i was in a room about half the size of the liquor revocation hearing in this case and it was a room that was laid out about like any hearing room where there was somebody at the front of the room who was supposed to be the judge in the case in this case a local liquor control commissioner and rather quickly after the hearing started only three minutes late that was a good sign but after the hearing started things started to go haywire but the hearing officer the local liquor control commissioner started out with warning us that if we had a lack of decorum or a lack of respect that he would enter judgment for the city against the liquor store if that happened and we could just take it up to the state commission and that's how the whole thing started then before opening statements ever started he admitted three volumes of federal testimony and evidence over our objection then we started opening statements and during opening statements the city gave their opening statement i gave my opening statement and then they were allowed to have a reply opening statement at the end of which why can't the decision but will be affirmed in the same basis that it was affirmed of three levels below that the stipulation for themselves were sufficient to support the roof because i think every time that relation has been referenced by the tribunals they have paraphrased the stipulations there have been for example in live seas used to eradicate language from the different paragraphs in the stipulation for example in the paragraph one of the stipulation word says that all dates and times as indicated in the notice of charge will get rid of dates and times in the notice of charge and say at all of two dates and times he was an agent of the liquor store the next one word says there was an accurate and true county of the indictment to get rid of the word happy and say that somehow we've conceded that the indictment was true and correct and rather than it just being a true and correct copy and so on so i i don't believe in the paragraph five for example well that we for it's not in dispute is it that the manager employer agent was found guilty in a federal criminal trial that's not disputed and it was stipulated that was stipulated that that happened that the jury had found that convict of the person and that the federal offenses related to the financial and business operations of the way that's right in the order it's prohibits illegal activity on the licensed premises in or about the license from  regardless of the fact that you quibble with certain aspects of the stipulation what you just virtually stipulated to before this court why isn't there enough that's not enough to show that anything happened first of all in or about the license from the seas that the violation occurred there under section three twenty three days twenty eight of the peoria municipal code it is not that somebody is convicted that is the offense it's that there's a violation and the violation has to occur in or about the licensed premises now you can have an ordinance or a statute or regulation that can say well if it relates to the business then that's enough of a violation whether it happens in about or a license from the seas or not a good example of that would be the state liquor commissions rule section one hundred point thirty b where it says if you've got a violation that's in or about a license from a season or on that relates to the business of of the liquor store that that can be then a violation but that's not what section three d twenty eight says it doesn't say that it's enough that it relate to the business it says it's got to occur in or about the license premises do you can see it in your previous you know that you did not raise the sufficiency of the evidence in your petition for leave to well i think that part of the due process violation is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to sustain it after you eradicate all the due process violations in your analysis so that's that's kind two in both balmoral and the neighboring hampson that you say that the hallmarks of a due process administrative hearing are an opportunity to be heard confrontation of witnesses and that  then by all moral you even say that some of these things are inviolate that you've got to be given them or else it's a violation of due process so you have an opportunity to present evidence you participated in a stipulation and at offered documents exhibits and evidence made an argument at the end of that you said that's all i have so were you denied an opportunity to be heard yes we were making that as an offer proof i believe it's clear in the record th that was a mere offer proof that the hearing officer had already ruled against us on the issue of directed finding and then at the end of us finishing the counsel for the city  said but you've already decided for us isn't that right and the hearing officer says yeah that's right go ahead and proceed with the penalty phase and we think that's the way that the whole thing happened and that's that's what did happen as an offer of proof i meant you know the difference you are admitting even to admit into evidence some exhibits i don't agree with that i think that we are not allowed to admitted into evidence that we were making an offer of proof after it had already been determined that we were moving on to the penalty phase and that i was making a very clear that this was being done as an offer of proof and that i was being allowed to do that on the basis of your offer proof i could understand this on insurance policy concerns and that kind of thing is that is that right yes that's right and that's so my committee next question to you is prejudice was there to you if in fact this process did not meet the standards standards or to process my predecessor gene it was never considered that there was an offer of proof that was never considered it wasn't considered by go well so you see if the peoria level it wasn't ever considered by the state commission you can see in fact if you read your decision and bowmore all there were five things that were supposed to be considered that that warrant that you found work considered and i think the proof in the pudding here that they were never considered is that when the circuit you look at the decisions of the city and of the state commission the circuit judge didn't even know that those insurance exhibits had been put into the record as an offer proof because he said that we didn't corroborate our claim of insurance by putting in any evidence of what the insurance policies provided and you can't testify to that too didn't he at the hearing he sure did as an offer of proof and he actually testified to us as an offer proof but i don't think that the offer proof was ever considered that nobody there's nothing in the record either of the l l c sea level state commission certainly in front of judge brandt we didn't even client who actually testified to this at the hearing but your client's statements that the way the reason why these things posits were structured were they way they were was because in the insurance policies right that michael of michael assad who had been indicted in that case his lawyers never got the insurance policies or the declarations page just never submitted them and then he was their client testified at his own federal trial that there were insurance reasons to keep the amount under ten thousand dollars that was actually withdrawn as cash from the bank because only ten thousand dollars was insured and then he though said he sort of got it all messed up he didn't he said that they were ten thousand but then he found out later it was two thousand and although the precise policies are were that during this period of this alleged conspiracy it was ten thousand jury they rejected it he was convicted and used to plead his conviction there wasn't fact a conviction there this stipulation stipulates the things that i think are not refutable in other words they're  irrefutable facts that there was an indictment in a federal case that the jury convicted the defendant in that case but such but the question is then how does that conviction translate any kind of a finding against my client the liquor store where there's a conviction of a former employee usually in these cases there are a lot more simple their liquor stores though involved that somebody call to a minor and not somebody get a fight on the premises do they call police fast enough things like that in the the person who's the liquor store employee they might be convicted but  at the hearing the liquor control hearing they'll still bring the police and to testify they won't they won't rely on that conviction of the employee to to prove the case against the liquor store they'll bring the police and oh they sold liquor to the minor and therefore the liquor license should be suspended or revoked that kind of thing here the way they regarded the conviction of a former employee is being absolutely fine being meaning  livestrong was in violation and after the determination by the commission there was a request by you to have an offer of proof of what evidence you might have been able to put before the commission to two that's right so so they did not take that into consideration i don't believe so and i tried to lay out in my initial brief exactly what happened at the hearing and why that was so that that i was i thought consideration because it was in the record or they are now not well i think that the appellate court said that it was considered to be evidence by the state commission and we then filed a petition for rehearing in the court saying that there was no proof in the record that it was ever considered as evidence in our petition for rehearing was denied on the same basis and two to one decision as the as the appellate decision in this case so i  that that it was ever considered an you know that's just part of it our ability to put in our evidence that was never considered part of it also was that there was no right of confrontation for any of these witnesses that testified in the federal case this these three volumes of transcripts came in to evidence on a wholesale basis we got to the hearing room that morning and they brought these three trillion scripts on the table that i think it's just been the court reporter so they were done the friday before something like that and without any specification of which witnesses or which statements were coming in we had objected and said we haven't had a chance to cross examine these witnesses percent when they were cashing checks well my client's liquor license wasn't even granted until two thousand and two police officers who testified about the facts and that's what high when you objecting to  state commission said that they were using the transcripts to prove that for purposes of determining where the violations occurred at the violations occurred in about the premises so they were using i believe and then he testified that after he became a government paid informant at supper that there was one day that he went there when they were busy and then he conducted a check transaction where he might have charged more than the one percent  in this didn't your client testify at the hearing that the bank deposits were structured because of the insurance policy because cash was coming in because of cash of checks no he testified i believe that the withdrawals from the bank of currency to take back to the premises were kept below ten thousand dollars because of the insurance for cashing checks because it was cashing checks going on it he admitted that people are cashing checks in the bar and then he had to deal with how to structure the deposits in the bank crack there was no doubt about that ok so what does it matter about this transcript that he said at the trial that there were people cashing checks because first of all i don't believe that my client or or or anybody that was there that day for the hearing testified that this was happening on you know about them the license from the cities i think that even in the federal indictment they allege that this was occurring at the banks where the amounts were being withdrawn and so we do think that they had to go to the transcripts in order to get their evidence about where they say they were there was proof of in or about the premises and i guess we agree with them on that they had to go to the transcripts to get that because that was not in the stipulation what was in the stipulation was that they cashed checks but on the interim did they have to go to the strip did they have to go for those to religion isn't it reasonable that the finder if it can can rely on reasonable inferences from the stipulation and can conclude that the offenses that were stipulated to related to the financial and business operations of the point it did not happen so we have to break i don't think so i think that on a stipulation that it's not sort of like act with johnny carson where you can start adding things to what's on the stipulation the stipulation is very precise here about what it says and it never says that anything happened you know i agree with it but in your position is reasonable inferences can be drawn from any stipulation i think that it wasn't reasonable to conclude that these financial transactions did not occur solely at the bank i think that i think that first of all the federal government claim that they happened at the bank but section three there's twenty eight of the purity of city code that says that it's based on where a violation occurred it's not part of a violation or not an element of a what section three they were there license was revoked for violating code section three dash twenty eight and section three dish twenty eight prohibits the licensee its employee or any asian woman gauging in any conduct or activity prohibited by federal law  or about the licensed premises so that's so it's not it is a violation robert's any activity or conduct any part of that legal violation and here it's important that the violation of law that he was convicted mike was convicted for was a conspiracy and furthermore you see he was he was convicted for the offenses as charged in the attached indictment contrary to the suggestion by colorful household for showing letters we weren't ever having that the stipulation that the indictment is true and correct that that's that we were alleging that on that basis they had actually stipulated to the allegations in the indictment that they were true however what they did do in that paragraph to repeat their share what we this is what we didn't do we have never argued they stipulated that the allegations in the indictment attached to the stipulations or it were true that what we argued is that they stipulate in paragraph three that he was convicted mike was convicted for the federal offenses as charged in from these stipulations that the court that the hearing officer in the state commission could first reach a fact finding and recently and for that yes might in fact violated the committed those offenses for which he was convicted and then can i present my evidence still yes you can present any evidence any additional information which counsel to be entered into the record the insurance truck liberations the first thing you did was enter those insurance declarations as exhibits in support of this defense and there and then their testimony that there are so  was the defendant allowed to cross examine any witnesses can look at control commission this case yes defend the defendant sure look it's cross examining was able to cut cross examine all the witnesses that were there at the hearing and they had actually also did the commissioner the local commission did have the power subpoena any witnesses that they might want to subpoena they they argue that they were able to cross examine the witnesses in the federal transcript but going back to our initial point our primary argument is if your court find agrees that the stipulations themselves provide a sufficient basis to support the decision and never in this court of the never read never read needs to reach the issue of whether or not the federal transcripts were improperly admitted stipulations or the stipulation in the stipulation in the transcripts was that proof now with no tonight witnesses there were twelve add on assad himself to testify when he didn't when he testified in support of the defenses to those to the charges and to m evade the b s the bank secrecy act it obviously would have been then involved some particular activity at the store the conspiracy i would give instructions reached agreements at the store and that's what the federal transcript just offered additional support for that reason work to make sure i understand this if we take what you said putting aside the federal trial transcript what evidence is in the record that shows the offensive conduct took place in or about the license premises it is the stipulations and particularly this both a stipulation the fact that he was convicted for the fences as charged in the indictment and with the stipulation that those offenses involve the financial business operations of the store dollars of the store's funds and from those facts you could make the reasonable inference that part of that to your conspiracy would have occurred the store where there was the agreements between him and this and the manager there instructions to want to try to are planning to make the transactions and otherwise to give instructions to other employees to make bank bank transactions under ten thousand dollars a little bit let me ask you this if i understand this pro days are you when he says the stipulation of a reference is the indictment as a correct copy of the indictment  making his argument or see what you're saying that it really doesn't stipulate or admit or concede that the conduct took place at the inn or about the licensed premises we agree that he did they did not stipulate to that the allegations that they didn't stipulate that the offenses took place at the store or even stipulate that the allegation the charges in the indictment were true but we do say it was actually the following paragraph three that they did stipulate that he was convicted for that michael was convicted for the charges as charged in the indictment and therefore you look at the indictment you know that it was at the basic facts it is a violation it was a two year conspiracy with the store's manager and was from that if you can make the reasonable inference from that conviction for those charges that part of his crime part of his violations occurred at the source premises the an indictment the actual indictment or the stipulation i know there's a reference but is that physically attached it was an exhibit and that's that was the other charge you can make the reasonable inference that if that part of the crime that conspiracy would have eight of the code of the city period in which no licensee or any officer associate or employee of the licensee showing gauge in any activity on or about the license amasis which is prohibited by any ordinance state law or loss of the united states in this case and as indicated mike aside the manager of share liquors was found guilty of committing criminal activities criminal offense of structuring financial transactions to be under to ten thousand dollars what ties that act mike aside the manager of cherry liquor to share liquor is the general principle that every actor commission whatsoever done by the employee should be deemed and held as if the licensee itself made that act or or stipulation alone is sufficient to prove the violation occurred and to uphold the revocation of the liquor license by certain liquors the stipulation as indicated it as attached to the plaintiff appendix eight was a former employee or no longer employed by the the the licensee this is the first time that the appellant has stated that mike aside is a former employee but at no time during the hearing did they indicate that mi aside was not an employee at the time of the hearing now michael was charged as a indicated for a criminal offense of conspiring to to structure financial transaction to invade reporting to accomplish of accomplish the conspiracy in fact if the indictment stated that the and indictment and also the stipulation and this is something that should liquor middle to th criminal offenses always lead to the financial and business operation of share lookers if it was just the financial transactions alone in the world and would not be there the conjunction and would not have been there and we again we would not feel here but again if you laid it to that all the criminal offenses that micah's side was found guilty of committing related to the financial and business operation of share liquors so let's clear the record from all the smoke and mirror the share liquor has made in their argument my good side was the manager of certain liquors when he committed the federal criminal offenses and that alone meets the element of the criminal offense now as to the other part of section three deaths twenty eight is the element of in or about the licensed premises so how was that proven by the conspiracy so at that time the commissioner has every right to make reasonable inference to what's presented before him and that's a reasonable inference that he made was that based upon the cash checking business at cherry liquor admitted that they were they were cashing checks that alone shows that reasonable inference that the offense the criminal offense occurred on or about the licensed premises in addition might decide the owner of the license see emitted during the hearing that he himself structure the transactions to be under ten thousand the coverage of ten thousand dollars in the store and then about five thousand outside the store so you would think that in order to be able to to actually carry cash from the bank to share liquor that they would have actually had five thousand or two thousand dollars whatever the policy was for cash outside and they would have drawn that from the bank imparted to start but no they didn't so it actually works against them and al before i run out of time i do wan point that in the record see that forty four it does stay when they're turner made that decision that he's going to make a decision based upon the federal indictment that is clear violation based upon federal document a section three  so without even considering the federal transcript to stipulate that the damage that was contained in the stipulation was sufficient to prove three yes twenty eight of the city period was violated so what happened was the deputy liquor commissioner left the room and he came back in and said that he'd left to go talk to a lawyer outside the room and that the lawyer told him to enter the finding based on the federal indictment and so he said that's what he was doing and so it was based on the indictment which is just a charge that he came back and said that he entered it he certainly referenced at some point the stipulation that you were entered into that's right have presented that you were not able to present at the here we would have been able to cross examine their witnesses and we would have would you me that if they were going to call those witnesses the same  claim prove the violation in federal court it is really the heart of your case that you believe that at the local liquor commission that there need to be a retrial of the federal trial all those witnesses had to come in and you would be able to cross examine every one of them is that what you say yes we are saying that we're saying that we were not part of the federal trial we didn't have a chance to cross examine any of the witnesses that the federal trial and if they were on the conviction of somebody else by a jury which has an even right into a judgment the other in federal court that that was not binding on the employer and that the it's no doubt that it happened that there was a jury verdict convicting the former employee but that that was not binding on the employer the employer or the licensee was not accused of committing a violation of federal law in either the notice of hearing or in the indictment and that we probably would have confronted each and every one of them with the insurance policies and said you know what how do you explain this that there's these insurance policies about ten thousand dollars and jamal would have asked him the commissioner right ok what else would you have done whether i wouldn't switch you press that well i think we would have cross examined their witnesses who were suspects because they were being offered things for their testimony and everything we would have been able to confront them with that in just the right of confrontation alone i think is is an important thing i don't think they were adequately confronted at the federal trial because at the federal trial these insurance policies had not been procured either by the defense or by the prosecution so they weren't available to confront the witnesses so i think we would have confronted them the only witnesses we were able to confront were police officers things and in baltimore all they talk you talked about and how some things are just absolute in due process like these being able to do these things like confront the witnesses to present your case et that you know there's been some discussion in the appellate court about about well efficiency and like in cases where parking meter attendants are required to come testify that there are so many fish and seas and the illinois bellecourt says well it's not all about efficiency it's about due process too and you've got a sort of way fishing season versus due process and i i think where is here they're saying that a violation occurred where the where they were ordinance doesn't say like if you have a penchant cases before you right now where something can be based on a conviction that some he loses their pension based on a conviction that on a violation here the ordinance says violation they've got to prove a violation not that there was a shouldn't they they sort of try to pick and choose sometimes what they're accepting from the stipulation the stipulation says that the that the guilty finding by the jury was for federal regulation on this it says structuring happens at financial institutions count one of the indictment see one seventy one said it happened at the bank you see one seventy four to one seventy six which is in the record that's part of the invite indictment says the overt acts occurred at the banks and so when when they're saying that the stipulation you can get an inference that it happened at the premises actually related to the financial or because i would say yes but i would also tell you that we're here to dispute first of all the rightness of the bet jury verdict in federal court and that it's not binding on us because we never had an opportunity to participate in the federal proceeding out of nine aside was subpoenaed to be a witness he was kept outside the whole time never never did the business get a chance to now m earlier you made a statement that the verdict is not great and do a judgment and then just a moment ago you made the same reference to some kind of not right leaning to a judgment work explain what you mean by that well in fact in federal court like state court there's  to get their books and records mike assad was working at a liquor store in peoria ites and that never that never changed there's never any evidence that he's at time that he's standing trial employed i want to add just one other store that the offense happens well that meets the definition of premises so if you had an office where liquor wasn't stored or pared or sold i don't think the office would meet licensees strip are strictly accountable for all violations that are committed by employees of brooms and i would agree that they were in the employer into the mix if you were charged with violating that section i think that they could say well the employee violated something and therefore you're to be held accountable and but then still have the same issue about how do they prove what the employee did in against the employer i mean you know that that's what we're talking about i'm not disputing that under three dash twenty eight or under the state code that you can be you can lose your license for what your employer does i'm disputing how is the employer held liable based on a proceeding where the employer never got to participate so like a car accident if my employer gets into a car accident and the employee settles out don't they still have to employ but have to prove the employees negligence against me if i'm the only one left standing in the in the case and i would say that they do and that's true in a license revocation