MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

shootin the breeze · Jan 30, 2019

ras_oscar said:
If the judge is treating MSP and the applicant on a fair and even footing, applying the law to the situation at hand.

That’s funny. You know they will be another bitch boy of the Froshole. However I like your thinking of a SCOTUS case when they do that crap.

Schipperke · Jan 30, 2019

ras_oscar said:
I would be interested in hearing first hand accounts from any individuals that have completed the new MSP appeals. If the judge is treating MSP and the applicant on a fair and even footing, applying the law to the situation at hand, I have less concerns. Also, are these proceedings open to the public like other trials? Might be fodder for an eventual COTUS case if decisions can be shown as arbitrary and capricious. Particularly if the judge is shown to apply MSP "standard procedures" as if they are laws.

If an applicant is denied a permit by the board, can they also appeal to the admin judge?

Absolutely.

ShafTed · Jan 30, 2019

Yeah, take a look at these bios. http://www.oah.state.md.us/Aljbios.aspx No real surprise there, I'm pretty sure the HMFIC hires all of the "office-level" judges so it stands to reason they are all antis.

To answer another question, yes, either losing party can appeal the HPRB to the OAH. And whoever loses at the OAH has the right to appeal to the state court of appeals.

BeoBill · Jan 30, 2019

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
That is an absolutely hysterical mission statement. You can almost feel the ALJ’s exasperation with being obligated to provide that annoying little thing called due process.

It's sounding kinda like the pre-Hogan HPRB to me.

BeoBill · Jan 30, 2019

shootin the breeze said:
That’s funny. You know they will be another bitch boy of the Froshole. However I like your thinking of a SCOTUS case when they do that crap.

IT'S INEVITABLE. It's just a matter of when the time will be right. Harm must provably take place. Will they be bright enough to cover their tracks? :shrug:

mxrider · Jan 31, 2019

Haven't been following closely, but does the OMA apply to the ALJ? Secondly, if the appeal is done for restrictions, how is the ALJ keeping up with the law that prevents the permit holder from being identified?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

EdHershon · Feb 1, 2019

Schipperke said:
Supposedly one must file within 30 days of receipt of HPRB order. I think OAH will let that slide. An order can be 12/02/18 , but if it's not in the mail until later, and then of course allowances for receipt after post marks, 30 days becomes really hard to pin down. Heck, the law states HPRB shall have a hearing within 90 days after they receive your request. So much for time limits, they are typically suggestions. Probably the only time they really stick is when the court really doesn't want to bother, then they'll use it as an excuse.

When this new scheme was passed I always pondered why many people assumed MSP wouldn't take advantage of it. It may also be a reason MOM's still attend HPRB, as to make sure their new rule is being utilized. Everyone lawyering up for these OAH hearing are astute. I doubt an ALJ is going to buy any COTUS argument by Johnny Sweatpants.

The time rules at OAH are hard dates and if the MSP files late, that’s their tough luck. So far, they have been imwitjin the 30 day window.

The hearings must take place within 60 days of the appeal from the MSP.

If anyone has questions, PM me.

ShafTed · Feb 1, 2019

BeoBill said:
It's sounding kinda like the pre-Hogan HPRB to me.

And that's the whole reason the law was written that way, to make sure it was going to be in front of the Zero'Malley holdovers. They wanted to make sure Bloomturd got his money's worth.

BeoBill · Feb 1, 2019

ShafTed said:
And that's the whole reason the law was written that way, to make sure it was going to be in front of the Zero'Malley holdovers. They wanted to make sure Bloomturd got his money's worth.

Yup. He bought him another state-sized plantation.

frogman68 · Feb 19, 2019

seems only 22 have been appealed , should be zero

https://wtop.com/maryland/2019/02/m...un-permit-board-decisions-22-times-since-oct/

Abacab · Feb 19, 2019

frogman68 said:
seems only 22 have been appealed , should be zero

https://wtop.com/maryland/2019/02/m...un-permit-board-decisions-22-times-since-oct/

Contrary to this article, a bill *has* been introduced to abolish the HPRB by Rosenberg and one of his other hacks.

Schipperke · Feb 19, 2019

Abacab said:
Contrary to this article, a bill *has* been introduced to abolish the HPRB by Rosenberg and one of his other hacks.

Damn, good catch. I heard rumor of this , but isn't this in too late?

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=hb1343&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS

https://www.marylandmatters.org/201...clear-as-senate-panels-rejects-hogan-nominees

ComeGet · Feb 19, 2019

Abacab said:
Contrary to this article, a bill *has* been introduced to abolish the HPRB by Rosenberg and one of his other hacks.

Yeah, I was a little confused by that in the article, but I was busy doing other things at the time.

Interesting they did not bother to interview anyone on the opposing side, I mean truly opposing and not just a token "representative."

welder516 · Feb 19, 2019

I want to point out one important fact that worries me with the OAH , the law judge said the permit holder (US) going before the court is we have to prove we are worthy to have the restrictions removed . The state has to prove nothing , it is our responsibility . The MSP carries no burden .

It is not a direct quote but is factual and in transcript somewhere or about to be .

Stoveman · Feb 19, 2019

welder516 said:
I want to point out one important fact that worries me with the OAH , the law judge said the permit holder (US) going before the court is we have to prove we are worthy to have the restrictions removed . The state has to prove nothing , it is our responsibility . The MSP carries no burden .

It is not a direct quote but is factual and in transcript somewhere or about to be .

This AAG disagrees with here. And so does one of the attorneys in this video who is now a Judge. A real judge.

PJDiesel · Feb 19, 2019

How can the burden shift? If that's true the MSP may as well just come up with a boiler plate testimony for use a the HPRB. No sense in wasting time there if they'll succeed at the next level with a new set of rules.

MJD438 · Feb 19, 2019

Schipperke said:
Damn, good catch. I heard rumor of this , but isn't this in too late?

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=hb1343&tab=subject3&ys=2019RS

https://www.marylandmatters.org/201...clear-as-senate-panels-rejects-hogan-nominees

As I, and others, have stated before - nothing is beyond the realm of possibility until the bell rings at midnight on Sine Die (April 8, 2019). While this bill is too late to be "guaranteed" a public hearing, it will receive a hearing in the House Rules Committee, where it will be "rereferred" to its proper committee and shoved into the schedule, as it has become a legislative priority for the Mike & Mike Coalition.

This is why we say that politics in Maryland is a contact sport that cannot be ignored for even one day when the legislature is in session.

Stoveman · Feb 19, 2019

PJDiesel said:
How can the burden shift? If that's true the MSP may as well just come up with a boiler plate testimony for use a the HPRB. No sense in wasting time there if they'll succeed at the next level with a new set of rules.

The way the statutes are written it is the applicant's burden to prove G&S. Upon appeal the burden shifts to the agency to justify their actions.

A not quite perfect analogy would be a contractor applies for a permit to build a covered deck and the local agency approves the deck but not the covered portion. Upon appeal it is the agency's burden to show why the covered portion is not approved. Does that make sense?

It is my understanding that during some of the OAH hearings that one ALJ made an opening statement that it was the applicant's burden to prove why their restrictions should be lifted which is incorrect as we heard the esteemed AAG JV Lawyer state in the video above.

welder516 · Feb 19, 2019

Stoveman said:
This AAG disagrees with here. And so does one of the attorneys in this video who is now a Judge. A real judge.

I realize you and others may be right in the application of the law and i would even concede you and others to be correct .

But the rub comes in that a Law Judge that is suppose to know does not know and that worries me a great deal .
If the people that are to rule for you or against you have the facts wrong how can anyone get a fair hearing ?

Schipperke · Feb 19, 2019

Sec. 29.03.02.08. Issuance and Denial, see "D"

MSP Appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Missed it by that much

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Former MSI Treasurer

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

товарищ плачевная

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Deplorable Welder

TV Personality

Banned

Ultimate Member

TV Personality

Deplorable Welder

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics