Montgomery County Bill 21-22

[pcfixer]

https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=472&catid=4&m=0

 

[esqappellate]

Thank you. Every single document you produce surrounding both the county and state laws are monuments to reason and snapshots of how absurd those two dumpster fires are. I appreciate your eloquence in those filings, and the hundreds of hours they represent. I despair a wee bit knowing that your opponents truly don't care about the substance of the matter, and will just use as much of your time as possible to enhance the misery. It is the good fight, and thanks you to you and MSI, well fought.

Kind words always greatly appreciated!!

 

[esqappellate]

Thank you. Every single document you produce surrounding both the county and state laws are monuments to reason and snapshots of how absurd those two dumpster fires are. I appreciate your eloquence in those filings, and the hundreds of hours they represent. I despair a wee bit knowing that your opponents truly don't care about the substance of the matter, and will just use as much of your time as possible to enhance the misery. It is the good fight, and thanks you to you and MSI, well fought.

Kind words always greatly appreciated!!

 

[Sunrise]

Reply brief of plaintiffs in support of SJ as filed in State Court. https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/documents?task=download.send&id=472&catid=4&m=0

Very well written!

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks

Very well written!

!

 

[Bob A]

It's gotta be tough being the only (rational) adult in the courtroom.

 

[Occam]

It's gotta be tough being the only (rational) adult in the courtroom.

I don’t think the opposing attorneys are irrational. Rather, they are so morally rudderless that they are willing to represent and amplify what they know to be - at the very least - the duplicitous, disingenuous, dishonest, deliberately deceptive, deceitful, dangerously dogmatic, desperate desires of their masters. Don’t make me move on to the letter E.

 

[Bob A]

I don’t think the opposing attorneys are irrational. Rather, they are so morally rudderless that they are willing to represent and amplify what they know to be - at the very least - the duplicitous, disingenuous, dishonest, deliberately deceptive, deceitful, dangerously dogmatic, desperate desires of their masters. Don’t make me move on to the letter E.

For God's sake, don't even think of moving to the letter V.

 

[Occam]

For God's sake, don't even think of moving to the letter V.

I vehemently vow to vigorously vamoose with vast velocity, velodrome-like, from vicariously victimizing those valiants vanishing from my vapid vocal villainy, vectoring verily to their verdant Valhalla village of verbal vacation from vacuous verbiage.

 

[esqappellate]

I don’t think the opposing attorneys are irrational. Rather, they are so morally rudderless that they are willing to represent and amplify what they know to be - at the very least - the duplicitous, disingenuous, dishonest, deliberately deceptive, deceitful, dangerously dogmatic, desperate desires of their masters. Don’t make me move on to the letter E.

As tempting as it is, I learned long ago not to make this personal as to opposing counsel, especially in briefing and at oral argument. It is counterproductive with the court. Lawyers are hired to represent their client's interest, not their own, and they are ethically required to do so zealously as long as doing so does not violate ethical requirements. Government lawyers do not have the option of refusing to take on the client.

 

[Occam]

As tempting as it is, I learned long ago not to make this personal as to opposing counsel, especially in briefing and at oral argument. It is counterproductive with the court. Lawyers are hired to represent their client's interest, not their own, and they are ethnically required to do so zealously as long as doing so does not violate ethnical requirements. Government lawyers do not have the option of refusing to take on the client.

I get that. But is it actually ethical of them to put forth what they must know - in their hearts, intellectually, professionally - are unconstitutional propositions and bad faith, theatrical arguments clearly at odds with the facts? Yes, they're opposing counsel ... but they're public servants by definition. Never mind being able to look themselves in the mirror: they surely know they are acting in bad faith.

 

[Sunrise]

As tempting as it is, I learned long ago not to make this personal as to opposing counsel, especially in briefing and at oral argument. It is counterproductive with the court. Lawyers are hired to represent their client's interest, not their own, and they are ethnically required to do so zealously as long as doing so does not violate ethnical requirements. Government lawyers do not have the option of refusing to take on the client.

IMHO, the MoCo attorneys went over the ethical line in terms of their collaboration/coordination with outside groups on Briefs to the Court in order to skirt Court Rules... not to mention their failure of candor to the Court with respect to whether or not the law was actually being enforced for the purposes of standing.

Of course Judge Chuang was fine with this.

 

[Sunrise]

I get that. But is it actually ethical of them to put forth what they must know - in their hearts, intellectually, professionally - are unconstitutional propositions and bad faith, theatrical arguments clearly at odds with the facts? Yes, they're opposing counsel ... but they're public servants by definition. Never mind being able to look themselves in the mirror: they surely know they are acting in bad faith.

Personally, I believe everything about opposing counsel's actions in this case have been unethical, but same goes for the Judge. I believe the Court has engaged in egregious abuses of discretion and has purposefully enabled this farce to continue in order to make the process part of the punishment.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Government lawyers do not have the option of refusing to take on the client.

Of course they do.

The Boss may then either fire them or replace or outsource them with council that has no conscience.

 

[Bob A]

They're only following orders.

Besides, they have mortgages and private school tuition. You see, it's for the children after all.

 

[Lafayette]

As tempting as it is, I learned long ago not to make this personal as to opposing counsel, especially in briefing and at oral argument. It is counterproductive with the court. Lawyers are hired to represent their client's interest, not their own, and they are ethnically required to do so zealously as long as doing so does not violate ethnical requirements. Government lawyers do not have the option of refusing to take on the client.

I think that many lawyers (my brother among them) truly believe that “the law works itself pure.” It is their duty to advance the argument regardless of the right and wrong, because The Law (well, our system of law, not Napoleonic) will over time will come to the right decision. It’s as though the law has a force like gravity or inertia that inexorably must prevail. It might take lifetimes, countless treasure, and the occasional misstep or even travesty - but on the whole it will do the right thing.

I’m not sure I am that optimistic, knowing people.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I think that many lawyers (my brother among them) truly believe that “the law works itself pure.” It is their duty to advance the argument regardless of the right and wrong, because The Law (well, our system of law, not Napoleonic) will over time will come to the right decision. It’s as though the law has a force like gravity or inertia that inexorably must prevail.

At one time, he was probably right.

 

[esqappellate]

At one time, he was probably right.

He is still is right, at least some of the time. See, e.g., Bruen. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't bother

 

[jmcgonig]

Hard to understand how they can stop SB1 when this 100 yard MoCo rule makes that look like a small foul... really shows how much this judge is trying to legislate from the bench IMHO.

Edit... I mean I fully understand SB1, I just can't understand how they can ignore the MoCo problem!

 

[teratos]

If State law preempts county law, does a PI on a State level affect a similar County law?