no matter how flimsy. If I am certain of one thing, I won't have any real indication of what the likely outcome, and unanticipated pitfalls will be, within that 35 day window.

 

I have sent Molly B my initial draft complaint and will provide her with a redacted version of the complaint that I ultimately file on my own behalf with the circuit court (not the district court). I note that such filings are public record available to anyone who knows what they are looking for and is willing to pay the Circuit Clerk an exorbitant amount for copies.

 

Obviously, doing this on one's own is a very risky proposition but I believe that given the strength of my position (I think - I have no idea what might have been fabricated out of whole cloth), I can manage this successfully.

 

I don't recall who said this, but there is a famous saying to the effect that a man who represents himself in court has a fool fir a client. Don't do it. You may have a great argument, but it's the procedural stuff that could kill your case before you ever get to make a substantive argument. Get a lawyer.

 

 

 

I'm familiar with the phrase. Let me put it to you this way:

 

Option 1: No money for an attorney to prosecute an appeal and after 35 days the denial becomes final and unappealable.

 

Option 2: Go it without paid representation but with the advice and support of the pro 2A lawyers and judges that I know.

 

Assuming these are the only two options, how would you proceed in my shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

So since I can't get the information sent to the board without a court order, can I go to the LEO and demand a copy of what they submitted???

How else can I appeal the revocation of my FOID?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to use to request an Illinois State Police Administrative Review if your FOID card has been denied or revoked.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47227&hl=

 

Hmmm....the quoting seems messed up.

That form does t do me any good as they want proof of the reason I was revoked is wrong... I don't know the reason other than a danger to myself and others... If I am going to appeal I want all the info

 

I have begun drafting my own administrative review complaint. The draft complaint requests the entry of an order for the reason you suggest. I am willing to be a "guinea pig" of sorts in that respect. Unfortunately, the fact is that you have 35 days from when the Board dropped their decision in the mail to file your appeal. That's not a lot of time to file your appeal, and the ISP knows it. No appeal and the Board's decision stands by default, no matter how flimsy. If I am certain of one thing, I won't have any real indication of what the likely outcome, and unanticipated pitfalls will be, within that 35 day window.

 

I have sent Molly B my initial draft complaint and will provide her with a redacted version of the complaint that I ultimately file on my own behalf with the circuit court (not the district court). I note that such filings are public record available to anyone who knows what they are looking for and is willing to pay the Circuit Clerk an exorbitant amount for copies.

 

Obviously, doing this on one's own is a very risky proposition but I believe that given the strength of my position (I think - I have no idea what might have been fabricated out of whole cloth), I can manage this successfully.

 

 

I don't recall who said this, but there is a famous saying to the effect that a man who represents himself in court has a fool fir a client. Don't do it. You may have a great argument, but it's the procedural stuff that could kill your case before you ever get to make a substantive argument. Get a lawyer.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm familiar with the phrase. Let me put it to you this way:

 

Option 1: No money for an attorney to prosecute an appeal and after 35 days the denial becomes final and unappealable.

 

Option 2: Go it without paid representation but with the advice and support of the pro 2A lawyers and judges that I know.

 

Assuming these are the only two options, how would you proceed in my shoes?

 

 

If you cannot afford an attorney, just make sure that you research and then research sone more in regards to the procedural stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, of course the SA couldn't possibly know whether there is any 'evidence' or not as the board gives no indication of the bases for its conclusion in my denial letter and the act makes it clear that accessing the information received by the board takes nothing short of a court order, which is somewhat disturbing if you ask me. Even as someone who has been denied after board review, I honestly have no idea what issues are involved. Not one shred of information is given in the letter I received other than the conclusory statement that the Board has determined me to be dangerous.

 

Are you saying that you believe some local LEO filed an objection without any supporting documentation and the Board upheld that objection without any documentation?

 

 

Straw man often? I did not say that. 'Documentation' does not equal evidence. Anyone can easily write anything for any reason.

 

I suppose any debate on this point depends on what is meant by the word 'evidence' in this context. "Because Joe Schmo said so" is a pretty loose definition of 'evidence.' If that is what passes for 'evidence,' that fact is alarming. If what is meant by 'evidence' is testimony or physical evidence that would be competent in a court of law (which is usually what is meant by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of court proceedings) then I have reason to believe the board is making decisions without evidence and that the objection in my case is politically motivated.

 

Number one, this is an administrative hearing, not a court proceeding. Number two, there isn't going to be any testimony or physical evidence in these cases (unless the Board asks for testimony to clarify a point). They're based primarily on police and mental health records.

 

No, the board review is not a hearing. You couldn't be more incorrect on this point.

 

A hearing typically consists of two major components: 1) Notice and 2) Opportunity to be heard. Board review involves NEITHER of those. An administrative review complaint is filed in the circuit court. That's the first opportunity a person has to be heard. There, evidence will be required. This is not really open to dispute. By the time any actual hearing will be held, the meaning of 'evidence' will have assumed its meaning in the context of a court hearing.

 

I personally take umbrage and am insulted by the suggestions that I am somehow not being honest with myself or that I am engaged in some sort of fantasy in an effort to "feel better." I suspect I am not alone in that respect. Something to consider when commenting on the situation of fellow 2nd Amendment advocates.

 

I admit I'm skeptical of the claims that everyone is completely innocent, but I have no evidence on which to judge those claims except for the objections lodged and Board decisions. If you really have no issues in your background and this is all a misunderstanding, then a judge will find in your favor at the appeal.

 

Obviously. Now we are at the crux of my initial post to you. Rather than implying untoward things about people you have never met, maybe you could consider a little courtesy towards the rest of us instead of looking down your nose at others. Your comments stink of "well, you must have done something to have a problem." It's insulting, unwarranted and un-American. To be perfectly frank, you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about and have admitted as much (speculation). In this great country, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Salem with trials are a fine example of what happens when a different approach is taken. When you aren't being outright insulting, you appear to be patronizing and you continue to do it despite being asked not to nicely. Don't you have better things to do than disparage strangers?

 

I have heard much of the Board's intelligence, experience, etc. However, I am not impressed thus far. For example, my denial letter cites a nonexistent provision of an unrelated act. Such shoddy work does little to boost my confidence in the Board's decision making.

 

If you got the same denial letter we've all seen, yes it contained a typo. It wasn't confusing to anyone who had read the FCCA and, incidentally, the letter came from the ISP and not the Board.

 

 

At best it could be characterized as a "double typo." It's shoddy work, regardless of how it came about. You're being patronizing again. I have a copy of my letter. I know what office it came from. Obviously I wasn't confused so I'm not sure what you're on about in that regard.

 

 

As another member here that I spoke with put it so well. "We are all in this together." I hope that is true.

 

Nobody knows your situation but you, the agency that objected, and the Board members that reviewed the case. If you prove you were denied unfairly, I hope and expect that the decision will be reversed. Best of luck to you.

 

Clearly, we are not in this together. I have better things to do than subject myself to internet caricatures casting aspersion. Good day to you sir, and good luck to the rest of you .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...