How to Appeal License Revocation?

[headcase]

Originally Posted by MrUgly

Being a glutton for punishment, I decided to take another stab at this. I spoke with Angie, in the Montgomery County Prothonotary office for what steps a MontCo resident would take.

1) In person, bring cash or certified funds in the amount of $219.00
2) File a Petition in a format that the judge can sign.*
3) Show up in court

*What's this? You don't know how to write a legal petition? Very well. The clerk will show you the Law Library, where there are numerous texts that will show you the format you need to use and the particular verbiage to copy.

There are no forms.

Get. A. Lawyer. Pay. Him. Money. You do not need one, but neither do you have the be an ASE certified mechanic to work on your car, it just makes the job go faster.

That is eerily similar to what someone phoning the Washington County prono's office might hear.........

BTW, haven't inquired in a while, but how are the Mrs. and the boy doing Mr. Ugly?

[Zef_66]

As said by others, I can understand your feelings 100% about not wanting to hire a lawyer. If not for the money aspect, for the self reliance aspect. Regardless of the reasoning for not wanting to hire a lawyer, you are going to have to put up with the fact that the more popular and generally accepted way to proceed in this case is with a lawyer. So throughout the process, if you choose to represent yourself, you are going to need to realize that you are most likely going to make mistakes. You are most likely going to do something wrong. You are most likely going to get strange looks and responses from other legal professions and judiciary folk for your choice. It is right? Maybe not, but it is going to happen.

And if you do go through with this in this manner, and the above does happen, you are not going to be able to respond in the way you typed earlier. You can't blow up at the judge when he asks where your council is and then looks at you oddly. You can't get upset at the prosecution for rolling their eyes when you don't talk like a lawyer or know the case law. These are things that are most likely going to happen, and you need to accept them calmly.

So can this be done without a lawyer? Yes, it can be done. Can you do this without a lawyer? We don't know that. So the best advice people here can give is to get a lawyer. No need for you to jump all over them because they are offering advice that they feel is in your best interest.

And since most people here would get a lawyer in a similar situation, they do not know the exact path one would take to do these things without legal representation. Again, not a reason to get upset. But I do think it is very nice of the people that you specifically jumped all over in a harsh tone to do some leg work for you, provide you with similar cases, and contact the sheriff's office. They didn't have to do that.

So my best advice to you, since I am unfamiliar with how to process in this case, is to hire a lawyer. My next best advice is to talk to someone who does know the process. You best bet with that would be someone at the sheriff's office or Prothonotary's Office.

Good day....

[mjf]

Originally Posted by Zef_66

My next best advice is to talk to someone who does know the process. You best bet with that would be someone at the sheriff's office or Prothonotary's Office.

Remember, the Prothonotary's office, et. al, cannot offer you any legal advice... So, don't expect any assistance, whatsoever, from the courts. In fact, you may just look like a fool for trying them. If you are dead set on taking this on alone, which I have already advised against, then that's your prerogative.

Originally Posted by MrUgly

Get. A. Lawyer. Pay. Him. Money. You do not need one, but neither do you have the be an ASE certified mechanic to work on your car, it just makes the job go faster.

I'm not too sure about that... I think it's more like performing surgery on yourself without being a surgeon. I mean, if you really know what your doing things may turn out alright, who knows, but a lot could go wrong... Plus I don't see any degree of legal knowledge from the OP... No offense, but he doesn't even know about petitioning and expects a standardized form for an appeal.

[GunLawyer001]

The process for appealing the revocation of an LTCF is not an administrative proceeding for which there are pre-printed forms, it's basically a lawsuit. You have to draft and file a Petition, it has to be served, you need to draft and provide a proposed order. The sheriff has to respond, you may have to respond to any new matter, a date will be set and you should get your day in court.

In court, the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure apply (I'm not even sure that every county is consistent in deciding whether it's a civil or criminal case.)

This isn't "The People Court" and you won't see Judge Wapner or Judge Judy up there, who will ask questions to help move the case along. You're on your own, you make your case that the revocation was improper under the statutory and case law, and overcome the sheriff's solicitor's defenses. The sheriff's solicitor in MontCo is a lawyer, and a fairly competent one at that.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

[Y]ou make your case that the revocation was improper under the statutory and case law, and overcome the sheriff's solicitor's defenses.

Isn't the burden technically on the sheriff in the first instance to show the revocation was proper? I'd certainly insist that the sheriff make his prima facie case justifying revocation before proceeding.

The gov't has revoked what it considers to be a privilege granted by it, thus invoking due process protections. So in this context that means at the very least, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to confront whatever competent evidence the gov't contends justifies what it did. At that point it's your turn.

[gnbrotz]

It was my understanding that a LTCF appeal is a de novo proceeding - thus neither side really has a burden to overcome - both sides present their evidence and the judge makes a ruling.

Of course, IANAL (and I have very limited experience with revocations).

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

It was my understanding that a LTCF appeal is a de novo proceeding - thus neither side really has a burden to overcome - both sides present their evidence and the judge makes a ruling.

Of course, IANAL (and I have very limited experience with revocations).

I agree that it is a de novo proceeding but it can be significant as to who bears the initial burden (and yes, one side must always bear the initial burden in every case).

As it is the gov't that wants to take something it had previously granted away from you, it is the gov't who bears the initial burden of proving it has justification to do so.

In your case, do you recall who had to call the first witness? I know how I think it is "supposed" to work, but having never done or even observed such a hearing, I'm still curious as to how some of the judges handle it.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

Isn't the burden technically on the sheriff in the first instance to show the revocation was proper? I'd certainly insist that the sheriff make his prima facie case justifying revocation before proceeding.

The gov't has revoked what it considers to be a privilege granted by it, thus invoking due process protections. So in this context that means at the very least, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to confront whatever competent evidence the gov't contends justifies what it did. At that point it's your turn.

Not sure, but there's usually a presumption that administrative action was proper. Formally or in practice, you're going to have to convince a judge that your license should not have been revoked, and in most counties the judge has his office in the same building as the sheriff, and judges have to rely on sheriff's deputies to transfer prisoners, execute orders, etc. You're the outsider.

EDIT: Hey, this was my 1,000th post. Must have felt particularly verbose this year.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

In your case, do you recall who had to call the first witness? I know how I think it is "supposed" to work, but having never done or even observed such a hearing, I'm still curious as to how some of the judges handle it.

I do recall, but it won't help you, as no witnesses were called. The judge conferenced with both attorneys in chambers, they returned, stipulated to the facts in my 'incident' and the court immediately ruled in my favor. On a personal level, I was thrilled, but on the other hand, the case didn't add much to the knowledge base on how these things actually go 'in real life'.

[mjfletcher]

My .02 on this...

When a lawyer, a person who knows the ins and outs of the legal/judicial system is the plaintiff/defendant in a case, what do they do? They hire a lawyer.

If the people who know the system and how to navigate it hire another such person to represent them, thats good enough for me to say do the same. If for not other reason than to ensure that you don't make that one word slip in your filing that burns you and gets your appeal thrown out before it ever sees a court.