Jump to content


Photo

Appealing CCL Review Board Denial


  • Please log in to reply
1291 replies to this topic

#31 Dfens

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 08:58 AM

Defens look at this. Just a basic summary, can be possibly more to the case with ccl. http://www.isba.org/...trativeagencyde

 

1) Thank you for providing an actual reference, I appreciate that.

2) That is a broad overview dealing with ANY type of administrative review.

3) 735 ILCS 5/3-107 provides:

 

§ 3-107. Defendants.
(a) Except as provided in subsection ( b ) or ( c ), in any action to review any final decision of an administrative agency, the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made defendants. The method of service of the decision shall be as provided in the Act governing the procedure before the administrative agency, but if no method is provided, a decision shall be deemed to have been served either when a copy of the decision is personally delivered or when a copy of the decision is deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope or package, with postage prepaid, addressed to the party affected by the decision at his or her last known residence or place of business. The form of the summons and the issuance of alias summons shall be according to rules of the Supreme Court.
No action for administrative review shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an employee, agent, or member, who acted in his or her official capacity, of an administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, where the administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section. Naming the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, shall be deemed to include as defendant the administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity that the named defendants direct or head. No action for administrative review shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, where the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section.
If, during the course of a review action, the court determines that an agency or a party of record to the administrative proceedings was not made a defendant as required by the preceding paragraph, then the court shall grant the plaintiff 35 days from the date of the determination in which to name and serve the unnamed agency or party as a defendant. The court shall permit the newly served defendant to participate in the proceedings to the extent the interests of justice may require.
 
( b ) and ( c ) deal with zoning rulings...

Edited by Dfens, 19 April 2014 - 08:59 AM.

The only thing that you can assume about a broken down old man is that he's a survivor.


#32 jason4126

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 14

Posted 21 April 2014 - 02:29 PM

Hot off the press... Just got back from the Daley Center and got my petition/appeal in. Pretty simple process with some back and forth, but learned a few tricks



#33 jason4126

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 14

Posted 21 April 2014 - 02:38 PM

When you guys go to the Daley Center ask for a waiver form to pay zero to file your petition along with the summons and postage. I just got back and paid nothing to file, summon, and send the certified letters to the ISP. The lady hooked me up because she said they do not tell anyone about the waivers.  



#34 moon

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 12

Posted 21 April 2014 - 03:42 PM

Nice...


Member: Illinois State Rifle Association & National Rifle Association.

#35 xxxlaw

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 14

Posted 21 April 2014 - 06:34 PM

We filed a lawsuit today in federal court in three counts, due process violation, prior restraint violation, and administrative review (a claim actually under state law, filed here under supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court).

In sum, Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen possessing a FOID card.

He applied for concealed carry on the first day that it was possible to do so, January 5, 2014. As part of the process, he uploaded his FOID Card, fingerprints, a training certificate, and granted a waiver for examination to any and all medical records and a world of other personal things. (And a $150 nonrefundable application fee, portions of which are specifically earmarked for purposes outside the application process.)

He received a terse letter on March 19 by which the State Police advise that an unspecified law enforcement objection was filed, that the Board determined by preponderance of the evidence that he was dangerous to himself or others or presented a danger to the public safety in a hearing, and that he was denied a permit.

To this day he does not know who objected or what they said. He had no prior knowledge of the secret proceeding and certainly no chance to present evidence or argue to the contrary. The concealed carry law exempts this Board from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act.

Though he letter did not say so, his only right to challenge this is through the Illinois Administrative Review Law, but it turns out that is a sham. In a FOID card denial, there would be a right to a full hearing in front of a judge as to all of the issues. In any normal administrative review, as for example a zoning case, the "record" below would be filed in court as the answer. However, under the Concealed Carry law, the record below is a secret that can't be disclosed except by a specific judicial order, and there is no right to a hearing de novo. In other words, the judge's decision would be limited to reviewing the facts in evidence before the secret tribunal - and then only if he ordered the Board to give it up. The review would be for abuse of discretion in the decision, and at no point would he have the right to actually speak or otherwise introduce evidence on his own behalf. Though the letter of denial didn't state it, even the right to a sham imitation of judicial review is lost without the filing of a lawsuit within 35 day. The time limit causes people to focus on that deadline - rather than the fact that the law denies them any honest or effective way of challenging the tilted bias and secret evidence of this hidden tribunal.

The Board itself, by the Concealed Carry Act, must include at least three individuals with at least five years experience as federal investigators and two who have at least five years experience as US Attorneys. It requires, in describing the composition of the Board,
 

 (2) 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice;
(3) 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Section 20 (a), Public Act 098-0063

That's a majority of the seven commissioners provided for. There is no provision for persons with experience in advocating for or counseling the victims of gun assault or criminal defense attorneys, persons who might know the consequences of inability to defend a predatory criminal assault with lethal defensive weapons.

We filed today because all of this grossly violates the constitutional guarantee that liberty cannot be deprived without due process of law - fundamentally fair procedures in light of the right at issue - and because the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, the right to marry, the right to vote, cannot be conditioned on asking governmental guardians for permission.

The FOID Card procedure already in place goes as far - and perhaps further - than the constitution permits for the protection of the public. The main significant difference between it and the Concealed Carry Act is the creation of this secret tribunal to determine the objection of law enforcement to an individual's right to carry a defensive weapon outside the home. The vague standard contained in the law - and the secrecy of the proceedings and the lack of notice or right to defend to affected individuals - and the immunity of those who object and those who decide - and the lack of any serious judicial oversight to the proceedings - tends to assure that the screening process for the applicants, all of them FOID Card holders or applicants, amounts to little or nothing more than a visceral, gut-feeling test for the exercise of a fundamental right by a law-abiding citizen. We think that, in a country that stamps the word, "Liberty", on each and every coin, the secret and functionally unchallengeable proceedings of this procedure, simply cannot stand constitutional scrutiny, and will fall.

J. D. Obenberger, Attorney at Law

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60603

 

312.558.6420


Attorney JD Obenberger - 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 - Chicago, IL 60603 - 312.558.6420 - xxxlaw at gmail.com


#36 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 21 April 2014 - 07:48 PM

@xxxlaw

 

Give 'em heck! :)

 

Will this end up as a topic in the Judicial portion of the forum when we know what the case name is?



#37 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,490 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 21 April 2014 - 09:25 PM

Xxxlaw thanks for the information and good luck with the lawsuit.
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#38 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 12:56 AM

There is an article related to the lawsuit Mr. Obenberger describes in the Sun Times you can see it here.



#39 Dr. Rat

    JMHO

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:31 AM

"Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen..."

 

Court records show he was arrested in 2000 for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property, both misdemeanors. He was convicted and received court supervision.

 

In 2006, he was arrested once again for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property. He was convicted and received conditional discharge for resisting a police officer and was ordered to pay a $200 fine and more than $1,400 in restitution for the property damage, records show.

 

:no:



#40 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:00 AM

The citation to the case that Mr. Obenberger filed on behalf of Mr. John Berron is Berron v. ISP 1:14-cv-02839. I am going to start a new thread and post a complete copy of the complaint as filed in the case.



#41 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,213 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:57 AM

What would be the proper way to add the Concealed Carry License Review Board and the Chairman of the Review Board to the blank form?


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#42 xxxlaw

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:10 AM

Thanks for the good wishes!

 

This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card.

 

Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it.


Attorney JD Obenberger - 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 - Chicago, IL 60603 - 312.558.6420 - xxxlaw at gmail.com


#43 cnwfan3

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 01:36 PM

Thanks for the good wishes!

 

This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card.

 

Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it.

 

I totally agree!!  I have been denied and the worst part is that have have no arrests, mental health issues, or anything else that should cause me to be denied.  I suspect that it is a case of mistaken identity in my case (since there are many with my name that have a criminal history), but the fact that this was all done in secret and that I can't even see what was objected to and by who is so unfair.  How can I even dispute it if I don't even know what I am being objected about.  If it's going to be as difficult as you say to over turn in the circuit court, that is even more unfair.  I really hope your case paves the way for the rest of us that were denied unjustly.



#44 xd9subcompact

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,312 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:21 PM

In regard to someone missing the deadline mentioned in post #67 of 35 days: Could it be possible to re-apply for the permit (that's another $150) and be prepared to file a suit immediately? Or is there a limitation in the FCCA that denies the ability to re-apply once denied?



#45 Dr. Rat

    JMHO

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:45 PM

Can I still file an Appeal I have a March 19 letter???

 

I think it depends on whether you were denied by the ISP or the Board. From what we've heard, it's 60 days for the former and 35 days for the latter.



#46 Benji

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:58 PM

I was denied by the board of review.

#47 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,213 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:04 PM

I was denied by the board of review.

 

You should have 35 days from the date you received the letter.  Do you have the envelope with the post mark?

 

v.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#48 xxxlaw

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:13 PM

For those whose denial letter is dated March 19, that's the date of the adverse action. I would act as though tomorrow, April 23, is the 35th day, the deadline for filing under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. And I don't mean to discourage anyone from doing that. I think it should be done to make sure that potentially serious rights are not waived, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's and naming the board members, its chairman, the Chairman of that Board, the Director of the ISP, and the objector and the municipality he works for if you can figure that out.

 

But I recommend also an action based on civil rights, based on the violation of due process and prior restraint as well, preferably in federal court. For any who are unfortunate enough to blow the state deadline, there is some chance that the civil rights action might work anyway. No guarantees. And obviously, I am not the attorney of anyone here and this does not amount to legal advice. Get a lawyer and consult with him. But you are rapidly running out of time to do that under the Illinois Administrative Review Law if your letter is dated March 19,


Attorney JD Obenberger - 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 - Chicago, IL 60603 - 312.558.6420 - xxxlaw at gmail.com


#49 jason4126

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 11:17 AM

On my way to the Daley center any good advice? I wish I can post pix but the form don't let me.

 

When you go up to the counter they will ask you what do you need? You tell them you are there to file an appeal/petition for the conceal carry permit. They will give you all the forms and certified mail envelopes (everything you need to appeal they have) if they do not tell you or ask you about filing for a waiver ask the clerk for form N689 C. You will take that form up to the 24th floor room 2403 and fill all three sections out and give it to the clerk who will give it to the law clerk who will review it and then give it to the judge who will sign off on it. You then take that signed form back to room 802 and file your paperwork. Copies can be made there and I paid 3.25 for all copies at the machine. Make sure you fill all the paperwork out first, make your copies and then take all forms, copies, waiver back up to front desk or they will push you to the side. The line was long not with people for appeals, but they deal with everything in chancery court so there is lawyers galore in line too so knock it all out first and you will sail smooth. The waiver is for low income or financial hardship individuals. The clerk told me to just fill it out and put unemployed. She said they do not check or ask for pay stubs. My waiver was granted as soon as the law clerk read unemployed. 30 minutes it was handed back with the judges stamp and signature. I only summoned two parties: ISP and Hiram Grau. After I submitted the forms I received a court date for August which I will be able to fight the determination. Hopefully its a no brainer and the violation of due process and constitutional rights prevail.

 

One more thing, if you are having trouble with filling out the forms, there are free attorneys in CL-16 which is in the basement. They will help you fill out the forms and give you advice so I was told. I went there and it was packed with cases about divorce to foreclosures. I was given an appointment for the next time slot which was 3PM same day and I decided not to wait or go. Everything you need to fill out is pretty straight forward and I used the complaint lingo from what Molly posted.  I am pretty mad, I came home and my wife got her CCL in the mail today.

 

The fee for filing without a waiver is: $276 and $15 for every defendant summoned plus postage which is determined by weight and when I saw the receipt it said $36 dollars before it was cancelled out from the waiver. Thank the clerk she saved me a ton!!!  



#50 Jay784

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:28 PM

doc.gif  A ccl appeal petition .doc   28KB   0 downloads
 
Can someone please fix the crazy formatting of the  parenthesis at the beginning of the CCL Appeal Petition document?  I've tried everything to get them to line up properly and only seems to make it worse.

How does this look?

Attached Files



#51 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,213 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:29 PM

Wonderful, how did you do that?


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#52 Jay784

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 12:34 PM

Wonderful, how did you do that?

Hi Molly,  I changed the style to "No Spacing", then realigned the ")". 



#53 Benji

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:46 PM

Done August 21, court day I wanna thanx Molly from day one she helped me I got upset and I draged it out but I did it, today was the last day to file for March 19 letters I was told at the Daley center but Thank you again Molly I also wanna thanx all the great American that helped me on Illinois Carry I couldn't do it with out you all wish me luck on my battle The fight of restoring my rights that were taken from me!!!!

#54 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,213 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:59 PM

Done August 21, court day I wanna thanx Molly from day one she helped me I got upset and I draged it out but I did it, today was the last day to file for March 19 letters I was told at the Daley center but Thank you again Molly I also wanna thanx all the great American that helped me on Illinois Carry I couldn't do it with out you all wish me luck on my battle The fight of restoring my rights that were taken from me!!!!


You are quite welcome. We are only sharing what others have shared with us.

I wish I had seen your earlier request on the addresses. We don't have an address for the review board. Some are sending care of the ISP, some in care of AG's office??
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#55 jason4126

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:13 PM

Done August 21, court day I wanna thanx Molly from day one she helped me I got upset and I draged it out but I did it, today was the last day to file for March 19 letters I was told at the Daley center but Thank you again Molly I also wanna thanx all the great American that helped me on Illinois Carry I couldn't do it with out you all wish me luck on my battle The fight of restoring my rights that were taken from me!!!!

Did you get the waiver?



#56 Benji

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 05:22 PM

Done August 21, court day I wanna thanx Molly from day one she helped me I got upset and I draged it out but I did it, today was the last day to file for March 19 letters I was told at the Daley center but Thank you again Molly I also wanna thanx all the great American that helped me on Illinois Carry I couldn't do it with out you all wish me luck on my battle The fight of restoring my rights that were taken from me!!!!

Did you get the waiver?

Yes I got the waiver super easy on the 24th floor of the Daley center room 2403 it's a court room just go in and talk with the Clark they will get the judge to sign off on it just put that you have no income fill out both pages and your done take it back up. Imma post my day at the Daley center to help other in our situation.

#57 Ed223

  • Members
  • 43 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:15 PM

I went to Daley Center last Thursday when they opened.  I had the summons posted here doctored up a bit by my lawyer and other forms from the Chancery divisions website.

They were correct but the clerk at Chancery didn't even look at them and told me to go to the pro se office in CL16, so I went.

The lawyer there had a copy already in his computer of almost the exact same summons but with 3 added defendants.

I went back up and filled out all the registered mail slips, paid $338.40 total, court date of 8-15.

The appeals went to the following:

--Illinois State Police, Firearms Services Bureau

--Hiram Grau, Director, Illinois State Police

--Jessica Trame, Bureau Chief Firearms Services

--Firearms Services Bureau

 

All are located at 810 S 7th St., Ste. 400-M, Springfield, IL 62703

 

So, that's my experience there.  Took about two hours total.  Everyone seemed friendly and helpful, little did they know I had a letter stating I was a threat to all humanity and myself per some secret cabal in a hidden meeting chamber!

I'd like to thank everyone here, the ISRA and NRA and wish all the other denied applicants the best of luck!



#58 Benji

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 06:31 PM

I went to Daley Center last Thursday when they opened.  I had the summons posted here doctored up a bit by my lawyer and other forms from the Chancery divisions website.
They were correct but the clerk at Chancery didn't even look at them and told me to go to the pro se office in CL16, so I went.
The lawyer there had a copy already in his computer of almost the exact same summons but with 3 added defendants.
I went back up and filled out all the registered mail slips, paid $338.40 total, court date of 8-15.
The appeals went to the following:
--Illinois State Police, Firearms Services Bureau
--Hiram Grau, Director, Illinois State Police
--Jessica Trame, Bureau Chief Firearms Services
--Firearms Services Bureau
 
All are located at 810 S 7th St., Ste. 400-M, Springfield, IL 62703
 
So, that's my experience there.  Took about two hours total.  Everyone seemed friendly and helpful, little did they know I had a letter stating I was a threat to all humanity and myself per some secret cabal in a hidden meeting chamber!
I'd like to thank everyone here, the ISRA and NRA and wish all the other denied applicants the best of luck!


Make sure you go early CL-16 won't help you I went at 1:00p
They were all booked so I did it my self and sent it to:


Hiram Grau, Director Illinois State Police Office of the Director
801 South Seventh Street, Suite 400-M
Springfield, IL 62703

Illinois department Of State Police division of administration
801 South Seventh Street, Suite 400-M
Springfield, IL 62703

#59 Japonte

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 14

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:30 PM

I was DENIED on the evening of Tuesday, April 22, 2014 through the ISP website – do I have to wait for the ISP Denied Letter to arrive at my home first, or can I go to the Daley Center and file my Appeal and Summons right away, since they seem to a use the same ISP Denied “Template Stock” Letter – do they require a copy of the letter? - I want to start my battle to win back my second amendment rights.



#60 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,213 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:33 PM

I was DENIED on the evening of Tuesday, April 22, 2014 through the ISP website – do I have to wait for the ISP Denied Letter to arrive at my home first, or can I go to the Daley Center and file my Appeal and Summons right away, since they seem to a use the same ISP Denied “Template Stock” Letter – do they require a copy of the letter? - I want to start my battle to win back my second amendment rights.

 

You have 35 days from the date of the letter.  I would wait for the letter. 


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users