Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advice Needed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Lufniss View Post
    Funny story, they contacted me before they received my Article 78 letter. Their communication with each other is inept seeing how they had told me over the phone two weeks before that they had no idea when I would be contacted. So hopefully after sending the letter I can get the permit in the proper time after the interview.
    Ha - I think you and I spoke about this just a couple days ago! - blocked numbers and such?

    Comment


      #17
      Yes, that was me!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Lufniss View Post
        Thank you! It’s so nice to have access to it for free!

        Is there anybody out there who has sent this in at Suffolk who can give me an idea as to whether they did the right thing or if they ignored it and an attorney was needed anyway?
        I sent the letter to the PLB myself.
        I was quoted $5,000 from a lawyer.
        I talked to my county legislator and another on the Public Safety Committee (the overseers of the SCPD and Sheriff). They each spoke to Geraldine Hart about the delay.
        I spoke to, but did not file a criminal complaint with the District Attorney's office.

        It took 13 months from questionnaire submission to license issuance, about the same time frame as other applicants at the time.
        ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
        Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by incognito View Post

          I sent the letter to the PLB myself.
          I was quoted $5,000 from a lawyer.
          I talked to my county legislator and another on the Public Safety Committee (the overseers of the SCPD and Sheriff). They each spoke to Geraldine Hart about the delay.
          I spoke to, but did not file a criminal complaint with the District Attorney's office.

          It took 13 months from questionnaire submission to license issuance, about the same time frame as other applicants at the time.
          What did they tell you? and why DIDN'T you file the criminal complaint??

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Parashooter View Post

            What did they tell you? and why DIDN'T you file the criminal complaint??
            My legislator acknowledged that they are breaking the law. Was intrigued by the possibility of the criminal complaint prevailing. BTW - the criminal complaint could be filed on either the county or state level.
            The legislator on the Public Safety Committee, and all of the committee members, failed to follow up on their responsibilities serving on that committee. The minutes of the Public Safety Committee of 3/1/2018 starting at 10:07 a.m. document the ongoing delay issue.

            The timing of the 6 month milestone I believe would be problematic in my case. Tim Sini was the commissioner when the application was submitted in 2017 but Geraldine Hart became the acting commissioner/commissioner shortly before the 6 month period ended in 2018. I don't know if a complaint, other than the conspiracy allegation, would prevail against either commissioner.

            The complaint is intriguing, especially if the are statues that apply to government officials analogous to New York Penal Law §20.20 and §20.25 which applies to corporations. (see below)

            My gut is that public officials are indemnified for their actions while serving in good faith (Chief Burke was not). The conspiracy charge might prevail against the commander of the SCPLB and others. Also realize that the District Attorney's office can decide not to prosecute (I suspect that they would not considering the wide reaching implications). The DA has no obligation to keep you informed as to the progress, or lack thereof, in the case.

            As time passed, my application was making headway. The SCPLB has in its file untrue allegations regarding my prior license. Considering all factors I decided it was in my selfish individual interest not to file the complaint for fear of retaliation against my application and potential negative publicity regarding a family member which could potentially impact his/her career. The statute of limitations is two years to process the misdemeanor complaint (which has not expired). Had my application been denied, and subject to obtaining consent from my family member, the drafted complaint would likely have been filed.

            So if there is someone who has a more favorable fact pattern, please read my signature line and make your own decision. And for all the keyboard commandos out there who criticize my decision, feel free to have a non licensed family member apply for the permit and follow through on the complaint.

            I am not a lawyer; however, threatening someone with filing a criminal complaint if your application is not timely processed MIGHT be blackmail/extortion.

            I would be concerned if I was a government employee that was in any way associated with the daily operation management or oversight of the application process.


            New York Penal Law §20.20 and §20.25 - emphasis added

            20.20 Criminal liability of corporations.
            1. As used in this section:
            (a) "Agent" means any director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act in behalf of the corporation.

            (b) "High managerial agent" means an officer of a corporation or any other agent in a position of comparable authority with respect to the formulation of corporate policy or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.

            2. A corporation is guilty of an offense when:
            (a) The conduct constituting the offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on corporations by law; or

            (b) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested, commanded, or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation; or

            (c) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation, and the offense is (i) a misdemeanor or a violation, (ii) one defined by a statute which clearly indicates a legislative intent to impose such criminal liability on a corporation, or (iii) any offense set forth in title twenty-seven of article seventy-one of the environmental conservation law.

            20.25 Criminal liability of an individual for corporate conduct.
            A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name or behalf.
            ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
            Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by incognito View Post

              My legislator acknowledged that they are breaking the law. Was intrigued by the possibility of the criminal complaint prevailing. BTW - the criminal complaint could be filed on either the county or state level.
              The legislator on the Public Safety Committee, and all of the committee members, failed to follow up on their responsibilities serving on that committee. The minutes of the Public Safety Committee of 3/1/2018 starting at 10:07 a.m. document the ongoing delay issue.

              The timing of the 6 month milestone I believe would be problematic in my case. Tim Sini was the commissioner when the application was submitted in 2017 but Geraldine Hart became the acting commissioner/commissioner shortly before the 6 month period ended in 2018. I don't know if a complaint, other than the conspiracy allegation, would prevail against either commissioner.

              The complaint is intriguing, especially if the are statues that apply to government officials analogous to New York Penal Law §20.20 and §20.25 which applies to corporations. (see below)

              My gut is that public officials are indemnified for their actions while serving in good faith (Chief Burke was not). The conspiracy charge might prevail against the commander of the SCPLB and others. Also realize that the District Attorney's office can decide not to prosecute (I suspect that they would not considering the wide reaching implications).
              As time passed, my application was making headway. The SCPLB has in its file untrue allegations regarding my prior license. Considering all factors I decided it was in my selfish individual interest not to file the complaint for fear of retaliation against my application and potential negative publicity regarding a family member which could potentially impact his/her career. The statute of limitations is two years to process the misdemeanor complaint (which has not expired). Had my application been denied, and subject to obtaining consent from my family member, the drafted complaint would likely have been filed.

              So if there is someone who has a more favorable fact pattern, please read my signature line and make your own decision. And for all the keyboard commandos out there who criticize my decision, feel free to have a non licensed family member apply for the permit and follow through on the complaint.

              I am not a lawyer; however, threatening someone with filing a criminal complaint if your application is not timely processed MIGHT be blackmail/extortion.

              I would be concerned if I was a government employee that was in any way associated with the daily operation management or oversight of the application process.
              [B][I](b
              20.25 Criminal liability of an individual for corporate conduct.
              A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name or behalf.
              Why go criminal? The burden of proof is the highest, and you'll never win.

              A federal 1983 civil rights suit will, if successful, get you money damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees paid by the County.

              A civil case is way more realistic. Don't waste your time on anything criminal.
              Ballistic: "Grif... You are my legal eagle spirit animal...."

              Comment


                #22
                It is about changing behavior, not about the money. Besides, there is no monetary cost to the complainant unless retaliated against.

                The thinking is that public servants are more concerned about their pensions than public service.

                Multiple misdemeanor convictions could be grounds for dismissal for those on the naughty list.

                What is hard to prove? A missed deadline seems easy enough to prove.

                My thoughts (manifesto) on intent:

                Failure to Allocate Sufficient Resources:

                Prima facie evidence of intent to violate the law is demonstrated by those high managerial agents, including the Commanding Officer of the Pistol Licensing Bureau, Commissioners and possibly the County Executive, each with budgetary authority regarding the allocation of resources and/or decision making authority regarding the formulation of policy and/or the supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees. In making resource allocation and policy decisions, cost/benefit risk/reward factors are contemplated considering what failures are acceptable and which are not.

                The United States Department of Justice, which is in its third year of monitoring the Suffolk County Police Department for perceived civil rights violations, in its reports indicates various areas where the Suffolk County Police Department is failing to meet standards. Since the failure to timely issue pistol licenses is not being monitored by the United States Department of Justice, it is reasonable to conclude that other failure points are receiving more attention and resources to the detriment of those civilians seeking pistol permits. And within the Pistol Licensing Bureau, it is reasonable to expect that a thorough investigation would reveal that retiring law enforcement officers and the like get priority treatment and are not facing similar delays in having their licenses issued.

                Each decision unfavorable to allocating resources to timely civilian pistol license application processing in violation of the clearly stated six month requirement represents a contemplative event demonstrating intent.

                Misinformation:

                The Pistol Licensing Bureau response to numerous applicants protesting alleged violations of the six month time limit to act established pursuant to NYPL §400.00(4-a) is that the PPB-3 Application, the “official” form of the application, is jointly prepared and submitted for processing by the applicant and the Pistol Licensing Bureau investigating officer at the time of the interview and that is the time from which the six month period is measured.

                Formulating such a contorted response demonstrates that Pistol Licensing Bureau employees (being their area of expertise) knew of, or should have known of, the provisions of NYPL §400.00 in its entirety including NYPL §400.00 (4-a) and NYPL §400.00 (15).

                The Pistol Licensing Bureau prohibiting or deferring until the time of the interview for its convenience: (i) the taking of the applicant’s photographs and fingerprints; (ii) the printing of PPB-3 Application; (iii) reviewing the responses with the applicant; and (iv) obtaining the applicant’s initials and signature attesting to the responses on the PPB-3 Application cannot effectively neuter the obvious legislative intent of NYPL §400.00(4-a) requiring the Licensing Officer to act on a request for a license within six months. NYPL §400.00(4-a) serves no purpose other than to prohibit undue delays in issuing licenses such as those being suffered by the civilians in Suffolk County.

                The Pistol Licensing Bureau’s contorted response hinging on the significance the PPB-3 Application as the application (a form to be filled out by an applicant) discounts entirely the earlier submission of the Application Questionnaire along with the Application Fee as an application (the act of requesting or applying for) a pistol license in the context of NYPL §400.00(4-a) necessitating timely action by the Licensing Officer.

                The first rather insignificant steps the Pistol Licensing Bureau takes after accepting an application for processing are opening the envelope, depositing the Application Fee and logging in the Application Questionnaire. The earliest significant steps of the Pistol Licensing Bureau’s process are assigning an investigating officer and scheduling an interview. What matters is that in Western Suffolk County the request for a pistol license is being processed by the direct subordinates of the Licensing Officer initiated by the submission of a form it created and it requires before the PPB-3 Application is compiled and printed out during the interview.

                Duplicitous Scheme:

                If the Pistol Licensing Bureau’s assertion that submitting its Application Questionnaire along with the Application Fee is not an application for a pistol license as the word application is used in NYPL §400.00(4-a) is true, then one must conclude that the Perpetrators have been perpetuating a duplicitous scheme intentionally designed to repeatedly violate civilians’ rights to a decision in the time frame prescribed by law by not accepting for submission the PPB-3 Application earlier in the process.

                Neither the Pistol Licensing Bureau’ Guide nor its Application Questionnaire Instructions make any mention of the PPB-3 Application as to is importance or even as to its existence.

                Some applicants claim that their attempt to submit to the Pistol Licensing Bureau such partially completed PPB-3 Application (without photographs and/or fingerprints) along with the Application Questionnaire and Application Fee were not accepted by the Pistol Licensing Bureau at the time of presentation.
                Last edited by incognito; 04-25-2019, 09:11 AM.
                ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
                Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

                Comment


                  #23
                  Yes, I have too much spare time.
                  ANY violation by ANY person of ANY provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor. - NYPL §400.00(15)
                  Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor. - NYPL §105.00

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Lufniss View Post
                    One more thing I forgot to add in my original post. One of the people who signed the paper for me might move out of NY before I am seen if it goes into a 1.5-2 year wait. Does anyone know what will happen in that situation?
                    Welcome to the forum. My application AKA "Questionaire" is in one year as of mid April. I had my interview on March 25th. When I was there, the IO pulled out a copy of the NYSP PPB-03 form completely typed out already, with all of my information from the SCPD questionaire, including my references information. He then attached the fingerprints and photos taken. He advised that I was then to take this with me and have my references sign it. He provided an envelope and said to mail it back to is attention when done. I returned it a week later in person. So I lost ANOTHER WEEK doing this trying to round up my references, two were in Florida on vacation.

                    When I first submitted the packet a year ago April, I included the SCPD questionaire filled out with references signed and notarized. I included the separate reference forms for each of them to fill out and sign. (I forgot if these had to be notarized). I then included a filled out PPB-03 with my references signing it also, in the hopes I'd save time. (Only the last page for fingerprints/photos was blank) This copy was flipped by the SC PLB.

                    As far as your contacts moving? The IO specifically said that if one of my references was no longer available/reachable, that I would need to let him know. He said don't simply cross them out and write in someone new without telling him. So take that at face value.
                    Lieutenant: You got a pistol permit?
                    Nick Charles: No.
                    Lieutenant: Ever heard of the Sullivan Act?
                    Nora Charles: Oh, that's all right, we're married.
                    -The Thin Man - 1934

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Sooooooooooo glad I applied years ago.
                      I am not armed out of fear of who's in front of me.
                      I am armed out of love of those behind me.

                      Anyone who says money doesn't matter to them is either a FOOL or a LIAR or BOTH!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X