Jump to content


Supporting Team I
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

354 profile views

hceuterpe's Achievements


Member (3/24)

  1. You can kiss your job goodbye if you go the regular route unfortunately is the reality. Honestly you'd be lucky to get your FOID back in 12 months that way. If you're considered LEO, this might be fast enough: https://isp.illinois.gov/TypesOfAppeals/LawEnforcement Still need someone to conduct the forensic psych eval and write a favorable finding. If it's been immediately after your release/discharge that might be difficult. I think the court will just bump it back and say you need to go through the ISP because you didn't exhaust your options with them first. Definitely find a lawyer with a history handling these types of cases, imo especially if your Union lawyer is drawing a blank. There's a user on here that handles both professional licensing matters and food/ccl appeals.
  2. Cop just had to ask the kid "hey come over here real quick, once" . Dead giveaway if they're from Wisconsin...
  3. This form isn't new by any means. I think the most obvious update with this current form is the instructions to email the completed form to the email address listed. Might be other updates...
  4. Don't forget about Anjanette Young in Chicago. CPD busted down her house in a no knock at night, caught her naked and wouldn't let her get dressed for quite some time. They got the wrong house and the guy they were looking for hadn't been living there for over 4 years. Apparently because their CI was useless... No knock warrants really need to end.
  5. Not only that, but instead of the cop obtaining legal counsel on his own or through the union, the city themselves is representing him. Hard to argue there's only a few rotten apples when the city itself is throwing in their legal resources to assist. I've been watching lots of audit videos and getting more familiar with the legalities of cop stops. In particular even for stop and identify states, a cop can't demand/compel you to provide identity on a whim. Only if arrested or detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime. It's not the driver's fault that sizable chunks of your dumpy city is full of crime and prostitutes, let alone being aware of this, as he was out of town. Certainly not justified in violating several of his civil rights. Not to mention the cop losing all impartiality in conducting this stop as a fishing exercise primarily because the driver got lost in a dumpy part of your city--i.e. even if not immediately obvious, let's keep looking unconstitutionally until I find something illegal, or if necessary assumed to be illegal, expired. Not sure anyone can argue that, assumed to be illegal/expired without validating first could ever possibly be construed as reasonable...
  6. Not sure how you could say the interpretation only applies to ownership and to allow requiring permit to carry, considering the 2nd amendment includes "keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." in its language...
  7. Tbh and putting on my Cyber security hat (because that's my day job) the admins would be doing the userbase a favor by not re-enabling Tapatalk. I quit using it years ago over concerns I had with its security. I believe it behaves as an aggregator for the various forums. So it doesn't surprise me it's erroneously popping up browser user agents (in this case Firefox) that members don't recognize that in turn get sent as email notifications for new sign alerts. Do a Google search over this and you'll find countless announcements of forums blocking Tapatalk over security concerns such as this. Besides the browser mobile UI after the IC update seems pretty good.
  8. DId the counselor only do outpatient? If they're actually PsyD or MD and did rounds in the in-patient wing I could see a really remote chance, but they're not supposed to report outpatient treatment so long as it's not court ordered, and they didn't deem you to be clear and present danger. Tbh you might as well apply. Because either you get extremely unlucky and find out they screwed up (by reported incorrectly) and your FOID gets revoked when you apply for a CCL. Or later down the line you try to renew your FOID, and they find that info and it gets revoked. It sounds like you're about up for the renewal or close to it anyways. Also for what it's worth apparently back before the CCL law, the mental health reporting was really spotty with a lot of facilities. While ultimately you shouldn't have been reported, that further helps you I guess...
  9. The order goes like this in terms of trust level: USPS mail, email, calls,texts. The latter two significantly easier to spoof and therefore subject to scams vs the first two (and arguably so much it's bordering on becoming useless forms of communication due to the incessant levels of abuse for them). In terms of actually getting notice to providing information such as a DL, my recommendation is that unless it's physical mail (and possibly you actually explicitly consenting to email communication for a very specific use case such as with registration renewal), assume the notice is a scam.
  10. The psychologist that I spoke to specializes in FOID evaluations and told me there isn't any point in trying until 5 years have gone by. I have been told to be VERY careful when selecting one to go to as many of them are anti gun to begin with and it's next to impossible to get them to clear you. As for attorneys, I've spoke to a couple but it just seems there aren't very many who really understand the whole thing and maybe that's because ISP makes their own rules as they go along. I actually had one attorney inform me that he may be able to get my IL FOID back but my federal FOID is another issue, I didn't even bother asking him to explain to me what a federal FOID is. I'm also disappointed in the gun groups, seems like one of them would offer some kind of legal assistance or would have filed some sort of class action suit on this. Or at least a suggested list of attorneys and psychologists would be nice. Where is the ACLU? They should be all over the removal of Constitutional rights without due process. It seems to me that I should be able to put a dollar value on the amount of time my rights were unlawfully taken away from me. Funny thing is, this whole ordeal has actually been a testament to the strength of my mental health. If I did have issues, going through this could have pushed me right over the edge. I am compiling information and creating an outline and plan to move forward with meeting with the chief and the officer who wrote the report. It may help me and I don't think it will hurt. I'd still say whoever told you that 5 year minimum is highly suspect and questionable. That particular prohibitor doesn't even have a 5 year period, whereby after the timespan its treated differently...
  11. Seems like you've experienced firsthand one of the most unconstitutional laws the state has to offer. Due process need not apply to this law... The FOID law itself states clear and present danger reporting from LEO needs to be demonstrated behavior. This is in contrast to communicated to specifically psychiatrist, psychologist, etc. So unless you said something specifically to the cop that the cop didn't like, they didn't have grounds to report it. The problem is that report is purely circumstantial in nature and confidential. Seems the ISP also accepts the information unconditionally so they likely won't believe you regardless of whether or not you try to get the local PD to retract it. You're probably best off finding an attorney that specializes in FOID appeals. I wouldn't even bother contacting the police chief before then. The 5 years minimum is bogus. You'll want to get the evaluation from Someone else anyways. Finally in case you haven't figured it out: The cops aren't your friends. The less you say to them. The better off you are.
  12. 69 Jan 19, 2021 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Defendants' unopposed motion to file overlength brief instanter 68 is granted. Mailed notice. (dm, ) (Entered: 01/19/2021) I'm learning so much about the law over following this case.... Basically this means they acknowledge they missed their deadline and are asking the judge for more time to file their brief. Overlength brief I'm confused on but I think it might mean their response was longer than expected? From what I'm reading, they'd better not make a habit of doing this...
  13. The problem with that suggestion is a ) They would have to subpoena ISP for these records, which I highly doubt they'd willingly cough given they'd immediately counter it with privacy concerns (which I can't blame them for) b ) they would then have to obtain consent from the 250K people which by itself would be a herculean task, and an incredibly expensive one at that. Even then not sure it would even buy them anything. ISPFSB has already disclosed the backlog counts and average wait times. I'm just spitballing here but I suspect the ISP is intentionally delaying the cases in perpetuity in order to buy them more time to work on the backlog at least in the short term and then going back to court waving their hands and saying "tah-da problem solved! Dismiss it, judge!" And I emphasize IN THE SHORT TERM. Otherwise allowing the case to proceed to the point the court orders an injunction means it becomes a far bigger hassle and perhaps ripe for the court to go even further to possibly have the audacity (in their minds, not ours of course) to rule the FOID law as unconstitutional.
  14. NOTICE by Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly 61, memorandum in support of motion 62 (Johnston, Mary) (Entered: 01/11/2021) 67 Jan 15, 2021 RESPONSE by Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kellyin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Illinois State Rifle Association, John M. Marszalek, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for preliminary injunction 47 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Notice of Filing)(Johnston, Mary) (Entered: 01/15/2021) Buy on PACER 68 Jan 15, 2021 MOTION by Defendants Jarod Ingebrigtsen, Brendan F. Kelly for leave to file excess pages (UNOPPOSED) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Notice of Filing)(Johnston, Mary) (Entered: 01/15/2021) The first motion basically is that they are trying to dismiss the case because it's frivolous, typical examples: The plaintiff is alleging conduct that does not amount to a violation of lawThe plaintiff has failed to list all of the elements of proof for the violationNo measurable injury has actually been indicated in the complaintThe motion recent motion appears to be to basically stall to read the latest amended complaint, which was way back in November. Probably what they are doing is Kelly and the AG attorney assigned to the defendants are going back to the FSB and telling them to quickly issue the cards listed in complaint. Then they come back and say there's no case because the injured parties have already received their FOID cards. Then ISRA ends up going back to amend the complaint again, looking for more names to add. Same tactic as the Thomas vs ISP case.
  15. The FOID law specifically lists a prohibitor as someone addicted to narcotics. Further down it references the IL controlled substances act, it specifies that the state defines narcotics as either opiates or from the coca plant (e.g. cocaine, crack cocaine). Further it mostly specifies the illicit use of it and not use as adhered to as prescribed. In fact THC/marijuana is not listed even once in that law. Clearly the FOID application is poorly worded since it caused confusion. But sadly there is little to no true, effective due process with the FOID... As for the issue at the federal level with the 4473. Is it only the THC that you find effective, or can the cannabinoid oil do the trick for your pain? From what I understand, the oil itself (not containing THC beyond the minimal trace amounts) does not run afoul in either the eyes of the ATF, or the DEA...
  • Create New...