Glockster30
NES Member
Actually, her downfall started earlier than that on July 20, 2016, when she made new law in spite of the fact that she isn't a legislator.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Comm2A, SAF, GOAL and FPC file against Baker admin on shop closures
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
Actually, her downfall started earlier than that on July 20, 2016, when she made new law in spite of the fact that she isn't a legislator.
ccm75
NES Member
Reagan appointee.
Must be a terrible judge....
WOODLOCK, DOUGLAS P.
By: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff August 1, 2001
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
U.S. District Court
4110 U.S. Courthouse
One Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 748-9293
Judicial Biography
Born:
Feb. 27, 1947, Hartford, Conn.
Year admitted to bar:
1975
Year appointed/elected:
1986, by President Ronald Reagan
Background
Education:
Georgetown University Law School, 1975
Yale University, 1969
Professional
Legal Employment History:
Partner, Goodwin, Procter & Hoar (1983-1986);
Assistant U.S. attorney (1979-1983);
Associate, Goodwin, Procter & Hoar (1976-1979);
Law clerk, U.S. District Court Judge Frank J. Murray (1975-1976).
Civic and Community Activities
Appointive or Elective Positions Held:
Chairman, New Boston Federal Courthouse Building Committee (1987-1998);
Member, Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Security, Space & Facilities (1987-1995);
Chairman, Committee for Public Counsel Services (1984-1986);
Chairman, Board of Appeals, Town of Hamilton (1978-1979).
4 = Excellent 3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
Comments
1) EXTREMELY slow on written decisions. Currently waiting over one year for rulings on post trial motions.
2) If an attorney has a case before this jurist and the attorney is representing an individual plaintiff for disability benefits, discrimination in the work place, or personal injuries, or if the attorney is representing an individual defendant in a criminal matter seeking any post conviction relief such as a writ of habeas corpus etc. the attorney should personally review all of the past decisions of this jurist and then decide if it is appropriate to file a motion for recusal.
3) A review of the past decisions of Judge Woodlock since he had been appointed to the federal bench in 1986 indicates that few, if any, (I have found none) individual plaintiffs have received favorable decisions from him when it comes to his (judicial) review or hearing of matters relating to issues of disability, both Social Security and ERISA, as well as issues of discrimination in the work place, FMLA etc.It appears that prior to his appointment to the bench, he worked for a major firm in Boston and specialized in representing high level corporate and government agency Defendants and has still (perhaps subconsciously) retained that mental posture.
Op Edit - Edited so post would fit...had to delete list of decisions.
Must be a terrible judge....
WOODLOCK, DOUGLAS P.
By: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff August 1, 2001
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
U.S. District Court
4110 U.S. Courthouse
One Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 748-9293
Judicial Biography
Born:
Feb. 27, 1947, Hartford, Conn.
Year admitted to bar:
1975
Year appointed/elected:
1986, by President Ronald Reagan
Background
Education:
Georgetown University Law School, 1975
Yale University, 1969
Professional
Legal Employment History:
Partner, Goodwin, Procter & Hoar (1983-1986);
Assistant U.S. attorney (1979-1983);
Associate, Goodwin, Procter & Hoar (1976-1979);
Law clerk, U.S. District Court Judge Frank J. Murray (1975-1976).
Civic and Community Activities
Appointive or Elective Positions Held:
Chairman, New Boston Federal Courthouse Building Committee (1987-1998);
Member, Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Security, Space & Facilities (1987-1995);
Chairman, Committee for Public Counsel Services (1984-1986);
Chairman, Board of Appeals, Town of Hamilton (1978-1979).
- Reported Decisions
- Other Links
- Federal judge suggests Mass. ban on gun sales may need to be lifted
- Key question in BC student’s sexual misconduct case may be sent to SJC
- Arbitration – Nursing home – Wrongful death
- Jurisdiction – ‘Rooker-Feldman’ doctrine
- Retirement – Separation agreement – ERISA
- Guest hurt jumping off rock can sue beach club
- Conviction upheld over email threats to lawyer
- FMLA retaliation claim can proceed
- Insured’s ‘voluntary’ litigation not covered
- DOJ lets AUSAs earn money sitting on boards of directors
- Judge: ‘solicitation’ doesn’t rest on who initiated contact
- Evidence of disability arbitrarily disregarded
- Tips lawsuit vs. Harvard remanded to state court
- Fired salesman can sue over unpaid commission
- Running shoes suit to proceed
- Model jury instruction addresses social media
- Jurors on patent case not the usual suspects
- Greig punishment fits the crime
- Goodwin Procter not disqualified from case
- Tobacco ad ban unconstitutional
- Firearm ban for immigrants invalid
- ‘Dodd-Frank’ ban on arbitration retroactive
- Chuck Turner gets three years in prison
- Framingham settles with non-profit agency
- SMOC case could benefit from ‘collaborative law’
- Non-profit’s suit against town survives summary judgment
- Town can be sued over group home
- Sarbanes-Oxley act applies to the mutual fund industry
- Employer’s fee request denied
- Sheriff denied new trial for firing nurse
- Stats on opinion output by USDC judges has some crying foul
- 'Fahrenheit 9/11' lawsuit dismissed
- Law firm's bid for secured claim of unpaid legal fees fails
- Co. not required to allow employee to work offsite
- State Must Pay Lawyers $700K
4 = Excellent 3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
|
|
Comments
1) EXTREMELY slow on written decisions. Currently waiting over one year for rulings on post trial motions.
2) If an attorney has a case before this jurist and the attorney is representing an individual plaintiff for disability benefits, discrimination in the work place, or personal injuries, or if the attorney is representing an individual defendant in a criminal matter seeking any post conviction relief such as a writ of habeas corpus etc. the attorney should personally review all of the past decisions of this jurist and then decide if it is appropriate to file a motion for recusal.
3) A review of the past decisions of Judge Woodlock since he had been appointed to the federal bench in 1986 indicates that few, if any, (I have found none) individual plaintiffs have received favorable decisions from him when it comes to his (judicial) review or hearing of matters relating to issues of disability, both Social Security and ERISA, as well as issues of discrimination in the work place, FMLA etc.It appears that prior to his appointment to the bench, he worked for a major firm in Boston and specialized in representing high level corporate and government agency Defendants and has still (perhaps subconsciously) retained that mental posture.
Op Edit - Edited so post would fit...had to delete list of decisions.
When the AG loses this case where do I go to get a refund on my portion of my tax levies that were used to fund this failure? I didn't sign on for them to spend my money so irresponsibly.
f***ers
f***ers
I think this is a very real concern with respect to children and mandatory reporters. However, the AG's concerns about domestic violence don't make sense. When intimate partners kill each other, it's not generally premeditated - i.e. 'I'm stuck at home with this person I'm going to go out (perhaps take a safety course first and get licensed) , buy and gun and come back and kill them'. It's just one more excuse they hope that a court will accept at face value.
Yes, and this is why they allowed liquor stores to be open. There would be an absolute insurrection if they closed liquor stores. Ironically, the gun people they supposedly fear are exceptionally law abiding. There was no insurrection when they took away our god given right. They are taken notes of this practice run on what they can or can not get away with. All it will take in the future is a little astroturfing by way of a few reports that claim coronavirus is on the rise and they can enact the same type of authoritarianism they just did. Sheeple will comply again because the government is looking out for their safety and the steps they took last time really worked so well to control the pandemic.
In no way do I mean this comment as support for the states decision, but here is something that was brought up to me when I was debating this issue with friends. Alcohol withdrawals can be lethal. If you drink everyday, heavily, and suddenly you have to cold turkey go sober, you can literally die. The state is clearly more interested in tax revenue and social stability, but you can make a decent public health argument that flatly ending availability of alcohol will directly result in death.
Or she has nothing to work with, knows it, and is playing the cards she was dealt.
I listened to this lady for well over an hour. She's not good at her job. Good lawyers should be able to argue both sides of the argument, but with her it was like she couldn't even anticipate the gaping holes in her own argument and different possible angles of attack.
When you've got nothing, and you're in front of a sharp judge, you don't push harder and try to obfuscate and hope the judge doesn't notice. And if the judge asks a question, you don't try to dodge it because the answer hurts your case. The judge is going to get the answer, the only question is how foolish and desperate you're going to make yourself look before he does.
mpd61
NES Member
I am so amazed and hopeful with this particular enterprise.
Of course Herr Maura has already been priming the pump to go 1st Circuit before Noon on Thursday right?
Of course Herr Maura has already been priming the pump to go 1st Circuit before Noon on Thursday right?
Following the state’s current logic, liquor stores should be closed because places like Stop and Shop also sell alcoholic beverages. Just like how they say it’s okay to close gun stores because people can go to other states.
I am seriously thinking about calling the AG's office and asking what I need to do to be able to shoot in my backyard in Boston. I would quote what Ms. Kobick, their own lawyer, said in this case. I have a perfect spot. My drive way ends in a huge hill that is a perfect berm. I could shot at it and not endanger anyone else within the neighborhood.
What does a capable lawyer do if given a complete dumpster fire of a case and told to defend the state's absurd position?
Obvious answers:
1) Refuse, and tell the state to get someone else.
2) Do your best with a crap hand, even though it's going to do harm to your reputation
3) .....
Am I missing something? Let's assume she's capable of arguing our side, and there's literally nothing on the state's side to counter. What should she do? Is the answer, "I don't know, your honor." to every question that tears apart the position?
If the state pushes the New Hampshire angle at the next hearing,I hope our side brings this article up.
As New Hampshire begins to reopen, another challenge emerges: Massachusetts
New Hampshire is facing two challenges as it eases restrictions meant to limit the spread of the coronavirus. The virus itself and, as Gov. Chris Sununu likes to say, “our […]www.boston.com
When Massachusetts opens we need to make sure all jobs are open to only Massachusetts residents as well!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,546
Derek can be forced to turn over his IP logs and/or payment info for green members, and ANY reference that can be misconstrued as a threat can and quite possibly will be used against the poster via suitability or criminal charges. Furthermore, out of context quoting will not exactly help our side.
Be VEWY CAWFULL what kind of joking comments you make (for starters, I would suggest the OP delete #xxx - edited, the post to which I refer has been deleted by the original poster).
Be VEWY CAWFULL what kind of joking comments you make (for starters, I would suggest the OP delete #xxx - edited, the post to which I refer has been deleted by the original poster).
Last edited:
None of what was in the AG's tweet makes much sense.
1. Gun shops are how law-abiding armed citizens are able to arm and defend themselves and their families during an emergency. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right.
2. Gun ranges are how law-abiding armed citizens and law enforcement can train to use fireamrs properly and effectively (for example, MBTA police and Suffolk County Sherriff's Dept. regularly train at my range)
3. Law-abiding armed citizens do not "undermine" (attack?) or otherwise interfere with law enforcement or first responders. We use our arms only when law enforcement cannot be present and only for lawful defensive purposes.
4. Most if not all domestic violence takes the form of beatings, stranglings, assaults with common household items like baseball bats, knives, or the proverbial frying pan. Most if not all the cases of domestic violence committed with firearms involved illegally-possessed guns,
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,546
They make perfect sense when you consider her goal - demonize gun owners, and miss no chance too sell the public on the idea that licensed gun owners are a threat to civilized society. This has nothing to do with what is true or not, but what the most effective message is to sell the masses on her point of view. It was a well reasoned and intelligent strategy for addressing the sheep, but does not play well in court unless you have a judge who tows the democratic party line on guns.
Wiers Beach is where it’s at!! Lol!!!!
When a firearm is used in a domestic dispute (legally owned) guess what the number one profession is of the person using the firearm? U guessed it, LEO.
I agree! Especially in this state
They need to make their client's case as best they can to the relevant audience.
In the colloquy about the governor's rationale for the policy, she hemmed and hawed for 20 minutes trying to make post-hoc justifications and arguments dancing around without answering the question. That is not good legal representation. Instead she should have said "Your honor, no contemporaneous statements were made by the governor or any members of his administration justifying the removal of firearms retailers and ranges. The governor felt that it was well within his lawful discretion to make the decisions he did about which businesses are considered essential during a global pandemic."
That's a defensible position presented in an honest way. What she did was not.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,239
- Likes
- 33,157
I'd be willing to accidentally drop her food several times in a row in the kitchen in order to shut Soyboy up. LOL
Hmm. Those exceptions are for the 500' rule, not shooting in general. At least in my quick reading of the statute. Seems like 500' - go F yourself mASS.
Wier???? LOL
I'm hoping Judge Woodlock opened his morning Glob and found out that Chahhhleee opened car dealerships and florists yesterday. Suddenly, public safety isn't the real issue. It's political/economic 100%. Not safety. It would be great to see him stomp a judicial mudhole into the Commonwealth and then us be granted a stay of these stupid rules until the next-in-line can hear it. Because it will certainly be AFTER all this is over that they will rule.
csobrien
NES Member
The above post leads into my question about the legal/appeals process on this. Maybe some of you legal eagles know the answer.
If, hypothetically, Woodlock rules in favor of 2a on Thursday, what is Maura’s next move and how long could we realistically expect to be able to have FFLs in operation before there’s another closure/appeal?
If, hypothetically, Woodlock rules in favor of 2a on Thursday, what is Maura’s next move and how long could we realistically expect to be able to have FFLs in operation before there’s another closure/appeal?
*Reflects back on the Weymouth range thread*
That's gonna raise some legal eyebrows.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,670
- Likes
- 49,212
Really the root of the problem lies in the average persons antipathy towards others as long as their wants and needs are being met. The liquor store owner doesnt care that the gun store owner is not only kept from doing business, but shut out from receiving funds meant to help lessen the blow. The hobbyist gardener doesnt care that her neighbor the firearms enthusiast is prevented from exercising his pursuits. This is what the government fully understands. A house divided on itself cannot stand.
That's a great response and I hope the opposition isn't reading our site to get such good legal opinion!
However, she still could not use that answer to explain the off-on-off nature of stores on the essential list yes?
Lank
NES Member
Her pedigree reeks of busybodyism
That's sort of my point. Domestic violence tends to be so-called 'crimes of passion'. Even if someone is a lawful gun owner, the act itself isn't generally premeditated.
This too!
Whoever Brian Miranda is, nice letter! How does the court decide which correspondence makes it on the docket?
