Now how to get Judge Smails to read Hattie's posts.
Applicant is in ministry and received threatening emails from "Lucifer".
Nothing yet about the usual restrictions argument.
Judge Smials asked if he carried cash and how much?
Since when does cash matter? They changing the standard yet again?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The “Summary” at the beginning of Chapter 6 of the Open Meetings Act Manual, indicates that the “individual” votes of the members of the public body are to be recorded in the Minutes; in this example, legislators voting on laws.
Why would the members of the HPRB, voting in public session under the OMA, and required to report the proceedings and voting outcome (see post #131 above) in the hearing Minutes of the HPRB, not reveal their “individual” votes at the time the votes are taken?
Judge Smalkin's apparently multiple references to Snowden and Scherr suggest that he may have received (other than in open session or an announced closed session) either "legal advice" from the Attorney General's office and/or an ex parte communication on the same matter from MSP (again outside either an open session or an announced closed session).
Even assuming the Judge's view on the applicable law is one he formed after independent research on his own, any such research could not have failed to disclose the governing authority provided by the Fourth Circuit's decision in Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), wherein the Court held that a lower court finding that Maryland's "good and substantial" requirement was unconstitutional must be reversed because Maryland law allows for wear and carry permits based on "palpable need." The "palpable need" standard thus is the only thing standing between the relevant Maryland law and unconstitutionality, and renders the application of the outdated (and unsupportable) Snowden and Scherr standards patently erroneous. An independent reason why neither Snowden nor Scherr can properly be applied is that neither construed the language of the present statute, and both relied on a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court specifically rejected in the Heller and McDonald cases.
One can only hope that any attorney appearing before the HPRB would seek to educate the Judge and other Board members on these issues as well as matters pertaining to the Open Meetings Act.
So if this judge is that inept, is there a way for him to be removed?
No discussion of secret ballots, it just happened.Question for those who were there:
Did the Board discuss and agree on the new secret-ballot system in the open meeting, or did the Judge simply announce/direct that votes would be handled that way, or did the members seem already "in the know" so that they were prepared for secret ballots without further direction (which would suggest an additional violation of the open meetings act)?
Question for those who were there:
Did the Board discuss and agree on the new secret-ballot system in the open meeting, or did the Judge simply announce/direct that votes would be handled that way, or did the members seem already "in the know" so that they were prepared for secret ballots without further direction (which would suggest an additional violation of the open meetings act)?
He passed out his SOP at the introductory meeting. I don't recall if that was in there. If so, he may hang his hat on that.
The former MSP LD Commander just asked Corporal Taylor how many permit holders have been arrested for carrying outside their restrictions. None was the answer.
He then looked at the applicant and said "there, does that make you feel better?"
I SHIT YOU NOT!`