One thing I learned from that NH hearing was that the lawyers didn’t have to take an oath. It was said that lawyers are basically always held to the standards of being under oath. (I just about choked when I heard that).
Maskell had to have known that he was butchering the text. Surely that must be an ethics breach, no?
Only when representing something to a court, and even then, they can misrepresent as long as there is a colorable argument. Keep in mind that court opinions relating to contentious issues often contain gross and radical misrepresentation of binding precedent. In other words, judges do it too.
-- Maskell had to have known that he was butchering the text. Surely that must be an ethics breach, no? --
There's "ethics breach" in the general sense of being honest; which Maskell likely knows he is coloring the presentation (that is, he knows he is avoiding certain text, and that he is substituting his own paraphrase where it suits his end); and then there is a threshold that bothers the enforcer. The threshold varies, depending on the case. Again, sometimes the court itself engages in misleading and avoiding inconvenient precedent.
By and large, the courts are honest (most civil cases and criminal trials); but firearms law, "NBC," abortion, commerce clause, etc. are pretty much a show of force - the rational logic in those situations is out the window.
It doesn't show up on the recording too well but being there I can tell there were many chuckles at that and smirks from not only the commission members but as [he] was speaking it.