Jump to content


Photo

Appealing CCL Review Board Denial


  • Please log in to reply
1291 replies to this topic

#91 Ssrkid86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:23 PM

Can someone put what Molly just posted in laments terms? My head is confused.


NRA member

ISRA member

Illinois Carry member

 

 


#92 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,376 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:37 PM

Can someone put what Molly just posted in laments terms? My head is confused.

 

1.  There was no motion by the AAG to dismiss the appeal - something they are prone to do.

 

2.  They ask the judge to issue the order for the CCL Review Board to release the information  pertaining to why the applicant was denied

 

3. The judge issued the order for release of info by June 23rd.

 

4. AAG asked for extension of time to file their response to the appeal and judge agreed, gave them a couple extra weeks after the release of the info by the Review Board.


"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

#93 Ssrkid86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:48 PM

I'm inexperienced and have limited knowledge compared to some others, but that all sounds like GOOD news for the applicant...

 

1: They aren't motioning to dismiss the appeal which, in my opinion, is somewhat of them agreeing these denials are just. (Especially if you're saying they're prone to asking for them to be dismissed)

 

2: Once the information is released, does anybody know how that applicant obtains the information?

When you say 'they asked the judge,' who is 'they' referring to? The AAG or the plaintiff?

 

3: This is good news that the judge is releasing such information with minimal effort from the plaintiff.

 

4: This sucks, but a couple of weeks won't kill us at this point.

 

Also, any idea of this court date for this individual was the 'case management' hearing?


Edited by Ssrkid86, 28 May 2014 - 02:48 PM.

NRA member

ISRA member

Illinois Carry member

 

 


#94 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

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

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:48 PM

Molly

Based upon what we have seen to date how aggressively are the AAGs fighting the appeals?

#95 cnwfan3

    Member

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

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:51 PM

A Cook Co appeal went to court today, AAG came before the court with the ISP's motion for entry of an order allowing production of Confidential materials and Motion for extension of time. The judge granted the defendant's motion for extinction of time.  ISP's motion for order for production of confidential materials is entered and continued to June 23, 2014 at 10:00 am.  They have up to and including July 11, 2014 to file a response pleading.

 

Wow, that is excellent news!!  It seem like they are at least willing to see why we were denied by the board before just brushing us off.  Hopefully we will start to see a trend with these wrongful denials and some action will come out of this.  Do you know if the plaintiff had an attorney?  I'm still trying to figure out if we have any chance of being able to successfully appeal without a lawyer.



#96 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,376 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 May 2014 - 03:02 PM


2: Once the information is released, does anybody know how that applicant obtains the information?

When you say 'they asked the judge,' who is 'they' referring to? The AAG or the plaintiff?

 


 

Also, any idea of this court date for this individual was the 'case management' hearing?

 

From what I have seen in other court cases - not appeals - the information is sent to the court and both parties or the plaintiff can go to the court house to obtain copies.

 

They asked the judge - meaning the AAG.

Case management?  Don't know.


"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

#97 Ssrkid86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 28 May 2014 - 03:17 PM

@ CNWFAN3, from checking the public records, there aren't very many people that have currently retained counsel on their cases.

 

Personally, I feel that if the members of IC work TOGETHER and SHARE as much information as possible, this is doable without an attorney.

A big part of that is based off of Molly's updates that the ISP are very willing to work with those denied. The information provided about today's case only backs up her previous updates that they aren't screwing us over further than they already have.

 

Maybe that's just me being delusional because I highly doubt that I will have the $2,500+ to hire legal counsel.

 

Fact remains, this is uncharted territory and we are all test animals. I agree that if you have the means to obtain legal counsel, you should if this is something you are willing to pursue.


NRA member

ISRA member

Illinois Carry member

 

 


#98 cnwfan3

    Member

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

Posted 28 May 2014 - 04:33 PM

@ CNWFAN3, from checking the public records, there aren't very many people that have currently retained counsel on their cases.

 

Personally, I feel that if the members of IC work TOGETHER and SHARE as much information as possible, this is doable without an attorney.

A big part of that is based off of Molly's updates that the ISP are very willing to work with those denied. The information provided about today's case only backs up her previous updates that they aren't screwing us over further than they already have.

 

Maybe that's just me being delusional because I highly doubt that I will have the $2,500+ to hire legal counsel.

 

Fact remains, this is uncharted territory and we are all test animals. I agree that if you have the means to obtain legal counsel, you should if this is something you are willing to pursue.

 

Well, they aren't screwing us yet.  Who know what will happen.  I'm thinking that the ISP are just as curious to us as to why these denials are taking place and they want to know as well.  We can only hope that they are willing to work with us.  I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.  I agree with Elmer that we are much better off with an attorney.  I am working on trying to find one that is affordable for my budget.  While I whole heartedly want to fight this, I have to stay within my means as well.  Hopefully we can at least learn from these early appeals.



#99 xxxlaw

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

Posted 28 May 2014 - 07:23 PM

The regular readers of this forum know that I have filed civil rights lawsuits in federal court challenging this entire twisted and unconsitutional, wholesale deprivation of fundamental rights, growing out of the law enforcement objection and review process - one that is based on a secret hearing with secret evidence, no opportunity to challenge the evidence, and a state Administrative Review Law procedure in the circuit court that is limited to looking over the record of the secret tribunal, with no opportunity to give one's own evidence to the judge. I've now filed four of them in federal court, and the summonses are flying as my process servers reach out to these elusive Board members, haling them before a federal judge to explain their complicity in this wholesale deprivation of the civil rights of the good and honest citizens who own firearms.

 

So recently I got a 7pm phone call from a non-client who'd filed his own, pro-se, Administrative Review Law appeal alone, without a lawyer. The Attorney General had filed motions that were up the next day in court and he asked me what was going to happen. I told him the truth: you are about to get steamrolled by a very smart young lawyer who, in a very competetive job environment, managed to snag an impressive job as an Assistant Attorney General. Two hours later, he was in my office, signed the papers, and I became his lawyer - the first time I'd every taken on a client with only a state court proceeding. The next morning at 10am, he was standing next to me in front of the judge, with an Assistant Attorney General to my right.

 

I'm pretty shocked at what I saw and learned in that courtroom.

 

The State wanted an additional 28 days to respond. They were already 22 days late and in default. 50 days that this client's rights to self defense were being denied. They wanted to file the record "under seal", meaning without public access. And though their paperwork did not expressly say so, they were looking to potentially "redact" the record of that Board proceeding, so that even now, in court, the applicant would never see the evidence considered by the Board in denying him. I fought like heck, appearing twice before that judge on the same court date.

 

I told the judge that if the State had asked to deny someone's right to vote or get married or hand out pamphlets in the Daley Center's plaza for 50 days while the State thought about it, no judge would take it seriously because a fundamental right is involved. Gun rights are part of the Bill of Rights, it's fundamental and just as protected as the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

 

I was amazed at what followed. The judge smiled and said that this was different - because my client had already had a fair hearing before the Board with the right to introduce his own evidence. That's what he believed. This judge had been misadvised. No one had told him, to this point, that the Board operates like a Star Chamber, that the applicant never has a chance to appear, he never knows when the Board acts - because they act in secret - or the name of the objector, or the allegations that are made. You can believe that I educated him! And I told him that my client lives in a most horrible place in Chicago, a place afflicted with shootings every week and sometimes on a daily basis.

 

But he came back with a second reason to grant the state a total pass for 50 days of delay: he asked how old my client was and how long he'd lived in that area. When he found out that it was many years, he asked how the additional delay could cause him a problem. I told him that we are dealing with a lethal potential if this client cannot defend himself while the state now, for the first time, takes the lawsuit seriously enough to go looking for the record. He asked my client - who was not on the stand - but who was standing next to me, whether he'd ever felt the need to defend his life with a gun. My client truthfully answered, "Yes, your honor, three times." I asked the judge whether he wanted to hear the chilling details, but suddenly the judge was not so interested. He declined to hear the stories of life in the Hood and the criminals that the good people there have to face every day. I added that it is no reason to delay a man's gun rights that he's lived with a violation of his rights for years: should we fail to emancipate a slave because he's been a slave for 30 years?

 

Then, finally he asked how much time the federal judges were giving the state to produce records and I told him that in none of the cases were we at that point. That's all he wanted to hear and I could not shake him from giving the state such a lengthy delay.

 

After we stepped down and I talked with the State, it became apparent that the State was hedging its position and that it wanted to reserve the right to "redact" the filed record, to remove things that the Board considered from what the Judge and I and my client would see. We could not agree on a written order without that issue nailed down, so we went back before the judge - after a recess.

 

When the judge came back, he was in our corner on this issue. I made the point that it was fundamentally unfair for the state to hide any evidence that the Board considered and which led the Board to a negative decision. The state replied that federal law might prohibit the release even on a sealed basis without public access. I argued that the Constitution itself trumped any federal law and that my client had the right to see everything, or else the Board's determination could not stand. The judge agreed, over the vigorous argument of the State: the words "without redaction" were added to the final Order.

 

What stunned me most about all of this is that this Judge, no doubt an honest and talented man, had been misled and misadvised - maybe in other cases involving pro se plaintiffs - and maybe by other lawyers - that the Concealed Carry Board decisions were based on fair hearings. I think that he was stunned to hear the truth, and perhaps he asked his Clerk to pull the statute for him and parse out its meaning. Maybe. I hope so. But in any event, what's really needed is some competent advocacy so that these judges in the Administrative Review Law cases understand the reality of what they are being called upon to decide. If they don't know the situation, their decisions will all be mistakes.This judge didn't know the situation and thought or believed that the long line of concealed carry applicants coming before him had all lost in a fair hearing in front of that Board, which actually is more like the Inquisition than due process. He knows differently now.

 

And the experience intensified my belief that the only place where the grave constitutional insults can be adressed effectively is before a federal judge.


Edited by xxxlaw, 28 May 2014 - 07:35 PM.

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


#100 Toolmaker8185

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 14

Posted 28 May 2014 - 11:13 PM

Wow...just wow. After reading the above post I immediately felt sick....to know that there was even just one judge out there who did not know the law or was familiar with the statute is more than shocking....chilling actually.

#101 Ssrkid86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 28 May 2014 - 11:41 PM

Xxxlaw, what was the name of the judge??

NRA member

ISRA member

Illinois Carry member

 

 


#102 davy92

  • Members
  • 29 posts
  • Joined: 04-June 13

Posted 28 May 2014 - 11:59 PM

Illinois is rotten to the core! All I can say is this CCL law is an abomination and should have never been passed. I really hope that this mess of a law can be salvaged with trailers.



#103 almosthuman75

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 14

Posted 29 May 2014 - 05:17 AM

Well that doesn't sound too promising. :-(  My court date is June 11th and hopefully the judge I get will know the law regarding the review board.



#104 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,376 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 29 May 2014 - 10:10 AM

I am not surprised that judges in IL may not know how the CCL Review Board process is currently working.  It's new to everyone and NO ONE would have guessed that the CCLRB would withhold the reason for denial from  the applicant.  It clearly states in the law that the board can provide an opportunity for the applicant to present testimony and evidence.  They have simply chosen not to make that opportunity available.

 

It is up to those who file an appeal to make clear to the judge that they have been denied DUE PROCESS and have not been presented with the reason for their denial or an opportunity to present evidence in their own behalf.

 

Shoot, we have reports of judges out there who have set court dates months down the road so they can see how other courts are handling these appeals.

 

In the long run, I am firmly convinced applicants will prevail.  We will work our way through each step as they come.


"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

#105 jjbook79

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

Posted 29 May 2014 - 10:52 AM

I just put my response to the state's motion for an order to release confidential information in the mail to Lisa Madigan's office. I will have it on file in the courts in the morning. While I am in two months so far in the fight, I am not even close to the end game yet. I have been lucky so far in having good council in my ear to guide me on the way, but may need to lawyer up in the near future. I am much like others on here in that I am a single dad raising 2 children so I will only be able to spend so much before I am unable to justify the spending anymore.

#106 Ssrkid86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 29 May 2014 - 10:57 AM

JJBOOK79 - What is the response you mailed into Lisa Madigan's office? Is it required/necessary? What does it do?

If you don't mind educating me a tad on your process.

 

Unfortunately, I am one of those who will most likely be going through this pro se and relying heavily on other members for their words of wisdom and experience.


NRA member

ISRA member

Illinois Carry member

 

 


#107 xxxlaw

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

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:43 PM

Strictly speaking, constitutional arguments are not what an Adminsitrative Review Law filing are about. The decided cases say that the circuit court can reverse or remand for manifest error or abuse of discretion in a particular case. The Administrative Review Law complaints are not systemic: their basis is simply that a mistake of fact or law was made by the lower Board, and that if it was a mistake of fact, even giving the Board its due, a presumption that they called the facts correctly, nevertheless, it's obvious that a mistake of fact was made. There may be some ways to back a constitutional argument into the issue of a mistake of law, or concerning an abuse of discretion in procedural matters, but it's not a comfortable fit. By far, the better course is to file a civil rights claim along side the Administrative Review Law action. That is designed to attack the whole law and its protocols on their face, as a system, as well as seeking particular relief for a particular plaintiff/applicant. And it's far better to file that in Federal Court because state court judges are not bound to follow and honor the decision of the 7th Circuit in Moore v. Madigan. That case holds that there is a Second Amendment right to go about in public with concealed weapons for self defense. The Supreme Court has not gotten that far yet. State court judges are bound by Supreme Court decisions, but not by decisions of the inferior federal courts. Federal judges, however, are bound by Moore inside the 7th Circuit, and that's why it's preferable to file a civil rights count in federal court. But there's no reason why an action based on the federal civil rights act cannot be filed in state court, it's chances are simply riskier. If the applicant succeeds on that count, the court may award attorney's fees. If a litigant has an intent to raise systemic "fairness" issues, a civil rights count should be added to the Administrative Review Law count or a separate action filed in federal court, which I think is smarter.

 

Molly is right. The judges seem to be looking over their shoulder to see what other judges are doing in this new area, maybe to avoid embarassment. The problem is that can equate into long delays while they look left and right to see what the other judges are doing in this area. I suspect that from the judge's perspective, it is a bit bewildering. Most of the judges getting these cases are very serious, very experienced and seasoned, well-trusted judges. But most of what these kinds of judges deal with on a daily bais are heavy-duty commercial and real estate matters where the parties are asking for injunctions with millions on the line - or commercial and property contracts or licenses. It's probably actually rare for these judges to deal with "retail" issues like the license of one particular applicant. Because it's probably as new to them as it is to us, it is vital and critical that they get educated by the applicants - and I hope, their trained, experienced, attorneys who know all of the issues inside and out and who have the ability to get the important facts to the judge during the few minutes that they get to stand before the bench and explain. Without a clear, well-grounded, explaination that tells the judge the actual situation, it would be hard to blame a judge for making a serious mistake. The parties and their lawyers have the job of educating the judge. You can count on the fact that the State's lawyer won't give him the very nasty details of this ugly and unfair process!

 

Best,

 

JD

 

PS - Obviously, the foregoing is not legal advice and by posting it here, or by you reading it, it does not create any attorney-client relationship. Get your legal advice from your own lawyer, not from public posts. This is posted exclusively for the education of the general public.


Edited by xxxlaw, 29 May 2014 - 12:47 PM.

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


#108 AJR

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 13

Posted 29 May 2014 - 03:58 PM

I have spoke to a few people that wanted to go the federal lawsuit way and were told it would be $3000. I warned them that is most likely just a retainer to start the process and not the final number it will cost them. Filing fees, court cost and attorney fees are sure to eat up your initial retainer within a few court visits.

 

If attorneys had confidence in themselves, that they can beat this system, they would make this a contingent fee. Since I don't see any class actions lawsuits asking for clients on this, it's still just a large roll of the dice.

 

Hopefully those signing up with an attorney read their contracts and read the fine lines on what happens when the initial down payment is gone.


Edited by AJR, 29 May 2014 - 03:59 PM.

“Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” -- Bruce Lee

 

.

American Firearms Training of Illinois

ISRA Member

NRA Life Member

NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Instructor: BP, CRSO, RTBAV, PPITH, PPOTH
T.C.T.I. Semi-Auto Firearms Instructor
Utah Conceal Carry Firearms Instructor

Illinois State Police Approved Conceal Carry Firearms Instructor

 

 

 


#109 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

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

Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:04 PM

That is an interesting take on this...having talked to a dozen different law firms in my situation there wasn't a single one that was willing to take it on contingency. They were all seeking time and materials. As a practical matter in most criminal cases, the attorneys I am familiar with work on a fixed fee basis usually something like $2,500 for a misdemeanor, $5,000 for a simple felony like a PCS or an aggravated assault if they can resolve it without going to trial. Where they go to trail in the simpler felony cases the fixed fee jumps to $20K or so. FWIW I am only sharing what I have seen first hand......that is part of the reason that I asked the question. 



#110 Dfens

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:47 AM

It sounds like that AG is already evolving its process to create additional challenges. I have not yest seen any other filings in my case so I am supposing that the AAG does not intend on filing anything further. I'll be in contact with him today to try to verify that supposition. 

 

 

I was surprised that the AG's office didn't employ additional dismissal and dilatory tactics in my case but it sounds as if they may be developing procedures along those lines. It does seem clear that the ISP has zero intention of relenting in any of these cases, however. Even if I prevail, I am concerned that the ISP will refuse to honor the court's order. It's been done before in connection with the issuance of a FOID card for someone in my county and it had to go up on appeal before the ISP would comply.

 

:no:

 


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


#111 Dfens

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 08:03 AM

Apparently he expects to receive something today and claims he will file it promptly. I find it tragically comical that the AG is fighting cases without even knowing what support they have for their position.

 

:frantics:


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


#112 out in the tall grass

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 11

Posted 30 May 2014 - 10:05 AM

Molly, If this is in the wrong thread please delete or move it, but i did a search and couldn't find anywhere this seemed to fit.

 

Found this article in our weekly newspaper in Springfield.

 

http://illinoistimes...iring-back.html

 

The lawsuit filed April 23 in Sangamon County Circuit Court states that the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens. According to applications submitted to state police, none of the plaintiffs are convicted felons, nor have they been convicted of domestic battery, nor do they have histories of mental illness or drug abuse. One, Deanna Knoll, is a Bloomington pediatrician.

Illinois Carry, a gun-rights group, is also a plaintiff. David Thompson, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing the plaintiffs, says the Illinois State Rifle Association is also involved.



#113 cnwfan3

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 10:13 AM

Molly, If this is in the wrong thread please delete or move it, but i did a search and couldn't find anywhere this seemed to fit.

 

Found this article in our weekly newspaper in Springfield.

 

http://illinoistimes...iring-back.html

 

The lawsuit filed April 23 in Sangamon County Circuit Court states that the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens. According to applications submitted to state police, none of the plaintiffs are convicted felons, nor have they been convicted of domestic battery, nor do they have histories of mental illness or drug abuse. One, Deanna Knoll, is a Bloomington pediatrician.

Illinois Carry, a gun-rights group, is also a plaintiff. David Thompson, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing the plaintiffs, says the Illinois State Rifle Association is also involved.

 

Here is where this is being discussed.

 

http://illinoiscarry...wtopic=48351=



#114 out in the tall grass

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 11

Posted 30 May 2014 - 10:48 AM

 

Molly, If this is in the wrong thread please delete or move it, but i did a search and couldn't find anywhere this seemed to fit.

 

Found this article in our weekly newspaper in Springfield.

 

http://illinoistimes...iring-back.html

 

The lawsuit filed April 23 in Sangamon County Circuit Court states that the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens. According to applications submitted to state police, none of the plaintiffs are convicted felons, nor have they been convicted of domestic battery, nor do they have histories of mental illness or drug abuse. One, Deanna Knoll, is a Bloomington pediatrician.

Illinois Carry, a gun-rights group, is also a plaintiff. David Thompson, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing the plaintiffs, says the Illinois State Rifle Association is also involved.

 

Here is where this is being discussed.

 

http://illinoiscarry...wtopic=48351=

 

 

Thank you Cnwfan3.  i did 3 different searches and couldn't seem to find it, i knew it had to be somewhere. 

I just thought it was great that someone was covering it.



#115 StandandFight75

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 14

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:38 PM

If I missed it someplace else I apologize but who do we contact from the NRA and ISRA for help with board denial? I'm having a horrible time selecting an attorney. I'm in Lake County but away for the summer so I'm a tad stressed trying to make the appeal deadline. :unsure:


NRA Member

ISRA Member


#116 cnwfan3

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:23 PM

If I missed it someplace else I apologize but who do we contact from the NRA and ISRA for help with board denial? I'm having a horrible time selecting an attorney. I'm in Lake County but away for the summer so I'm a tad stressed trying to make the appeal deadline. :unsure:

 

Did you get your denial letter yet?  The first thing you need to do it get your denial letter.  You have 35 days from the date on the letter to file your appeal.



#117 StandandFight75

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 14

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:27 PM

Just got it today. My mail has been forwarded so it took longer to get. It's dated May 20th so I need to move fast.

Edited by StandandFight75, 30 May 2014 - 01:28 PM.

NRA Member

ISRA Member


#118 cnwfan3

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:45 PM

Just got it today. My mail has been forwarded so it took longer to get. It's dated May 20th so I need to move fast.

 

The very first post in this thread from Molly B has a sample of what you can use to file an appeal.  I am in Cook County so I had to file at the Daley Center.  I'm not sure where you would file, but I would think any courthouse in Lake county should work.  You will need 3 copies of the appeal, 3 copies of the letter, and there will be forms you need to fill out there as well.  I named the Illinois State Police as the defendent, but some are naming the individual board members as well.  It cost me $290 in Cook County, I'm not sure what Lake county charges.  After you file, then you will have a little time to look for a lawyer.  I hope that help you to get started on the appeal process.



#119 StandandFight75

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 14

Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:05 PM

I need an attorney to file on my behalf. I'm out of the state until September.

NRA Member

ISRA Member


#120 StandandFight75

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 14

Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:06 PM

And I much rather have an attorney handle everything regardless. I feel more comfortable that way.

NRA Member

ISRA Member





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users