Jump to content

ChicagoRonin70

Members
  • Posts

    4,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ChicagoRonin70

  1. I talked to a few attorneys and they told me i basically have to prove that the false information denied me opportunities like jobs,licenses etc. I was provided the concealed carry license so i was not affected by these lies or mistaken identity errors by the CPD. Been on the job for 7 years so its hard to prove i was denied employment even though they had me down as a convicted felon when i got my rap sheet from 35th.They fixed that one on the spot when i showed them a foid card and a deposition from 2006. The review board could see right through this one especially the false DUI when all i had to do is go to the secretary of state to get a MVR. I contact a lawyer about the false gang database and they told me there is a civil suit going and she would get back with me.

     

    You were not immediately provided with the concealed carry license, and the false information did delay you exercising a Constitutional right, so technically the damage had already been done, even if relief had been provided by granting the license eventually. It was also apparently deliberately false information, from what you seemed to be saying, so that would rise to the level of illegal activity to deny you your Constitutional rights, under color of the law: To wit:

     

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

     

    This is the sort of thing that you should see if you can get a hard-charging civil rights/Second Amendment attorney to take up on your behalf, and perhaps get the whole idiotic process challenged on the basis of its unconstitutionality. I almost had the opportunity to do this myself, back at the end of 2014 when I was objected to, but because there was not sufficient evidence of real, deliberate malfeasance, it would have been less likely to be successful. From what you wrote above, your case would be much stronger that there was deliberate bad intent.

  2. Thank you molly you have helped me and i was approved! The CPD put out some very false objections stating that i had a DUI,im in the gang database,i intentionally ran someone over with my car and i grabbed a ex girlfriend by the arm during a verbal altercation.I was convicted in 2006 for possession of a firearm with a foid card which was a misdemeanor. For the false DUI i sent in a court purpose MVR from the secretary of state of Illinois showing i clearly never had a DUI. For the gang database i went to CPD headquarters and questioned them on this and they could not help me. There were police reports on the intentionally running someone over and grabbing a ex girlfriend by the arm. They would not release the reports so i had to do a Freedom of Information Request to get those reports and i still have not received it to to this day. The documents i sent to the Illinois State Police review board for statement are the following: Affidavit stating that i have never been questioned,charge,arrested,convicted for DUI,ANY VIOLENCE,DOMESTIC OR SIMPLE AND AGGRAVATED,ANY GANG ACTIVITY,INTENTIONALLY RUNNING SOMEONE OVER WITH MY VEHICLE. I sent in a Freedom of Information request showing that the CPD will not even release this false information to me. I sent in my High School Diploma,Safe Driver awards because i am a truck driver,Print out from social security site showing that i have been working since i was 17 years old. I responded to every objection and my statement about my 2006 conviction for possession of a firearm with a foid card was sincere and explained exactly what happen and how i will never make that mistake again. I also sent in a disposition of this case. I included the statement molly has provided at the end of my 3 page letter. I advise any one with false objections to get whatever you can to show that you are innocent. If you are guilty just explained to them what happen and how you have changed. Thanks again Molly

     

    How can a lawsuit not be a viable punitive option if the CPD is apparently lying about this, officially, to the board? Isn't this deprivation of rights under color of law, in essence?

  3.  

    I once got a check in the mail for 17 cents as my part of a class action lawsuit I didn't even know I was in. It literally cost them more for the postage than the check!

    Even better. I was once mailed a bill for 26 cents. Yes, they spent 40 cents on a stamp to bill me for 26 cents. Not to mention the printing, paper, envelope and administrative time they wasted. I taped a quarter and a penny to the invoice and wrote "you have got to be kidding me" on it and mailed it back.

     

     

    I used to get residuals for some songwriting publishing rights that I have, and over the years the checks they sent me got smaller and smaller. By the time I stopped getting anything more, I was getting checks for 8 cents, 5 cents, 3 cents, and 2 cents. It literally cost me more in gas to go to the bank to cash them then they were worth.

  4.  

     

    From that article:

     

    WARNING: Without state knife law preemption, Chicago’s switchblade ban continues. No doubt others ban switchblades as well and this patchwork of local bans is potentially waiting to trap unwary knife carriers.

     

    Does this mean that in Chicago, even if someone has a FOID card, they cannot own a switchblade, despite this law's passage?

    I've glanced through the Chicago ordinance and didn't see anything about switchblades, just the length limit. I was under the impression that an automatic under 2.5" would be legal.

     

    I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't advise anyone either way, but if someone could reference where in the ordinance the auto ban is, I'd appreciate it.

     

    I know for sure Oak Forest bans any spring-loaded knife (even non-auto assisted folders, which have been legal in the rest of the state all along).

     

    Ronin, that Schrade is actually considered an assisted-opening knife, and had been legal in most of the state all along. Cool design, I had one a few years ago.

     

     

    Yes, I know. I was thinking that now that I have one of these, does it moot my need for an actual automatic knife?

     

    Also, I believe it says here . . .

     

    https://chicagocode.org/downloads/code-text/8-24-020.txt

     

    "c. No person shall carry or possess any knife, the blade of which is released by

    a spring mechanism, including knives known as “switch-blades”, any

    blackjack, slingshot, sandclub, sandbag, metal knuckles or bludgeon."

     

    Which would, I think, make any switchblade illegal without preemption.

  5. Knife Rights’ Illinois Switchblade Ban Repeal Signed! Effective Immediately

    https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/knife-rights-illinois-switchblade-ban-repeal-signed-effective-immediately/

     

     

    From that article:

     

    WARNING: Without state knife law preemption, Chicago’s switchblade ban continues. No doubt others ban switchblades as well and this patchwork of local bans is potentially waiting to trap unwary knife carriers.

     

    Does this mean that in Chicago, even if someone has a FOID card, they cannot own a switchblade, despite this law's passage?

  6. Buy now from Illinois company; don't worry about Federal laws shipping across state lines.

     

    AIK Adams International Knifeworks

    http://www.adamsknifeworks.com/store/index.php

     

     

     

    This is the third time in as many days that I have heard mention of this company, with the previous two being high endorsements of AIK as a edged weapon supplier. I have them bookmarked in my resources file for such things now.

  7. I filed my lawsuit they failed to answer so the Board and its members are in default. Tomorrow I am filing a motion and naming Sheriff Dart as A subject of NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.

     

    This is when a LEO does what is wrong but believes the end justifies the means..His objections based on the % of being overturned fits him perfectly. Up before Judge John Lee next Wednesday, hopefully I will get a court order to stop this Moron..

     

    Check his 60 minute interview with Leslie Stahl in May 2017. Half of his 7500 inmates are not criminals or a danger to anyone ! Yet us members or anyone who just walked past the Police and have not been to his Hotel in the last 20 years, he objects to a CCL..

     

    Who is your 2nd Amendment attorney for the case? I am currently looking for a new one myself, in possible preparation for a suit against the state and the CTA in regards to the prohibition of CCL on public transportation, which severely impedes my right to keep and bear arms since I am a disabled veteran who does not drive and relies upon public transportation for most of my mobility.

  8. I wonder how many with the FCCL carry every day, everywhere they can.

     

    My guess is a very small %.

    I carry wherever and whenever possible concealed, and FOID transport everywhere else that I can bring an unloaded firearm in a closed case. I would say that I carry 99 percent of the time or more.

  9. I especially love the way that the plaintiff's lawyer cleverly paints the parallel of Nazi-esque arms control to the defendant's behavior and actually gets her to essentially cop to it:

     

    When it is pointed out to Defendant that it is equally difficult to perform background checks on residents and non-residents, Defendant invokes the so called “Nuremburg defense”.

     

    A. I follow what is put forth in front of me.

    Q. You’re just following orders

    A. Well, if you want to simplify it, yes.

     

    Even funnier is that in the deposition Exhibit B, literally every time the state's counsel Bilal objects, Maag tells Trame that she can answer the question. It's like watching a petulant kid continually trying to butt in and being told, "Shut up, junior."

  10. I think that even the shortest term of these are four-year spans for data collection and analysis. The reason I have access to them is that these are clients I've done work with in the past for research verification and I'm kind of pulling strings to get a peek at what they're doing. I expect that there are also shorter term studies being done, and by some of the same institutions, but those aren't ones I'm currently tapped into.

  11.  

     

    The thing to consider with those numbers is that while the state and Cook might be up by over 50 percent from the first to the second year ends, that's actually a significant slowdown and downward trend. Next year, those numbers are predicted to continue to decline. Note that the decline from the first six months in Cook County to the second was 7,676 to 6,277 gained per 6 months, and in Illinois it was 28,439 and 23,363, which was an 18.23 percent and 17.85 percent decrease in the second six month span from the first respectively.

     

    This is going to continue along those descending lines, and given the economic, social, and disqualification limitations so perhaps we'd get 50–55 percent of the 2015 amount increases in total over the whole year, so maybe 170–175K by the end of this year, if it weren't an election year and the gun issue being a main point of note. The researchers that I've talked with say that as a result of that, we're likely to get a further bump, but that will be sufficient to galvanize additional license seekers only to the tune of enough to bring the end-of-2016 totals to about 180-185K.

     

     

    It will take a while before we have enough information to begin to guess what these intra-year fluctuations mean. Meanwhile, the gap between the number of active licenses and what some of us think that number ought to be is best viewed as an opportunity and a call to action.

     

     

    Actually, that's not true. Several groups at various universities in Illinois have been studying this since before CCLs began to be issued, and they are factoring in all sorts of additional socio-economic variables that have been shown to affect acquisition of a CCL by residents of this state. I've seen the computer model projections, as well as have been doing my own statistical predictive analysis of it, and both theirs and mine are spot on (I was only 393 CCLs off of the total this year, and the average estimation by the research groups was just as close or closer). Unless some factor that is completely outside what's being considered comes into play, for either lowering or increasing the rate of license acquisition, the trend is at this point very predictable. I'll even go so far as to make my end of 2016 prediction now and say 184,000 active licenses in the state by December 31. I'm aiming a bit higher than middle of the range, because I think that there will be a couple of surges both early in the year and around the election, so that will push it up a little more, but if it's a lot higher than that, I would be completely shocked.

  12. Here are the FCCL data for Illinois, broken down by county, from 12/31/2014, 6/30/2015, and 12/31/2015. I'm still waiting for the FOID data and will publish a more complete spreadsheet when I've got that. Meanwhile, here's a PDF containing the counts along with columns showing percentage change for the entire year and for each half. Note that for the state as a whole, licenses are increasing at a 56.5 annual clip (or is it mag?). Cook, up 58.4%, outpaces the state as a whole.

     

    attachicon.gifFCCL by IL County 2015.pdf

     

    The thing to consider with those numbers is that while the state and Cook might be up by over 50 percent from the first to the second year ends, that's actually a significant slowdown and downward trend. Next year, those numbers are predicted to continue to decline. Note that the decline from the first six months in Cook County to the second was 7,676 to 6,277 gained per 6 months, and in Illinois it was 28,439 and 23,363, which was an 18.23 percent and 17.85 percent decrease in the second six month span from the first respectively.

     

    This is going to continue along those descending lines, and given the economic, social, and disqualification limitations so perhaps we'd get 50–55 percent of the 2015 amount increases in total over the whole year, so maybe 170–175K by the end of this year, if it weren't an election year and the gun issue being a main point of note. The researchers that I've talked with say that as a result of that, we're likely to get a further bump, but that will be sufficient to galvanize additional license seekers only to the tune of enough to bring the end-of-2016 totals to about 180-185K.

  13. Dang, Ronin, that's a glowing review if I ever saw one. If like to have been a fly on the wall in the conversations arising from that letter.

     

    Apparently, a memo that was sent out regarding it that essentially said to avoid giving me any reason for legal action, because of the nightmare that would ensue for the FCCL law. It was one of the last things that Quinn's office dealt with, from my understanding.

     

    My wife also wrote a letter to the CCLRB on my behalf, essentially taking them to task for trying to deny me my Constitutional rights after I fought and sacrificed for my country. That was another thing that they didn't want any part of getting into a courtroom.

  14. So you go in voluntarily for a check-up of your mental state and regardless of the determination you lose your rights.

     

    Your bat-poop crazy! Loss of rights.

    Your Just plain normal! Loss of rights.

    You are deemed to be the sanest person on earth! lose your rights.

     

    Definitely a deprivation suite in the works.

     

    Actually, I've pretty much been deemed eminently sane by the Federal government, and the State of Illinois was pretty much forced to fast-track my CCL application through, or else risk going straight to Federal court since a representative from a Federal agency was involved. The reason they did that was because they didn't want a challenge to the CCL law in that venue, because of the risk to having the entire thing invalidated.

     

    Sometimes the system actually works even better than it should, on rare occasion.

     

    http://i.imgur.com/T3nICYj.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/PbyKtyV.jpg

  15. Mr. Maag doesn't let any grass grow under his feet and has already filed a response to Trame's Motion to Stay the briefing and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. He accepts a 30-day extension for Trame to respond, but requests anything beyond that be denied.

     

    Maag makes it clear that there is little that needs to be "discovered." Things like verifying military status and driver's license are easy to confirm. His sarcasm is entertaining:

     

    There is a large building in Springfield, Illinois, full of people that do this for a living, and to think that it has not already been done stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.

    Simultaneously, the court established the discovery schedule timeline. Discovery is due by 4/15/2016 and Dispositive Motions are due by 5/15/2016.

     

     

    Can you post a link to Maag's filing? I'd like to read that myself!

  16. Attached are the Defendant's response to the original complaint (filed Aug 3, 2015) and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (filed Aug 17).

     

    Basically, ISP uses (among others) an affirmative defense that the plaintiff's claims are "premature and unripe." One of their claims is that the plaintiff failed to apply for either a FOID card or a concealed carry license. Plaintiff revealed in the original complaint that she has a FOID card, and as her attorney points out in the Motion, it is impossible for her to even apply for a CCL without using an address from an approved state.

     

    Happy reading!

     

     

    Wow, that motion for summary judgement and permanent injunction is an

     

    http://straightrazorplace.com/attachments/razors/77289d1315004400-one-bad-ass-wacker-leloir-lazarillo-beating-donkey1.jpg

     

    for the ISP and the state of Illinois, ain't it?

     

    And essentially, the ISP's response to just about every single point made by the plaintiff is "I know nothing" and "I don't think so" and "I don't agree."

     

    What kind of idiots are my taxes paying for as counsel for the ISP?

×
×
  • Create New...