Comm2A, SAF, GOAL and FPC file against Baker admin on shop closures

The counter argument is that medical use is worth the risk of foot traffic into the stores whereas recreational use is not.

sure, if we’re just discussing for our own entertainment and edification, but the context is (was?) whether the AC brief needed to specify medical mj shop vs mj shop.

R

(Side rant: F*ck tablet autocorrection — “mj” to “my” every time. F*cking CUT THAT SH*T OUT!!!)
 
I thought the medical/rec places were now limited to medical only sales. Is this not the case? I know that that is is, that that is not it not, but is that it or is it not?

My style in an argument is to make sure no fact I present can be refuted as false. This differs from the AGs style where alternative facts are fabricated in the hopes of finding a receptive audience (as in "An FID card allows a handgun in the home")
I agree with your idea, but dang she sure seems to use her way successfully.
 
Just wondering, as part of this ,could his communications between Healy and Deleo be requested as evidence ?
I doubt they would be dumb enough to talk of it by e-mail, but you never know.
I bet those would be fascinating.
 
People who understand federal practice don’t file ex-parte TROs against the government without valid reason. Good practitioners understand how and when to file them. Stay tuned.

Just trying to understand... isn't what Comm2a filed a request for a TRO? Or is that a TRO request, but not ex parte since the .gov has been served?
 
tic tok, tic tok...this is worse than watching paint dry waiting to get an emergency injunction hearing. I hate this state more each minute, I wish it would break away from the county so I am forced to move out!
The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for May 4th. The TRO application is pending. The TRO could be granted at any moment, and if it is it will be granted without notice and without a hearing. If granted, it would be in effect immediately and would stay in place until the injunction hearing. At least that's my understanding of the state of things.

The Pink Pistols amicus brief was accepted today.
 
The other (not Comm2a) filed an application for an ex-parte TRO that is virtually never granted at the federal level under this sort of circumstances. "Without prejudice" means the court is not ruling on any aspect of the merit of the case.
Thanks Rob. So the court has said nothing to see here or not interested?
 
Thanks Rob. So the court has said nothing to see here or not interested?
All the court did in Cedrone v Baker was to deny the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that would have permiitted the pliaintiffs to reopen their shops & ranges immediately while the case proceeded. The case is still very much alive.
 
The court imposes a limit on the number of pages in a pleading. The opposition want to file a weighty brief - literally.
When the facts don't support your position, bury them in bullshit. It usually works too when bureaucrats do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom