Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

Gambler · Apr 22, 2014

Mr H said:
How many posts defines a "Threadnaught"???

Seriously, though... good call for any thread with important info and high interest.

It is long enough when people have to post stuff like this:

trickg said:
Never mind that I asked - I'll go wade through the last 7 pages of thread deviations and side thoughts.

auf_2 · Apr 22, 2014

Thank you. I suffer no delusions that this will be the 'magic' that ends the issue. It is, however well thought, well written, and entirely to the point.
You have my support and my thanks.

mxrider · Apr 24, 2014

MXRider said:
I jumped on the "chat now" over at Michellawyer and asked if they would be updating any time soon since the last entry over there was 2/14. The person that handles that was out of the office at the time and would be in tomorrow and I'm supposed to get an email about it. Hoping one of these firms will be willing to pony up the funds

It appears they are updating now. They have added from 2/14 through 3/18 and still going.

aireyc · May 1, 2014

I don't understand why people aren't talking about this lawsuit and/or why updates aren't being posted by the groups leading this (at least as far as I'm aware), but here's the final response from plaintiffs. Good reading, as always. There's no way we can lose this case short of the judge being a certifiable anti-gun activist -- which is certainly a possibility -- but it seems everything is in our favor when you consider Heller precedent, Fourth Circuit case law, the social science, and common sense. Unless the judge and/or 4CA pulls something more radical than the 3CA in Drake, I don't know how this could be decided in favor of MOM. As has been noted, this is the first time Koper has been deposed, so the convincing social science stuff that may have worked in the past is more or less destroyed here. That wasn't the case with past rulings that weren't decided in our favor.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...intiffs-Cross-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf

Mr H · May 1, 2014

The reason for the silence, I feel, was mostly because there was nothing available to discuss.

There are aspects to this document that are a bit novel, and apparently required a little extra time to prepare.

This should be VERY interesting reading tonight.

teratos · May 1, 2014

aireyc said:
I don't understand why people aren't talking about this lawsuit and/or why updates aren't being posted by the groups leading this (at least as far as I'm aware), but here's the final response from plaintiffs. Good reading, as always. There's no way we can lose this case short of the judge being a certifiable anti-gun activist -- which is certainly a possibility -- but it seems everything is in our favor when you consider Heller precedent, Fourth Circuit case law, the social science, and common sense. Unless the judge and/or 4CA pulls something more radical than the 3CA in Drake, I don't know how this could be decided in favor of MOM. As has been noted, this is the first time Koper has been deposed, so the convincing social science stuff that may have worked in the past is more or less destroyed here. That wasn't the case with past rulings that weren't decided in our favor.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...intiffs-Cross-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf

There hasn't been much to discuss (as Mr H said) and some of the people most knowledgeable on it can't really talk about it because they are involved.

aireyc · May 1, 2014

Mr H said:
The reason for the silence, I feel, was mostly because there was nothing available to discuss.

There are aspects to this document that are a bit novel, and apparently required a little extra time to prepare.

This should be VERY interesting reading tonight.

teratos said:
There hasn't been much to discuss (as Mr H said) and some of the people most knowledgeable on it can't really talk about it because they are involved.

I understand we're not going to be talking about it every day, but this was filed two days ago and nobody is asking about it or anything, and I had to go digging on Google to find the document.

I think my favorite parts are the declaration of Sam Walters in response to the availability of 10 round mags (Exhibit 47), as well as the declaration of Jack McCauley (Exhibit 50) where he talks about Shanetta Paskel saying the Act is "not about policy; it is just votes."

OldSchool1959 · May 2, 2014

Perhaps it is because I'm not a lawyer that I see this Cross Motion for Summary Judgment as a complete slam dunk. I read the filing end to end and while I admit that like most MDS'rs I'm prejudiced in favor of gun rights, the logic and precedents brought out in this document are unassailable.
I was a bit puzzled by the disorganization of the exhibits but that may be attributable to the PDFing process. There was even a Release of Claims Agreement that applied to an apartment dishwasher leak included in error. See pages 73-75.
Finally, I was reminded of the respect I felt for the Sheriffs who not only testified against the infringement but also joined our rally in the square last year.

Gryphon · May 2, 2014

I wasn't optimistic about this case until I read the depositions and saw just how flawed and unsupported the anti's arguments are. Through the discovery process I believe they have been exposed as arbitrary. But the case will initially be decided by one person - Judge Blake. I once had a case before her resolved by summary judgment. We had the correct legal argument, but applying the law would result in harsh result for the other side, and that had me concerned. But she did the right thing and applied the law despite the harsh result. I am hopeful the State's emotional arguments won't be decisive here.

Jim12 · May 2, 2014

dblas said:
Umm, no they didn't, the joint committee Democrats were told how they would vote and what committee and floor amendments were acceptable by The Governor, The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. They were threatened with loss of committee appointments and all discretionary spending for their districts if they didn't follow the party commands.

Yes. AND, when one committee vote didn't turn out the way the Chairman wanted, he merely strong-armed the dissenter and held a re-vote to achieve the pre-ordained result!

Folks, it points to one conclusion. Politics in this state is run by subversives. We are no more immune from the corruption than Chicago, New York, or D.C. In fact, probably less so, because fewer people here pay attention and it flies under the radar more.

Mr H · May 2, 2014

Jim12 said:
Yes. AND, when one committee vote didn't turn out the way the Chairman wanted, he merely strong-armed the dissenter and held a re-vote to achieve the pre-ordained result!

Folks, it points to one conclusion. Politics in this state is run by subversives. We are no more immune from the corruption than Chicago, New York, or D.C. In fact, probably less so, because fewer people here pay attention and it flies under the radar more.

This--and other items--makes it all the more critical to fight this in the courts, but also through public advocacy and elections.

The politicians then become caught in the middle, and eventually will be forced to stop the shenanigans.

Jim12 · May 2, 2014

Mr H said:
This--and other items--makes it all the more critical to fight this in the courts, but also through public advocacy and elections.

The politicians then become caught in the middle, and eventually will be forced to stop the shenanigans.

The current load of politicians won't stop the shenanigans, because that's their m.o. and is the only way they can achieve and hold on to power. We need a new breed of politician who can somehow rise above it, but most critical, enlighten and appeal to the low information voting majority. That's a tough task.

Mr H · May 2, 2014

I don't disagree... but that's precisely why I mention elections.

It's 2014 or bust.

Jim12 · May 2, 2014

I don't see alot of new political stars rising. But, then again, I cancelled my subscription to the Crapital a long time ago, so I might not be up on all the latest. :sarcasm:

(I do, however, read the 10 free items every 30 days online and glance at the front page at the newsstand; that's all the news they run that's fit to print.)

Patrick · May 2, 2014

Jim12 said:
Yes. AND, when one committee vote didn't turn out the way the Chairman wanted, he merely strong-armed the dissenter and held a re-vote to achieve the pre-ordained result!

Folks, it points to one conclusion. Politics in this state is run by subversives. We are no more immune from the corruption than Chicago, New York, or D.C. In fact, probably less so, because fewer people here pay attention and it flies under the radar more.

You realize that if you are pro-rights in Maryland then you are the subversive, right?

When things go sideways, up is down and down is up. And that means liberty is the subversive element around these parts. But, we have some history to suggest things will be set right, again. It just takes time and effort.

Patrick · May 2, 2014

aireyc said:
I don't understand why people aren't talking about this lawsuit and/or why updates aren't being posted by the groups leading this (at least as far as I'm aware), but here's the final response from plaintiffs.
...

Your observation is largely spot on. Thanks for following this case. You are correct - it is important.

I'd normally be all over it, and trust me I have some opinions on all the writings by both sides.

That said, I am listed as an interested party and a witness. I cannot really go on out here and start spouting off at random. Even if everything I said matches 100% everything I said under oath, both sides in this legal fight would still probably have to pour through everything I said to make sure I didn't poop in the punch bowl.

So my nightmare would be commenting on this case, and then you all seeing a brief from the state (or our side) asking the court for another month or two to figure out just how dumb I was. I am guessing you would be unhappy if I caused that. I cannot speak for the other groups, but highly suspect they are doing the same dance. None of us want to sidetrack the smart people by saying or doing a dumb thing.

As for not posting docs, it's a measure of safety. If I never post a document without prior approval, then I guarantee that I never accidentally post a document before it was scrubbed of personal information, or something subject to a confidentiality order of the court (one of those is discussed somewhere in here). The state has helped to help keep our personal information out of the public sphere, and I don't want to ruin that (thanks again to the state). So, if someone else gets the docs from PACER or wherever, then I don't mess it up.

In any event, I should have made this clear earlier. I learned a long time ago that the best way to not screw up, is to not screw up. So for this case, I don't do a thing online or in public. It's better that way.

Make sense?

Thanks again.

EL1227 · May 2, 2014

In summary ...

Patrick said:
Your observation is largely spot on. Thanks for following this case. You are correct - it is important.

I'd normally be all over it, and trust me I have some opinions on all the writings by both sides.

That said, I am listed as an interested party and a witness. I cannot really go on out here and start spouting off at random. Even if everything I said matches 100% everything I said under oath, both sides in this legal fight would still probably have to pour through everything I said to make sure I didn't poop in the punch bowl.

So my nightmare would be commenting on this case, and then you all seeing a brief from the state (or our side) asking the court for another month or two to figure out just how dumb I was. I am guessing you would be unhappy if I caused that. I cannot speak for the other groups, but highly suspect they are doing the same dance. None of us want to sidetrack the smart people by saying or doing a dumb thing.

As for not posting docs, it's a measure of safety. If I never post a document without prior approval, then I guarantee that I never accidentally post a document before it was scrubbed of personal information, or something subject to a confidentiality order of the court (one of those is discussed somewhere in here). The state has helped to help keep our personal information out of the public sphere, and I don't want to ruin that (thanks again to the state). So, if someone else gets the docs from PACER or wherever, then I don't mess it up.

In any event, I should have made this clear earlier. I learned a long time ago that the best way to not screw up, is to not screw up. So for this case, I don't do a thing online or in public. It's better that way.

Make sense?

Thanks again.

And cost lawsuits too ...

Gambler · May 2, 2014

Patrick, do us all a favor and just win all of these lawsuits, so we can get you back into regular commentary, alright?

aireyc · May 2, 2014

Patrick said:
Your observation is largely spot on. Thanks for following this case. You are correct - it is important.

I'd normally be all over it, and trust me I have some opinions on all the writings by both sides.

That said, I am listed as an interested party and a witness. I cannot really go on out here and start spouting off at random. Even if everything I said matches 100% everything I said under oath, both sides in this legal fight would still probably have to pour through everything I said to make sure I didn't poop in the punch bowl.

So my nightmare would be commenting on this case, and then you all seeing a brief from the state (or our side) asking the court for another month or two to figure out just how dumb I was. I am guessing you would be unhappy if I caused that. I cannot speak for the other groups, but highly suspect they are doing the same dance. None of us want to sidetrack the smart people by saying or doing a dumb thing.

As for not posting docs, it's a measure of safety. If I never post a document without prior approval, then I guarantee that I never accidentally post a document before it was scrubbed of personal information, or something subject to a confidentiality order of the court (one of those is discussed somewhere in here). The state has helped to help keep our personal information out of the public sphere, and I don't want to ruin that (thanks again to the state). So, if someone else gets the docs from PACER or wherever, then I don't mess it up.

In any event, I should have made this clear earlier. I learned a long time ago that the best way to not screw up, is to not screw up. So for this case, I don't do a thing online or in public. It's better that way.

Make sense?

Thanks again.

Thanks for everything, Patrick. Excellent work by the good guys. It's been a pleasure reading everything pro-2A. I can't stomach much of the stuff coming out of the defense since it's such drivel, and it's good to see those guys put in their place.

I just know you guys had published the docs earlier, and was wondering why the subsequent docs weren't posted. Your reply sheds some light. Thank you.

tomh · May 2, 2014

aireyc said:
I don't understand why people aren't talking about this lawsuit and/or why updates aren't being posted by the groups leading this (at least as far as I'm aware), but here's the final response from plaintiffs. Good reading, as always. There's no way we can lose this case short of the judge being a certifiable anti-gun activist -- which is certainly a possibility -- but it seems everything is in our favor when you consider Heller precedent, Fourth Circuit case law, the social science, and common sense. Unless the judge and/or 4CA pulls something more radical than the 3CA in Drake, I don't know how this could be decided in favor of MOM. As has been noted, this is the first time Koper has been deposed, so the convincing social science stuff that may have worked in the past is more or less destroyed here. That wasn't the case with past rulings that weren't decided in our favor.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...intiffs-Cross-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf

This was extremely well-written and shows through evidence the political goings-on where MOM dictated certain parts of the testimony.

I think someone should specifically ask Brochin if he was ordered to vote for the bill. He tried to duck the issue saying it was good for mental health issues.

Kolbe v O'Malley Motion For Summary Judgement Filed 17 March 2014

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

¿Got Freedom?

Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Ultimate Member

Unincited Co-Conservative

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Active Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Let Freedom Ring

Unincited Co-Conservative

Let Freedom Ring

Unincited Co-Conservative

Let Freedom Ring

MSI Executive Member

MSI Executive Member

R.I.P.

Attachments

¿Got Freedom?

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics