Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

rbird7282 · Nov 5, 2019

jcutonilli said:
Most federal courts do not have as rigorous printing requirements as SCOTUS. SCOTUS requires 40 bound copies in 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 booklet format. Most people/places are not set up to handle those requirements.

That’s just another excuse. I’m quite sure that in legal circles at that level, people know who is capable of getting something like that done and who isn’t.
I see Kharn beat me to it above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Nov 5, 2019

Kharn said:
Googling "supreme court brief printers" gave me seven companies that explicitly state they print SC briefs to the required standard before the first nonsense result.

rbird7282 said:
That’s just another excuse. I’m quite sure that in legal circles at that level, people know who is capable of getting something like that done and who isn’t.
I see Kharn beat me to it above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The issue is not finding a printer, it is getting through their queue. There are only a limited number of printers, which means a lot of work is funneled through them so the queue is a bit longer than you might expect. A week lead time is not unusual.

GTOGUNNER · Nov 5, 2019

Too polite I say. No doubt the state has printers and the binding capabilities needed. It's just an excuse.

Cruacious · Nov 5, 2019

GTOGUNNER said:
Too polite I say. No doubt the state has printers and the binding capabilities needed. It's just an excuse.

My father works in the printing industry and I worked for him as a teenager. For an order like this a two week lead time would be normal. Usually, though, (especially given the proximity to the holidays) a month is fairly normal. Mind you, his company does standard commercial printing. If Frosh has to use a more specialized printing service I can only imagine the wait time being even worse. This time at least I will give him the benefit of the doubt knowing the timetable involved and knowing this is not a very high priority to Frosh. However, if he delays past the acceptance period of the next set of cases it would be a very deliberate act of stalling and should be heckled appropriately.

Bob A · Nov 5, 2019

Cruacious said:
However, if he delays past the acceptance period of the next set of cases it would be a very deliberate act of stalling and should be heckled appropriately.

Any amount of heckling of Frosh would be appropriate, at any time.

lazarus · Nov 5, 2019

Cruacious said:
My father works in the printing industry and I worked for him as a teenager. For an order like this a two week lead time would be normal. Usually, though, (especially given the proximity to the holidays) a month is fairly normal. Mind you, his company does standard commercial printing. If Frosh has to use a more specialized printing service I can only imagine the wait time being even worse. This time at least I will give him the benefit of the doubt knowing the timetable involved and knowing this is not a very high priority to Frosh. However, if he delays past the acceptance period of the next set of cases it would be a very deliberate act of stalling and should be heckled appropriately.

This. And I doubt they are that different from feds. Agencies often have in house media departments that can do printing and what not. However it’s unlikely what they could do matches what SCOTUS requires with binding and what not. Feds have commercial contracts for printers for most stuff that isn’t “I need 30 copies of a presentation in a binder for a conference” that would be in-sourced.

rbird7282 · Nov 5, 2019

jcutonilli said:
The issue is not finding a printer, it is getting through their queue. There are only a limited number of printers, which means a lot of work is funneled through them so the queue is a bit longer than you might expect. A week lead time is not unusual.

Wow, a whole week? It’s not
like they don’t know when the deadline is well ahead of time. It’s a lame excuse and you know it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Nov 5, 2019

rbird7282 said:
Wow, a whole week? It’s not
like they don’t know when the deadline is well ahead of time. It’s a lame excuse and you know it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The petitioners knew 90 days before it was due yet they asked for a 60 day extension anyway. The respondent only get 30 days yet only asked for a 30 day extension. The reasoning was not just to coordinate with a printer, it was that she is new to the case and needs to get up to speed on it, is busy with other cases, and to facilitate the state's internal review process.

There are lots of reasons to bash the MD AG's office, I don't believe this is one of those reasons.

rockstarr · Nov 5, 2019

Am I the only one here that has almost zero faith that the Supreme Court is going to step in and decide to fix any of the wrong Maryland has allowed to be done to itself?

Boats · Nov 6, 2019

rockstarr said:
Am I the only one here that has almost zero faith that the Supreme Court is going to step in and decide to fix any of the wrong Maryland has allowed to be done to itself?

no, you aren't the only one

motorcoachdoug · Nov 6, 2019

Bob A said:
Any amount of heckling of Frosh would be appropriate, at any time.

Yep you can not let a good Hecking of Frosh go to wast at all!!! :thumbsup:

pcfixer · Nov 6, 2019

Boats said:
no, you aren't the only one

yep. +2 and many more

CrueChief · Nov 6, 2019

Boats said:
no, you aren't the only one

Zero chance they speak to it in any meaningful way, unfortunately.

Kharn · Nov 6, 2019

Not really a surprise:

"Nov 05 2019 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 18, 2019."

Kharn · Nov 6, 2019

rockstarr said:
Am I the only one here that has almost zero faith that the Supreme Court is going to step in and decide to fix any of the wrong Maryland has allowed to be done to itself?

I expect Malpasso to receive a GVR after NYSRPA is resolved.

esqappellate · Nov 7, 2019

Kharn said:
I expect Malpasso to receive a GVR after NYSRPA is resolved.

Me too, if NYSPRA is resolved on the merits. If it is mooted out, then we wait and see if the Court grants cert on any of the other many 2A cases now before it.

press1280 · Nov 7, 2019

rockstarr said:
Am I the only one here that has almost zero faith that the Supreme Court is going to step in and decide to fix any of the wrong Maryland has allowed to be done to itself?

Well that can be answered in a number of ways......

As it stands now my prediction is NYSRPA will wipe out Woollard. Then we see if the opinion has enough juice that the 4th Circuit decides to reverse in Malpasso.
Also, I believe if remanded this goes back to the same 3 judge panel. One Obama appointee (Floyd), one Trump(Quattlebaum), and Traxler who has an excellent 2A track record. Decent odds there.

teratos · Nov 7, 2019

press1280 said:
Well that can be answered in a number of ways......

As it stands now my prediction is NYSRPA will wipe out Woollard. Then we see if the opinion has enough juice that the 4th Circuit decides to reverse in Malpasso.
Also, I believe if remanded this goes back to the same 3 judge panel. One Obama appointee (Floyd), one Trump(Quattlebaum), and Traxler who has an excellent 2A track record. Decent odds there.

Do you really think they will take a case about simple transport and make it about carry? I can't say I see them making it any broader than it needs to be. I hope you are right.

esqappellate · Nov 7, 2019

teratos said:
Do you really think they will take a case about simple transport and make it about carry? I can't say I see them making it any broader than it needs to be. I hope you are right.

There is a chance that the Court will make it clear that intermediate scrutiny is not the right test. That the right test is text history and tradition. And then GVR for application of that test. MD *should* lose under that test.

teratos · Nov 7, 2019

esqappellate said:
There is a chance that the Court will make it clear that intermediate scrutiny is not the right test. That the right test is text history and tradition. And then GVR for application of that test. MD *should* lose under that test.

Makes sense. Thank you.

Malpasso v Pallozzi SCOTUS Cert Petition Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

C&R Farmer

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Major Deplorable

Broken Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

President, MSI

My hair is amazing

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics