basscat
Ultimate Member
- Jul 23, 2012
- 1,398
If I wanted to supply documents to the board members for my hearing, can I give it to them the night of the hearing or do they need to be submitted prior to hearing date?
If I wanted to supply documents to the board members for my hearing, can I give it to them the night of the hearing or do they need to be submitted prior to hearing date?
A little bit of clarity, these "hallway" deals actually don't take place in the hallway.
I was there early today and when I got there the MSP troopers were all inside the meeting room and there was nobody there that I didn't recognize and certainly nobody was consulting with the MSP and then suddenly left.
More likely these are resolved in the day or days leading up to the actual meetings, it's just announced at the meetings. The lone Mom Demanding Some Action showed up after the meeting started, hardly a force that makes the MSP suddenly make a call to action.
And yes, I would rather see hearings and testimony and evidence presented by the applicants, but at least they got their permits.
Oh. And if it was me, i would send them the information so you can challenge them if they say they did not have an opportunity to review your new information, and that be their excuse for some delay.
There have been some terrific self advocates, and I believe you can find the podcasts of most of them. The 3, well 2, I would listen to would be RavenUSAF, and mxrider. The third is Gryphon, you will never get what he got, but it is entertaining. Raven and mx were very convincing and would not leave a point until their side was understood and they felt like they carried the board over the MSP side. You may want to pay special attention to Raven because I believe he was a new or renewal. I think mx was a restriction modification. They were both civil, but aggressive and prepared, and did not let anything go by unchallenged. This is an arbitrary process, sometimes the board is inclined to pick the most unusual points to use as reasons for upholding. That's another reason to send your new info to the MSP, if you can avoid the roll of the dice at the board, that is a good thing, IM unlicensed O.
Oh. And if it was me, i would send them the information so you can challenge them if they say they did not have an opportunity to review your new information, and that be their excuse for some delay.
There have been some terrific self advocates, and I believe you can find the podcasts of most of them. The 3, well 2, I would listen to would be RavenUSAF, and mxrider. The third is Gryphon, you will never get what he got, but it is entertaining. Raven and mx were very convincing and would not leave a point until their side was understood and they felt like they carried the board over the MSP side. You may want to pay special attention to Raven because I believe he was a new or renewal. I think mx was a restriction modification. They were both civil, but aggressive and prepared, and did not let anything go by unchallenged. This is an arbitrary process, sometimes the board is inclined to pick the most unusual points to use as reasons for upholding. That's another reason to send your new info to the MSP, if you can avoid the roll of the dice at the board, that is a good thing, IM unlicensed O.
I was asked by MSP for further documentation . Letter said I had 30 days to submit it. 8 days later they sent me my denial letter. So no, they didnt get it. Is there a valid reason why I should supply them with it now?
robmints, thank you for the kind words.
Mine was in fact a restriction modification. If OP wants any of my stuff, just follow over to here:
https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/forum/public-forum/481-mxrider-hprb-hearing
While I absolutely recommend getting the additional information to the MSP and to talk with your trooper, if you do choose to bring this new information to the HPRB, they may try and divert the hearing until MSP has a chance to review the information. With that being said, COMAR (pretty sure it's in COMAR) states that the HPRB may hear new information during the hearing and I would encourage anyone to ask that the board hear their case. By delaying until after MSP reviews, it just backs the system up even further than it already is.
Please, please, please find that exact section and post it. That would make these hallway agreements unnecessary.
Its government article 10 stuff. Gryphon knows it pretty well.
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm
Please, please, please find that exact section and post it. That would make these hallway agreements unnecessary.
Its government article 10 stuff. Gryphon knows it pretty well.
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm
Section C of 12.09.01.05 is what I was referring to, but I may have read into it a little more than what I thought.
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/12/12.09.01.05.htm
Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.
The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.
Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.
The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.
I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.
Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.
The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.
Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.
The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.
I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.
Also, time to insist that MSP not sit as a Greek Chorus in a sort of jury box at HPRB meetings.
The MSP always does the dog-pile thing of having the other two troopers chime in when the investigating trooper is struggling to explain something, or is not as aggressive with the MSP pushback game. This is a problem because on the investigating officer is supposed to address the board, but we see the other two trooper making speeches or adding explanation, tag-team style. Frankly, it has the appearance of the bureaucracy (MSP) ganging up on permit seekers.
Permit seekers are always alone, yet the MSP is always coming at them in a dog-pile word blizzard. It's physically and emotionally intimidating. That is NOT the way it's supposed to work.
The MSP is the bureaucratic level BELOW this oversight board. That is a fact. MSP troopers, you could say, are only "expert witnesses" in this process but in every other judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceeding I have been in, expert witnesses are called from general seating to testify, and then excused.
I know it might seem small-ball, but we need to insist that MSP troopers take their seats in general seating and be called up and then excused--just like in any other court--while this HPRB Court deliberates. Of course, they could have the option of sitting at a separate table so they can have their papers in front of them and to discuss things...but they need to be at a table 'behind the imaginary rail" that the every judicial body operates with. That would be a table no further forward than the general seating area.