yes your honor whether defendant was a serious risk of flight and whether there were any conditions that would reasonably assure the presence of the defendant at trial the main contested factor here is the weight of evidence so i'm going to quickly address the other three factors there was no allegation that the


had to click on what happened your honor was this was decided without a hearing and on affidavits alone i mean you have well there was no evidence i mean there was no evidence of how he he it was just a


of royalties arising from the temper lake and the other use so the so that in this case the suppose that automobile accident didn't happen even though some other things might have happened in consequential


government's proof count to encompass three trades polley com hilton and google and it's undisputed your honour's that there was one intermediary the same intermediary for those three trades a woman named rumi


secondly inadvertently thirdly out of a mistaken belief that it's not inside information forth because as in the dirks case you're a whistleblower and you're trying to get information out to the market so mr rajaratnam and his


one when they serve and secondly that that intoxication has something to do with the damage understand all of that but why doesn't this come under judge curd those those decision going all the way back to


other side is just made is that if the i r s could not be liable as a principle misrepresent care how could it be liable as an aider and abettor of misrepresentations or omissions what's your response to that


speak when it comes to reporting safety hazards and threats inhumane conditions discriminating practices and even rape or murder how do i know because i'm a primary example of what the department of corrections does to those who report


fraudulent transfer of the assets to that it was not that the mechanism through which the defendants in this case profited and three the third problem i talked about was the temporal problem and that is that


september thirteenth september two thousand and thirteen eleven september twenty third teen five yes that's right it was five years ago the house or judgment by the way has been enforced ten


to tell the record after the fact to your decision and i think that it shouldn't be tolerated i'm puzzled by that you said this is all a question of law and i've been puzzled throughout as to the status


right under the statutes that allows you to execute on electronic funds transfer haussler was under the tree itself and so the court wrote this is a case of first impression under tria and the ruling


of updated the court has to waive if it's up even if it's a potential conflict tomato has to waive the fact that his lawyers representing that he's prepared to do it doesn't absolve the court of having a hearing to determine whether he's doing this knowingly and


no there's no abuse of discretion his decision was not outside of the range of permissible ones that he could make under the circumstances electron or seventy questions the rest of our submission thank you thank you it's a


what's the legal basis for the legal basis or twofold one is this court has supervisory power over something over the assignments if it believes it to be unfair or lacks partiality second there is certainly a duplex partiality it


nine eighty three i think the standard is is generally speaking it's ok but in this case and under these circumstances it unfairly and then unnecessarily burden the political opportunity of the public you find his candidate and we're really asking for an exception exception in those


on this video about the fake crockett was deliberate which might explain why a doctor lies about medical evidence and a plaintive can't remember a single thing that permeates the entire summation that type of


publish but this is an inherent difficulty in the nature of the realistic probability analysis the supreme court said and join yourself in reiterated in moncrief that where petitioner wants to argue that a state statute reaches non generic conduct they have to show realistic


looked at to the funds aiding and abetting claims to the district court in holding the new york had a superior interest to that of the cayman islands and determine whether the funds are responsible for the breaches of fiduciary duty of one of their directors so at the first turn to the trading


between the neck opinion and the man opinion and i think that's been recognized actually by some of the district courts that affect to grapple with this one of them is not cited in our brief it's a case called in re agra knocks and it's ninety four


to put them back into interstate commerce none whatsoever and what we have to consider is perhaps it was the food bad company that's where these items are sent to perhaps food bad would not have placed an order for twenty five or twelve of the twenty


occurred before your client filed any kind of administrative complaint and so therefore i don't see how it could be a basis for your retaliation claim given so far as it's relied on


did was decided that she had not her birth had not met her burden of showing that registration is denied to foreign born children there's absolutely nothing in the record that suggests or references foreign born children other than the discussions that the petitioner has with


with the first case state of clark the companion life insurance thank you your honor madison on behalf of the appellant's in this matter this case focuses on whether the lower court was appropriate


somebody used is able for a recent purposes for insurance purposes it's a different standard and i'm puzzled why your client and it's very sad case but why


sergeant diaz and additionally that she only otherwise stepped off the the curb when the volume of the two hundred and three hundred protesters displaced her momentarily and that whenever the police issued an instruction she


thank you honors if i may briefly first i would actually also ask the court to review the video i think that it is being mischaracterized again and that is look which one is there are that low it's that i've looked at so tell me which one it is you want me to look at


twenty six stage there hasn't been a full investigation into what all of this to statistics may be and so what we have are his allegations without more but we don't we don't really know anything in a concrete way about any fraud that's


should answer that directly because at the time your honor mr schrader in good faith it wasn't no one had resigned it wasn't clear who was still and what was a shareholder who was an officer a direct there so i mean as was not


e mail saying he had talked to mr too many times about this very contract and had read the contract had found a flaw in it and subsequently sat in on attorney client meetings between the two family and their


and he still managed to produce over four thousand pages i believe of document discovery in this case but i think we need to step back a little bit your honor to the problems with the the first amended complaint


cited in our brief a number of court decisions of the circuit which say that if you've got alternative ways to read the arbitrator's decision you're going to try to use the one that is legitimate in this case i would say all the more so not to


equitable relief be it via injunction or writ of mandamus nor did she make out a stake claim of malicious prosecution basically because at that first level she failed


are supervising you especially a compliance supervisor so when that compliance supervisor doesn't follow the registered principles and formation or the n a s d rules how are you supposed to


should be excused for the period of time from one thousand nine hundred twenty three no i don't believe that he has the gentleman took himself in and out of hospitals admitted to himself to arms a quest trying to prove to everybody that he was mentally l that he i'm sorry that he was


they do the mother very well they never had any concerns about the mother striking the daughter or abusing or mistreating the daughter just one day the story this student comes to school who they know lies particularly after lunch would come back from lunch in light of the teacher who had lied that very


valuable and it is beyond dispute that members of the board requested are recommended that the executive director place mr mccormick in a role that recognizes that additional work can compensate him with a small


your burden here is to say to us that for your client a four year sentence for a fraud of this go is outside the permissible range for a sentence in this case and i'm not sure i understand how you


bonds they work directly to the matching library to figure out what the price ought to be alleges with sworn declarations that that's the case we haven't been able to even ask the defendants if they contest that point because we have been denied discovery on that point


you look carefully at the agency factors all of them do relate to proximate cause just in different ways you know point out that the st two of the a b c factors are pretty similar and pretty related directly to proximate cause the rd factor is


or unexpected or unforeseen unknown liability of any kind this is the market the defendants were trying to extract a benefit from and these people are you know it's like intentionally hitting somebody


they're not all going to be identified through criminal record checks that is correct but let's just take one example that you list to judge greg the involuntary commitment to mental institution under g four it is very important when looking at the


robbery mr morale the informant didn't do anything to prompt that statement he didn't ask whether the defendant had firearms to do that that's something the defendant tossed out on his own initiative and that is indicative of the fact that he was


his lay opinion on that particular point but there were certainly other facts in mind in the owner of the letters the threat letters actually indicated that they you know regardless they were going to be able to get him so that's an expression of


he's under the care of dr louis right yes you're on others why doesn't somebody follow up on the suggestion of further genetic testing there was no specific type of genetic testing and dr lois already made her determination


yard of the anacostia river it kind of put us on the map and then every building that's the livered from there the amenity that we lease to this the park so foundry last hundred seventy units we leased it up in less than six months


v acrobatic flying where you try to squeeze through trees in the woods or you know type openings and do flips and rolls and the beauty is you can really go anywhere you want he really feels like you're really flying


cross connection control program as is and finally a report regarding a new american civil liberty union lawsuit regarding the city's panhandling ordinance was given by the city attorney and that did it for the record the city commission meeting of november


quality is really there and it's still there that appeals to a lot of people that people if they can afford to get a little better quality a start with don't go for the brand new go for something that's tried


reading after that came a proposed ordinance amending a previous ordinance to reset the base year for determination of tax increment funds collected within the newtown community redevelopment area that item passed on first reading


first there was a consensus for staff to establish the community asset partnership policy and for staff to bring back to the city commission a case by case analysis for exists of existing named assets for review second


to regulate dredging within the city of sarasota and to waive the requirements of the zoning code sections as they relate to the required zoning text amendment the commission authorized the city attorney to prepare a resolution to allow sarasota county to


there were three items to take up as the c r a the first an approval of the minutes from the special c r a meeting of april the twentieth two thousand and fifteen those minutes were approved then it was an appointment to the newtown community redevelopment agency advisory board


appointments and it was commission representation on boards and committees the commission representation on boards and committees was determined to be as follows commissioner alpert will serve on the board of directors of the economic development corporation with commissioner at


you know some stuff that might be around for a little bit longer but greg said all that one of the funnest part of the you know the most fun is to bring something in and it's going out the same day we literally hung a light fixture the other day i still had the


code to provide that dogs must be leashed in all city parks except in designated dog parks this item was adopted on second reading with option one removing section eight twenty nine of the city code next came new business


moved right into consent agenda one all the items on consent agenda one were proved and then they moved on to consent agenda two and all the items on consent to were adopted on second reading the commission then moved on to unfinished business they had a


program member to the parks recreation and environmental protection advisory board the commission reappointed victoria macchi the commission then moved on to unfinished business there were five items of unfinished business on the agenda the first was


anybody throw me anymore i used to but there's certain things that i don't do because you know i can't do it anymore but you know for your body and for your build you know you train according to what you can do we have different levels we have


that are here locally the story we speak well he came in he was from the humane society and he would go into a room and he would flatten out because he was still free to go into another one of the ladies read that i was schooling with


attendees who signed up for this i'm very interested to know i was unable to get over there for some of the sessions but i heard a great deal about it what came


and what you try to prevent to do it sounds like you kind of taken a leadership position on on and and you kind of exude a great deal of knowledge about what's going on what are some of the other maintenance programs going on


shows a lot of things that we previously couldn't see just because it wasn't possible when you're on the ground floor as it were getting involved in these things and i think that's great i remember that going into different neighborhoods seeing the dates of some of these as i've always


care custody and control of another person you have the ability to fill out a notarized affidavit and assign it to that person so there is other remedies there's been some questions about my car was stolen i'm going to have to pay it it's completely untrue if you have


closing papers and i glance up on being invited to a porch party one of my neighbors came down and said we're having a porch part i want to come and join us you don't have to bring any food just come down there and it was a wonderful gathering coming into the neighborhood and look


just pops it works whether you put in an orange egg chair or or a woman chair or just even the simple little wire chair these chairs i'm sitting right here we found out later on no one knows who


lot of them were bouncing into their crisis stabilization units like the baker act you know and the margin after that so it was a pattern that you studied an individual and i did several case studies many of


evacuation or if a fire truck needs to get around they'll be able to do that so the engineers have done the math and done them the modeling of how this will work and actually it will be faster


you and everything just comes together and you get this rush of adrenaline and everything works out and it's just wow i really can do this i really can


better so i remember i had a lady that worked for me she was waiting under a lot of stress and i told her you need a massage and i was waiting busy and my schedule was full but i made it happen because she was on the edge she had a lot going on


says the community voted against the building the community did not vote against the building it did not say in it because i was each of the meetings here in sarasota each time they had a group of meetings i was at one of the meetings and the


also know it as the era of the sarasota school of architecture the commission also decided to create new protection and incentives for historic preservation consistent with key action items two point one two point four three point one and


shop a lot of artists that contact me each and every month and are looking for a gallery to represent them and basically what i'm looking for is a colorful happy our


nine hundred square foot one storey building with off street parking spaces the next public hearing is a quasi judicial public hearing regarding a proposed site plan and which is in addition to the existing maintenance building located within


joint meeting of city commissions and councils in sarasota to consider common issues and that does it for the regular commission meeting of april twentieth two thousand and fifteen if you'd like to take a look at the agenda or any of the backup material you can do so at our website


that social media no matter how long your business has been in business for no matter how successful it is you know if you're struggling and you feel like you can't afford to do a commercial if you not educated on you know the process of the budgets and television


this of unfinished business on the agenda the first was an approval regarding the city commission policy pertaining to city of sarasota bayfront marina island park open space utilization and this item was approved next was direction regarding


consulting work up there and he called me and said mom i've got a fabulous idea and i said what's that you said for florida let's go on the popsicle business and i went popsicles and i see he said no really there's somebody up here joining them and they have lines it's crazy he


and so i started designing certain airframes that solved circle problems out of my new york city apartment and it grew so quickly started to sell these airframes out of my new york apartment that very quickly


sarasota and this is your commission report a preview of the regular city commission meeting of april the sixth two thousand and fifteen want to let you know before we get started that the agenda is subject to change and sometimes it does at the last minute the commission


to paris i've had gone to iceland and brought in designers from there and africa and we have brought in designers that i find you meet the criteria in the standards that we that we have


ordinance amending the city code to provide that the availability of prepayments shall be set forth in the a political initial assessment resolution final assessment resolution or annual assessment resolution the next public hearing the next


with the city of sarasota and this is your commission report a look ahead at the regular city commission meeting of december the seventh two thousand and fifteen want to let you know before we get started that the agenda is subject to change and sometimes it does at the last minute


so i'm literally going to start reading the green as i get out of the golf cart as i grab my putter and i'm walking up i have a better opportunity to see the slopes when i'm twenty or thirty yards away and sometimes when they're more subtle when you're right on top so i start that process right now


proclaiming december first two thousand and sixteen as world aids day hands up for hiv prevention after that was a scheduled presentation it was a legislative update from representative jim boyd of the florida house of representatives


procedure to clarify procedures of the board and its staff and remove conciliation provisions and adding a new section that clarifies rules for public and private conciliation amending the section concerning hearing procedures to clarify rules for scheduling and


in dan smith and norman domain after that the commission moved on to unfinished business the first item of unfinished business was a discussion regarding the banner program the commission did discuss this item but no action was taken and then was


shortly in the meantime i'm miles larson with the city of sarasota


round of citizens and put concerning city topics the commission moves on to public hearings there are several public hearings on the agenda this evening the first is a legislative public hearing which has several parts they are the second public hearings of proposed


an approval to authorize the mayor and city auditor and clerk to approve the lido beach renier shipment program and that will do it for the afternoon session of the regular city commission meeting of september seventeenth two thousand and eighteen if you'd like to take a look at the agenda or


i disagree with that as well the proposed finding is in conclusions that specifically ask for the bankruptcy court to address that whether mr lucas has a securities claim


doesn't go to the courts constitutional authority it's not a stern issue it's just whether or not mr ducasse invited that particular error is assuming that oh that it had been filed a proof


that there is a new case with similar facts to this one that would put lieutenant jones on notice in two thousand and seventeen that his actions of using a taser to subdue a suspect is approaching him brandishing a weapon with metal


had to start with using a date filter i mean that just seems it seems to me that that's the kind of thing that our court in richard's was really trying hard to


first of all it was video or audio and they also didn't know whether he did anything with it so that it was buried somewhere that's correct and they've and i understand what you're saying that they didn't know


date that's that's trouble it really was in the completed offense at that point he was arguing as well that his license wasn't under suspension that he had cleared that up she was trying to which she said sort this out which is why she


always but why why shouldn't there first why shouldn't you first look where it's most likely to be i think you tried to do that while he was going to the videos he sees child pornography goes what looks like


be here when i'm looking at that's not policy and i guess my point is is that if there's something left for the fourth amendment in cellphone cases it has you have to you have to have


run from a family member to the candidate they're all cases in which for instance you know in the recast the district attorney is soliciting funds to hire his son or the skull is case a state senator is trading a vote in exchange for payments to his


structure of the controlled substances act is such that congress didn't want to impose you know not being medical practitioners they didn't want to impose their view of what is proper medical practice upon practitioners


to determine whether or not that was illegal and he got an advice from an attorney that that that wasn't illegal that that particular aspect of the practice was not illegal and i understand that there's more to it that the doctors were doing that the records that


and i believe the question was should the investigate should be obstruction of the grand jury investigation sort of be tied to a specific proceeding i think we certainly have that in this case obviously


other things really is a bookkeeping mechanism just to sort of profit shifts that's all


times but i appreciate all the attorneys being diligent thank you


shocking activity where what he did was outside the scope of what was a legitimate interest in getting the car off the road or that he intended to injure them rather than just get the car off the road we just don't have proof of that or would that go to the jury that would be an issue of


car seems to me there is a risk i mean given what the witnesses say and i think it's up to the jury to determine how plausible some of that testimony is current with the witnesses but all three said well we didn't know what he said and the plate is a count as he


very important to keep in mind what they alleged as the violation in count one which again was concealment here correct that's what they charged in count one concealment it's absolutely a reputable that they knew


ceiling on health benefits it sets a floor because the next language after that which council has never addressing if it's a contract is if it were in agreement correct your honor it says unless modifications are agreed to in writing by the parties


court also made reversible error by drawing certain conclusions with regards to the federal tort claims act in that there was no proximate cause between the actions with the f b i agent had and


at you know it is this court has addressed this morning the issue of qualified immunity already and the question is whether there was a constitutional violation of a clearly established right in order to establish


basically somebody was calling into verify who was to get information on a warrant and the person on the phone basically said yes you're good that was found to be in an unlawful city practiced in the one nine hundred eighty three action was allowed to


an attorney involved in protecting their interests right correct your honor they certainly by and through the collection agreements there was some sort of right or ability to


clear the canons don't seem to help you and the history doesn't seem to say what you says what you say it says other than that you're you're doing great so think about that in you come back and tell us why that's wrong thank you appreciate your human


and i filed this to find out what does this say because it is so it is so poorly written and so i think even though brown vs fire was not cited by others either district court it really does provide the


like to focus on two prominent ones this morning st defend is false and misleading statements relating to unions premium rate increase request of the states and nd defend its misstatements in omissions concerning you


everything you said about loss ratio is true it is not sure i said that the hard numbers in isolation once every three months were accurate i said the underlying statements that they made repeatedly that the claims


drugs and in that case they held that the officer seizure was not unreasonable and he was entitled to qualified immunity in terms of seizing documents they may have been outside of the scope of the luring this court has also stated


in the supreme court held that it satisfy the rd and th prongs of the central hudson test because they distinguished metromedia and of course that's a much later decision but isn't it significant


cause and it was just an address an excessive force that point there'd be no reason to say certainly his actions are in separate it with minimal use of objective force at the end if the motion


at the arresting time at the time of the arrest in this case official obstruction official business what was the other charge which clearly the officers there he's called actually he's performing off duty she's not complying


misrepresenting about what happened it was that if you known and go back to again mr bogle could have asked for an employment contract for a specific duration from bill or when i asked him why he didn't do that he said i guess i forgot i guess i just didn't do that he could have altered the


at there was no ruling whatsoever on the motion for class certification in fact judge givens that are majority opinion says because no court ever denied


rackley well as you know there are the three physical incidents that occurred the banana's it before or after that that he reported it it was afterwards and i think believe it was august


argument that the most significant point i think a defendant made about that is i didn't raise at the trial court level however and i acknowledged at something that popped into my head later thurman says i think your time i thank you all of


about or that we lose on i would submit to the court that again it's an academic discussion that is interesting but it has really very little application to what happened in this case because this isn't what moore city


think there's one case particularly noteworthy given some of the discussion that was had on the political dismissal is the is judge ludington site seward's versus loudoun county and that explains that we don't want to


statements this is true and said we can't make that determination yet so given the standards for judicial or stop one in the circuit the settlement precludes any finding of


to make this policy chicken but there can be a vast vast chasm between the floor and the ceiling and i hear you saying ok they did the bare minimum so they met the floor but they did nothing more than that that and i think what i'm saying to be clear


introduction as an exhibit so whether or not they should have done that whether or not they could have done something else if they're going to claim that their rights guaranteed under the united


say that happens in every single instance but have been here i've i will i believe it did and your honor i don't still don't crest records aren't in in the record evidence but the typical process is that insurance gets billed and then as soon as that payment


arguments clearly fail under bain's to show a sufficient inquiry with respect to any showing of actual harm any showing of actually injury to her wrists as this court determined in


immunity just as you with a reasonably competent social worker they believe that district court order was valid after all this is not a criminal case it's just donald mentioned this is that they don't have to go against the judge they don't have to nd guess the judge do they


so you keep also referring to a search i thought they were going to interview the kids were they searching something too they were also searching the home here aren't going to know they were in the back and very good are any further questions judge her heinrich


categories of voters that itself has identified as having little to no opportunity to vote in person to do precisely that simply because they are voting for the st time and to do so without proffering any evidence that such a requirement furthers the state


member in the present tense and i think all of this indicates that there was no evidence whatsoever in the record showing suites membership on the date the amended complaint was filed in for that reason as well as the others


to if you want some of you can take three minutes i'm mentioning two minutes far from minor so it's up to you how you want to use your five minutes ok sure so we have my statement and his august first two thousand and seventeen


one and that j p morgan chase obstructed justice by using a black employee to lie on their behalf under penalty of perjury a crime pursuant to eighteen us code section fifteen


was dismissed on appeal and this is not well put in our brief but i just want to raise it because i feel as dispositive we were just missed on the ground that we were not a state actor and the district judge went through the arguments quite


are described on their inventory as vehicles that are damaged in some way the donated vehicle is not necessarily a large portion of the the sales most of the sales are when kept cars are


regard to that telling list back in the position which congress intended the only way to do that is to put him back on the list if you don't put him back to tend to anything with respect to your client respectfully congress intended to write a


yes it's true is actually as was was stated so the decision making process to prevent them from being on the list then was not part of the issue that had been that had been and if it was if he was the the


over to pursue her claim against met life because i was really disappointed surrender fees seems to be the last that has the nexus to the unsuitability claims that right while there are other state law claims concerning the supervision


money selling this unsuitable security we have to look at both things that were done and the part that district court looked at is they said you can't bring a claim for selling an unsuitable security and that is simply wrong


program congress specified certain stat procedures and they are taking and they directed that the commission should specify and articulate more procedures and more standards and so there's a disk and while we on the one hand appreciate anyone who


and we follow that up at the commission by creating of a process a sort of an orderly process there's a there's a pipeline essentially the very first thing you have to do is you have to become a whistleblower you do that by one of two articulated methods


testimony there is evidence that the staff at that moment did not know how to use it however that's a single violation which does not amount to perhaps it's a single violation maybe but it does not necessarily


to respond any questions that that army have a question for you sent a letter july nineteenth two thousand and sixteen saying that the administration of immunizations is not considered to be an essential function of your


regard to breach at all and then the third sentence is very crucial also the third and says where the third sense say that you will have the right to if one of the two receive notice of a claim against the other and to retain


paragraph thirty eight the consequences of those two different the retention of the double and by the way deductible is in quotes in paragraph and in the second sentence it's not if there's a reason why it's in quotes it is just inappropriate to have to


he makes very clear that that the differential treatment that he has received or alleged he has received is purely a function of his unique strategy i mean this is an analogy to filling out an application for a driver's license the


that she actually did sit down within a reasonable period of time i haven't looked at that issue close enough that would say whether it would be admissible or not i did last night and it is many of the cases you cite are cases


the situation of police officer versus click community service officer since you raise the question these these two groups let you know like plaintiff acknowledged there was a decision in the you know i know not it doesn't bind you but you know the fourth department did decide


shows disparate treatment as well there is no evidence in the record that there is any other basis for treating her like that so you can't say that the statements that are discriminatory toward


of circumstances including when there is an order of removal so if the shall not shall not apply that it will shall and then if that's your position i think you know that makes this a lot simpler yes that's an official


immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of preventing and so on that's a that's only the first part of the definition there is a second part to the definition which reads as follows where the use


guidelines of the rule already announced it's just the logical application of johnson to an identical provision that there is no requirement that the supreme court expressly apply


questioning the pieces of evidence including e mails and you know other documentary evidence one example is a power point presentation that shows in fact that f p p excuse me twenty four seven was calculating there are no provision


dismissal of any meaningful significance in this case in other words for example would a suit newly brought in florida be barred by limitations is that the problem or is this just


this is to become effective as to him his job change would have changed dramatically he was a supervisor of the previous to par we don't we don't you have more vehicle operator like the other three workers


but all throughout the duration of the temporary sub contract health bridge mandated the parameters of all of the terms that you just listed so for example health bridge required h s t adopt to the entire workforce health bridge


my name is more of a i'm an assistant federal defender from connecticut i represent mr stone i represented him below in the district court and i reserve two minutes for rebuttal please force the district court committed procedural error


you're when well beyond just consent i know where it went that's your honor drafter that opinion it was a nighttime warrantless raid at four thirty in the morning exactly right exactly right but but as you and i both know egregiousness is a combination of


negotiations process they were negotiating a compromise that if it was successful would have made the arbiter the management grievance arbitration unnecessary in doing so on


if there's a potential that this whole thing will on wind if the supreme court agrees with the third circuit unless the court has any questions i'll rest on my papers thank you thank you


case and the simple fact is my clients were vending lawfully in the met plaza which is a seventy thousand square foot area this is not a small sidewalk subway congestion i mean sidewalk congestion was never an


ash on this appeal the first cause of action as it pertains officer ash was dismissed because there was no personal involvement alleged in the arrest or the prosecution


convince the bankruptcy court that under canadian law they should enforce this particular transaction and that opinion says based on the presumed facts and it lists the facts in the opinion we would it is our view that the integrity of the process


policy in the us is pretty strong because this particular action had taken place in the us bankruptcy case and it took place in a canadian insolvency case it was a canadian companies arrangement act but had it taken place in the us bankruptcy it would have been


respond appropriately to them to show mental incompetence and the record then everything has to go back and we can do this hearing correctly when mr simon is now going to be able to present his arguments with safeguards at the very least being represented by counsel the government isn't


of a medication for serious mental illness i point this court to united states versus chestnut six hundred and thirteen federal appendix eighty two where this court affirmed in the criminal context and a competency inquiry that the district court


b in the in the briefing they say that if the if the a document affected the transfer then that it belongs on exhibit b and we say that in effect of the transfer here's how we get there if you go back to july twenty


separate l l c interest memberships interest enough and there does seem to be and i know the collateral is not a defined term in the d i l a but it clearly is referring back to the collateral in the original agreement


i take it when you're when you say this is how we should frame the issue is the degree of force right at that moment it sounds like you're conceding that he had some sort of right where it was reasonable for him to decide that he needed to move


dispatch an officer on drug is understands this to be a burglary to which he is responding is there any doubt about that or any dispute about that it he is not all likelihood would have heard that but we don't know we actually don't know what information he actually heard come over the


must be used but about the restrictions on arbitrary exercise discretion by the actuary in distinguishing that from the trustees it's like why the actuaries aren't subject


develop your best estimate and then you discount it to be more conservative that violates the statute and it violates the statute in this case in a way that had multi million dollar effect on the outcome that's got to be unreasonable in the aggregate just quickly


ok but let's say they did for the sake of discussion ok right and i'm suggesting to you that i don't see where an attorney has a good faith basis in law for a particular position based on a lower court decision that was


reached frankly i'm not sure i quite understand mr banks efforts to distinguish this situation the mccabe situation from juvenile his


a duty at that stage to save it that is happening you shouldn't say everything is going grandly but you don't have a duty to say hey look out things are good that or at least that not saying that is not correct


material fact under the jury instructions or by counsel today stood up in court and said that the question from judgment nasheed well the tenant was removed irrelevant elephant to what kind of inspections and what kind of due diligence you would have had to do whether the


cover letter had said i made some changes but again specifically what the cover letter said was i showed it to my lawyer the lawyer added some language that he said were necessary to make the document the release comply


the board bill you killed my horse and went downhill from there so it's a city of what was more than he says was it more than you asked for well there was not a specific prayer for a specific amount


these bad mouth but he definitely try and therefore there is a one dollar one dollar nominal damage and then from there we go to we go to


order it once the issue of why ability in damages have been determined in fact unhook the the power and missed his window to appeal because he waited to appeal after thirty days


says you can't use your business address your business name on an envelope if it discloses you're in the debt collection business right now it seems to me if you go on to google and look at you have a series


articulated instead the universe is work our world is just a year or two ago the past we use to determine whether or not this article three standing and that test is straightforward it's simply where plaintiffs intangible injury has been made legally could


address if you would your opponent's arguments about the sort of case through mccutcheon came later but the supreme court of new jersey was they went into a lot of detail


matters but in the law or results in time strange as it may seem to understand and others don't always half to to to be linked well i would argue i mean


risk of depriving your client of the benefit of his bargain but here it looks like your client get the benefit of the bargain he as you said the way the case was litigated it's you didn't excellent job for your client you got a a


something you have to know and the supreme court said that many times going back to nine hundred and seventy three in tal at the supreme court said if this was a waiver would be waived because it wasn't told to him at the police hearing but it's a natural consequence of the plea because


not what the law pennsylvania recognizes as malice you


would seem to favor your client that entitling you to the early appeal of these denials so you wouldn't have to wait you know another six months i don't know of any other party that says


employers either on the wall twenty three or any other reason after all the reason that you have grace periods is precisely because they were like the common factor people watch t v in all that you want to give more regulars you seem to make the argument that


it looks as if certain cases like gibbs talk about cases in chief but i don't know of any particular case that talks necessarily that says for purposes of impeachment if this person


me let me actually let me let me step back and say there's no powers mattick significance to impeachment evidence as as as this court knows it has seen many cases come through the courts in pennsylvania impeachment


michaels and the other expert that was there we could be called to testify in this matter so no you're correct he did not say at trial but we could be called to testify in this matter and and so i'm asking this court


his hospice care he says we don't have to show that the physician was lying when they made that certification we have to show as to the faults of the element that the claim was ineligible for payment and that means it can mean it if certainly if


arguing and we still think that's right so again i said you know there's some good and some bad in this era care it's unclear what on remain and you know the practical effect of the test is that they're going to know how much that's going to hamper


physicians had lied about their clinical judgment or even that their judgments were unreasonable or wrong and in that case quote indeed the government's own witness conceded that trial that two doctors using the clinical judgment could come to


who took the same care that i did and was knowledgeable about the requirements would also agree close quote with him that certain patients were not hospice eligible me ask you a question to order


let's grant that the puncturing the tank itself is a release but not to dispose a pig but you did a lot more than just the puncturing of the tank there's the mixing with the soil there's redeposit ing it there's the


protected by congress from liability and therefore would have a one of seven claim which is a much more potent claim and the claim that you would choose to use because it has significant impacts on the burden


that is that if the facts taken in the light most favorable to the injured party if there are facts which taken in that light could bring about you know a lack of a


this reorganization but for those releases but now let us see one how how do those things work together i'm out of time man i just leave the question please because we know that prior to the chapter eleven proceeding being


light of the fact that they had no vested right to any hours at all so there was a there was a grievance process right that allowed them to determine whether they were terminated for just cause by then they perceive that was


had before us and we sent you and our apologies to both counsel for though the late notice we sent you a number of cases from other circuits where they're wrestling with this issue in the context of provider is seeking reimbursement


where in the complaint what are the allegations in the complaint that you point to and say that's an allegation that sufficiently alleges a reliance that that shows


analytical construct and the supreme court's given several factors to look at to try to figure out whether this is an exercise of jurisdiction works for a substantial justice and fair play so


making to us but the most fundamental reason why it's unfair is that the only contact that we have was this policy right if you call that a contract to pennsylvania and i'll stipulate to your honor's suggestion in that regard the only contact was


reached entirely but you reach in and now because you're choosing to sue them on the contract if you're going to sue him on the contract are going to live with the contract that is a contract that specifically makes good law clients as you'll see you in ireland so if you


march th two thousand and sixteen yes the acquisition occurred but the a politician not mr call did not come back to work until march th when he came back to work he had restrictions he had to go to the


and eleven and in that case the plaintiff was terminated seven days after taking a family leave and the court the rd circuit held that that was sufficient standing alone to defeat summary judgment also instructed this kind


uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform the judicial function was a quick a bill it determined that new jersey has a deep unwavering interest in protecting and advancing the best interest of the child and once we got past that small


begin with your honor and therefore this court should apply the younger abstention to this matter because as the opponent readily admits his they perceived humane ongoing and any decision by this court would directly


the reduction in value based on a stigma there is testimony from the owners some of it non speculative although with respect to stigma it clearly was and and there's mr bellew is testimony so we have


did not want to occur in this case with the fair st step back and so addressed particularly that situation what the what the language in this case does not tell you it does not restrict it anyway the applicability of the act to cases on direct appeal so at that point you do need


finding that is the element of the value of the controlled substance whatever they are it doesn't matter the element is the value of all controlled substances on the nalgene would be if the statute instead said the value of all contraband nobody would argue in that circumstance that the car you know whether


of distributing manufacturing prohibit possession with intent to distribute it says those offenses that prohibit that that expands the possible crimes that might fit under that definition


other equitable remedy that imposes limitations period of six months for that cause of action so why isn't why isn't the work on this action then time heard because we're not suing under that provision if you were to say that everything is void


yes and you're asking us to accept your representation that they're on ambiguous on their face yes yes ok now so i got that so so when


offering him a summary witness and the contemporaneous transcript reflects this offered as a summary witness began questioning him the government objected to the allocation testimony everyone went to sidebar and defense


and you're saying i'm saying that it's a dead assignment because then it it lacks consideration as to p and c bank the p m c bank had no knowledge of it they


going to be given i mean that that takes the question in terms of distinctions being made for unsound reasons if it's enough to say we've already decided to treat them differently how then could there be


then if it's not possible to determine what the st jury necessarily decided than you know issue preclusion does not apply but as i said before you know this is not that kind of case this was a relatively simple case where there was one


defect in the chain of title now you know when when the poetry can come to and it kind of you know had a different feel to it or move from all the day to day action and everything like that and so when i st read your brief i got the sense that


studies and extrapolating from those two reclast so it's not true that she ignored the question here is not whether the district court was right or wrong this panel respectfully is not to substitute its judgment for the truckers judge it's a deferential


given daily weekly or monthly they obviously are ingested through the digestive system reclast in contrast is the only intravenously administered bisphosphonate in this class and it's given once a year


motion except the motion for reconsideration as we've just discussed he specifically raised welsh and i think what you're arguing is that in spite of this m f r this report continued to say procedural default


the court doesn't need to go so far here to tell me what short of that how do you define or riding the definitions section for this provision how do you define availability or if you will unavailable


forms that claim large current tax expenses and false w t is that listed rev co or c v s as an employer these these are really like current thing


he had all these venues are all these endeavors going on there's no evidence he supervised anybody in the commission of fraud and with all due respect in the trial court he got it wrong and he said well he makes this comment


no your honor i don't believe there is at this stage of the case and i don't recall off the top of my head what the what the population was at that period but it's a large facility it's the biggest one of and among the most


well but something should relate to phase two it should be either preclusion of the testimony maybe barring the government from taking positions inconsistent with their theory or forfeiture maybe reassigning to a different judge judge


proper we believe it was proper it appears that trinidad moved under federal of civil procedure twenty four eighty two and we believe that trinidad did meet that standard and again this is an


whatever happened during the discovery process won't matter so long as the proper parties show up at the hearing right and you know in this case runners don't even need to get that far because and i would direct your honour's to documentary twelve seventy at page


heard we defeated summary judgment on the record ation issue because florida law doesn't look to wreck or de sion as the absolute its who exercises dominion and


days that was because the court said and this is also in the transcript that after he went if you go back to chambers following the denial of the motion for continuance on the wednesday which was the seventh you saw there were two


can turn into child pornography taking that to its logical extreme does mean that images and target magazines j crew otherwise online any of those could be classified as child pornography and that seems to be a bridge too far so would urge the court to


circumstances surrounding it i think you can look at this video itself and see that clearly a serious notice from the video it's out but of course we don't have just the video itself we also have all the circumstances surrounding the video which include the other two photos of the child


unless the court has any further questions about the due process argument we think that there is no even allegation of violation that would constitute a due process violation in this case and we argue that mr christie has convictions should be affirmed thank you thank


the proffer at the proffer we would make is that we would take depositions of the parties who made the claims and we would have our own people testify as to what the nature of the wrongdoing was we know did you provide the court with any affidavit and support as there was evidence supplied in opposition but the


number of ways that the state is informed about change of address actually have some indication of reliability as to why change of address is a reason that person has become an ineligible voter we think that the


anything that puts the thumb on the scales and says we're going to choose to penalize people that don't exercise that right is discriminatory and that does violates the first minute i thank you mr thorpe will hear from


apart from race and is a classic example of that mad inion but this is the allegations or the there issue here even if the even if they establish disparate impact some disparate impact that qualifies on the disparate impact side of things it's not so disparate


notice regarding the attorney general's case against birmingham under the memorial's act and in that case while the attorney general sought fines he also sought a


he also had this other information people identifying cosey that the drugs found in the location mr coding that being there to his declaration as just prior is quoted out is consistent with now


i created the sure like to show that it's a yellow face and the sure line is what is reflected in the declaration but didn't he also testified during his deposition that the share line basically you know just was functional unconnected or that all that all


engine from another company and then acted as a middleman to sell it to the final producer of the checker that's totally distinct from what we have here where i don't live designed the defective component manufactured it


conceded at the beginning of his argument we're talking only about the second prong of the of the medical care definition the structure or function of the body prong those those things in other cases like the the sewing pool case in the elevator case those are all


physiological impact but structure there's a change going on to a structure of your body there and that the only thing i would say on that is the irises has defined the term by keeping in mind


statutes of repose to have a fraudulent concealment exception built into them is that is that typical you see that a lot of statutes of limitation there's always a fraudulent concealment exception but i wasn't aware if there is typically a fraudulent concealment exception to a statute repos


and i'm with you one hundred percent when you look at the indemnity agreements in those cases it doesn't have the broad coverage our provision has the broad coverage that deals specifically with the issue in the case the reach of the performance of the sub


exercise the its discretion in good faith it's not stated that way under the agreements your honor of the way it stay doesn't have to be stated i mean either either they could have entered into the agreements


every one of them involved industrial pollution everyone up and involved industrial pollution so this circumstance here where evanston is trying to


over twenty eight grams of cocaine there was evidence that you possess one hundred ten grams so jackson i think answers us the question and again in central and and you are francisco they were lesser included in those cases as well florida had


came after that she filed then for charges of discrimination and related the first one back to the n l r b charge so what we have is we've got participation clause activity beginning in december november december of


up until i believe she said march of two thousand and sixteen so it could have happened anywhere in that time period absolutely and the notion that even if mrs burke had been able to establish that somehow missed


well i would disagree with the court on that because here's the problem there is no causation there's no causal link there's no nexus between those four sections that are cited which are very


him to the custody of the federal bureau of prisons on a tax charge nonetheless that adap point the government written large in the iris a particular is on clear and concise notice that attacks bear criminal


number one here the address was the eck was address where the girlfriend mr thomas was living and the tax payer here provided to the i r s a tax authorization form which permitted


it is but how is it that an individual who is not a criminal who has a right to legally carry a gun concealed because they've gone through the process with the state of florida and they've


that is correct and again my argument is is that a permissible purpose lobbying yes but they overstepped their boundaries by releasing highly sensitive information that the federal government


hold that we lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier order and we've got a number of cases that basically say that if you had an opportunity to appeal from something to be i did and you didn't


subject to being called for example of if there's absences you're not scheduled to work but if there's a civil disturbance or something that requires an excess amount of manpower the sheriff can call you in as part of an unneeded emergency supply of


warm let me back up oh you bunker was a global supplier of fuel ship owners and charters would come to it in order to put fuel on the ships anywhere in the


even to pay a reasonable amount of attorney's fees i mean you can always make a debt above a certain amount incurred for legal representation non dischargeable why would congress


essentially been forced into subsidizing the bankrupt the very bankruptcy proceedings that are going to have the debt that they own discharged and the third potential problem those are the two things discussed in militias we think those concerns apply equally here the third


bar or central hutchinson hudson commercial speech this is a transaction between the consumer debtor and the attorney about how they are going to pay for the attorney's fees and there is substantial government interest in preventing the types of


issue would be that you can use it and it is part of the totality but it has to be corroborated in case says that andile says that so greg the singletary on boxes you can charge somebody with a


basically argues broader principle he concedes that the first amendment the first method there's no factually similar case he conceded that so he relies in the brief on the second way and the broad principle is an arrest without probable cause is a constitutional violation putting


affected the trial and that it was not unreasonable for his appellate counsel to not raise it on appeal moreover as i said this issue only goes to count to count one the murder for hire conspiracy carried with it a


yes so i have a hard time understanding how a majority would think of the charge being inadequate in terms of not knowing that a gun would be used under nine when you know the


now i think i think we're done with that piece of it the other thing i would like to say is there is the second part of his appeal goes to administrative director ten point six and in he claims that


that a protection order must be consistent with eighteen u s c twenty two sixty five b to qualify as a court protection order and section twenty two sixty five b specifically addresses the subject of ex


applying that new language to this case the first question is is was thompson given both notice and an opportunity to be heard within the time required by state law and that invites the question


attached i bet i would bet you a million dollars it was attached to the order of protection ok but the problem is you don't have an orders or an affidavit of service not your fault ok it may


person's remark that there was a scream coming from the vicinity of someone's house to hear screaming or screaming it was a it's unclear if she said a scream from the vicinity then she said later on they were


if you don't get a warrant and like someone was working late at night they could have gotten a warrant last year exigent circumstances and the jury was satisfied that there were the jury you


agitated way merely said no please get a warrant would that have rendered this and exigent circumstance that would have permitted the officers to come in well i can't answer that


information that there was a gun in the form they didn't have any information that it was jarvis roberts and that information was contradicted by by other statements and actions of the officers they did describe when they came to the door they described looking for a neighbor


offense and there's no question they put that turns out it's unconstitutional if the government that's suggesting that well we want to sustain it on another on pled to predicate in that context the question is well what do you the question is


to the extent that the record tells us anything i think it's significant that if you look at both the lawyer statement at sentencing and the defendant's statements it's he again began repeat what the defendant


has to be stated in the umbrella policy now there's three going to tranche of the textual argument that makes next and there's three defects there st the words just don't support it they say because the nd


that they were aggregate limits in the underlying policy that's the way it did go to the jury it was the height of prejudice to take a finding of fact side drafted by counsel signed by two lenses


counsel in this case because he plead guilty due to the incorrect and objectively unreasonable advice that was provided by howard greenberg namely that as long as he pleaded guilty avoided jail kept his head law he would avoid


no longer residing a lock on it because he's a convicted sex offender and he was his home was by a school so he moved to a different jurisdiction and by the time they located him it was the other jurisdiction they had arrested him and then brought him to lock


on a technical breach which in this case was temporary you have to show damages and in this case no such damages were shown and it's a little bit up actors that you just took us through moment


trying to say is that in the particular the particular type of contemporary that we're dealing with here there are there can be you can conceive of something that's temporary but achieves


prematurely in this case you are the real i mean your real challenge is that you're complaining ledges that the defendant material breach the agreement that forms the basis of plaintiff's claims on or about your life and two thousand and eleven i


i mean to even get to these gardens are factors to assess the fees the first and foremost the board has to be independent if it's not independent there's a statutory violation in and of itself but with respect to the p s of some advice fund i do want to make the point that this twenty basis point


simply alleging that one fee is higher than another doesn't get where you need to be on section thirty six b and but would multiplying the amount of assets under investment by ten times result in very


you have a responsibility to at least help me and their horrible comment was that your problem you do we have to do to get us paid that may be nasty yes but what is unlawful about insisting on


doing it for certain reasons of sox but but there are there are multiple indications from publicly that it is negotiated that is not true your honor and them says we have been trying to get them to engage for a long time we have been unable to the general


at the high end of the guidelines then he starts in the middle and then he starts at the bottom i think that the court's confusion was asked to the mandate not specifically as to the applicable guidelines range each case though he's


malicious prosecution claim in quotation marks because of a lack of malice and that had never been breached in front of this court judge kaplan had initially thrown out the malicious prosecution claim because he determined that there was not a seizure


striking down government regulations that prohibit commercial speech in the billboard setting it's complicated by the fact that you sometimes are dealing with a public form you sometimes dealing with the ability to avert your eyes your sometimes dealing with private property


is for whistleblowers retaliation and that specifically requires that these issues be arbitrated the matter that's up for dispute is seventy six c it's a different statute and that's i just wanted to clarify that


convictions were possession except for this one right and there were four convictions i believe your honor for possession one with possession one for possession with intent to sell it believe the arrest it was in two thousand and thirteen there was another pending who had been


government can vindicate that interest within the ten day temporary detention period by having i take custody of them what the b r a does not say is that after release order ice may do so and it doesn't


government agreed to dismiss count one of the indictment but the government reserved its right to make the argument that the threat guideline should apply at sentencing and that's what happened in the case the government made that argument it was november th


evidence like the defendant release or focus on whether there is actual particular actual knowledge like to cooperate when does this actually have a discussion with the defended to determine whether he knew or didn't know the government had mental cooperate


incorrect because she did change the amanda loss and that definitely affected the guidelines range under rule under guideline level twenty nine but in fact that the p s r had


he has to have the ability to do this obviously in all cases probation has and can look at the a tax return how other earning their money whether or not from its involved in any case not just this case so i think it


superdome yes yes absolutely the video was actually a bus video that was district you know is that district property so that's for that's where it came from specifically so if i'm if i may continue specifically about the article


statute of limitations and under demand a refusal in new york which like me to go back to the year and yet they do use the word confiscation your honor and though been looking as you point out at the legislative history of the preamble of the current


and would not treat that is avoidable sale plus the notion of of ratification would have to come in and clearly is religion the complaint when the libyans are on the run having to go temporary to switzerland then to brazil not getting back to


new parties they were on notice if we look at crop ski ski teaches us that we have to look at what that the fence new mr rank was the c e o of wall max the day we sued wal max mr rank


condo and someone from the board says he wants a different space you've got a great space the whole buy it he's the only one because we couldn't renovate because there were so many lawsuits so many threats everyone was terrified but after mr phillips


emission problem the government is very sensitive to this because the reality is under the penal law in this statute it can absolutely be committed by omission the case is that put this or to this up for the court the court of appeals decision in one


some efforts the center a letter she hung up on them when they tried to call or write i think it was another interaction with her three different interactions with her so it's not like they just said you know she's alleging domestic violence she must be in fear they had


whether the elements of the new york state offenses were met and the district court relied on the hearsay statements to find that those elements were met the district court didn't rely on the teenager's report it didn't just rely on the nine hundred and eleven call it relied on hearsay about


moving the money without authorization according to what they had agreed to do it but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have been defrauded as opposed to having the money put as they were told in a safe


go to the f b i that they looked talk to their advisers talk to their financial people and realize that if they had gone to the f b i like they knew they could have it was going to get in the way of their deal so they were not lulled into not going to the f b i the f b i because they didn't realize that they had been a


trust transforms into a position of trust based on a change of circuses i suppose i perfectly perhaps why why can we look at this case in that way is that it started out with a arm's


the purpose of the conspiracy was to steal the money and conceal the fest and we showed a trial that the motive for concealing the theft was to eventually replace the money and actually they wanted to fund the project and they actually say in their sensing argument to


between the police officers and the people at the cross it who refused to serve this white individual civil rights protester sitting with some blacks the court indicated you


attempted murder charge here really depends on those first shots that included the one that broke the windshield because the second you're saying that the jury couldn't in its consideration of all the evidence


don't we have evidence of direct direct evidence of discriminatory intent which under reach it's by summary judgment regardless of whether we show pretext or not we have the statement we can violate your rights all we want in close proximity to his having taken


theory that it could that that clara had done it that the mother when she came home and found the child asleep shook the baby in a way that caused the the head injury and that was the


relevant with respect to why i believe that the berger court said unless you can damage straight that that placement actually provided specialized instruction special education was appropriate within the meaning of i d e a law that we don't


required to disclose them until it is clear that it's up to them whether or not they want to proceed to the legitimate offer why should i as an applicant have to disclose to american airlines and their medical staff and


man has prior convictions about his value that's the issue if i record established that you'd be right because you're not allowed to bring in that kind of stuff but here the record establishes to the contrary ms all kinds of evidence in the case of career criminality


incorporate others then i don't think there's a procedural default with respect to that first series of events the next series of events i think is even it's more disturbing from


conduct that was violently of a public policy or upon the employees engaging in conduct which public policy favors those are the only two exceptions you have to do something right that public policy says you should be doing but generally


evidentiary issue there's been no showing that the exclusion of this evidence that they tried to offer somehow had an impact on any of the decisions the judge pro reached


provision put it in the plan don't have a couple of excerpts pulled out and say what this really means is we can take this away if you only even if the close contracts were not raising issues about circus circus and otherwise you could have earned a lot more he had no salary for a while


is to have a court of a living will a declaration that that you want it done it's as if circumstances get there the other one has to have a written request to your doctor by certain family members there's no written request here and there's no got to ration that this


very much indicates that that was a hope people on my side of the ledger were certainly hoping that was the wall regrettably it turned out from our point of view not to be the law the judge in my judgment misstated that and that


that maybe that's the reason he didn't mention the state i think he genuinely believed that all the time is stranger some was in federal court he would have been say that this wasn't true now mr anderson elected to go the other way he abandoned based on what he was being presented


now and announced that that facility would be named coliseum that was previous to a year ago when they had made the first announcement without indicating celine dion the record shows that within ten days of the first press release mr millennium filed an intense


services and the services were entertainment service convention convention conventions services group services and a variety of other services to the extent that mr millennium claims that management services are not generic for hala c m the fact it


the song this morning and that's not the law the law is clear in california we want to encourage employers to have good reasons to terminate employees and if that merck acted incredibly responsibly here they didn't fire mr


reasonably according the california supreme court you conduct an investigation and you apply reasonable and good faith standards ok so based on that and you act honestly based on that what did merck do in this case to establish good cause


your honor that's sort of what i thought is that i didn't find any california court of appeal or supreme court decisions post robbins and i didn't look for any pre robin's addressing that question so i didn't fully


sort of a compromise that congress struck in order to achieve the overall streamlining of judicial review there's a small subset of cases this these two cases included where these aliens are going to get slightly broader slightly broader


to file an invalid lawsuit that is the the nevada lawsuit is the underlying litigation she was aware in maine that the foreman convenience was going to cause for


bizarre behavior may have been the event that could have triggered the holding of such a hearing but there was plenty of other evidence that had accumulated during the trial and by the time of the saturday trial which had not been before the court that previous


identical issue subsequently the parties try to really get that in california and the court said they were allowed to really get that under in california because even if the arizona court has


to sort of the underlying narratives there came a point in time when the when san francisco decided how many rooms were tourists and how many were residential right guests


third or five thirty two at five thirty six where the court makes it clear it would have been error for the court to instruct the jury that the private facia case had been established at the summary judgment stage because the court makes it clear in that


the bills he had agreed to provide and with those bills he said in his words the time is right to present our demand for settlement and then he went along and provided his settlement offer so that's the


and as to what mr up guerrero meant and what safeway was aware of than understood and set forth the tab one point three zero zero zero zero five six eight it is also the only thing that it could mean because there's no sense


ability because frank sproles had no interest in asserting his own ineffective assistance to the b i a but there's no allegation here there aren't perfect cases which hold that it's unreasonable to expect aliens and aliens


fact relates soley to the land it's not something personal between us and feel us or anyone else it's a characteristic of geology that than fact happens but that the obligation is a personal obligation to


agreement with us this is not under a policy this is an agreement between us and chubb as to what we would accept in order to get some payment they reserve their right to come back and recover the entire amount of what he


before the adversary proceeding was filed in santa rosa court there was always a duly appointed represented and was was he a party in the prior proceeding before the ninth


subject matter jurisdiction obviously what's happening here and what was raised primarily in the prior appeal was lack of capacity or that the real party in interest wasn't named as plaintiff that issue wasn't directly raised in the briefs in this


was lloyd's would sign up as names rich people and aristocrats in england they'd never put up any money they'd never write a check and they just kept periodic checks for large amounts of money their share of the premiums


deprive somebody of a right that they acquired because of the wrongdoing of the other party ok and you don't do anything to support wrongdoing as a matter of public policy you absolutely do not do anything or have rules of


last he wasn't last correct in that process and then they selected four people and he said he would only take he would only go to oroville and the person so to give me your best


and which was the principal basis for the denial in this case namely they cannot deny on the basis that the city used if there are enough characters already in serving that locality


if if a witness is testifying and there were witnesses that testified family members they could ask them on cross examination about certain events but in this particular case not only were they asked about certain


and they're not going to be sustained on appeal now as far as the information about mr jones is concerned these were arrest records these were not conviction records some of them resulted in convictions of most of


signed in the settlement agreement i don't think so mr pace signed for mr spain's or when mr spain appealed that matter of the authority to this court and this court


your honor you are on may twenty fourth night on may twenty fourth one thousand nine hundred nine david smallwood was brought into the office and told we don't want you to publish another newsletter he sat silently and did not tell the company representatives with whom he was speaking


you like a minute rebuttal present i appreciate the interest in the case and i'll try and talk past first of all on the very seeds august twenty five nine hundred ninety nine memo which is in there


current problem i think i think if that would be one of those issues that state law would control and again that's that's not an issue that's before this court but i would say that the the o c c treats the ops as a


damages jury not there mentioned now the word count request is there i doubt us cash much importance the difference between one request and the word demand but we do have a request and they want money as a jury would awarded


fact so if they had hired him six months previously to two to diligently follow what was going on in this destruction project then they would have known this is fact


that did willfully unlawfully do this or this or this or attempt to do that or attempt to do that and the charge the actual indictment not the dog marcos that's exactly how it was charged they just simply took the


the press are honest correct i think though that it is clear that the judge never found same circumstances at the same time really that the decision is deficient in that respect but in other respects


please the court in morning calling kennedy for a petition to resign about me on my terms every minute for a bottle it's not beyond became embroiled in a political rivalry between two factions of the armenian government when she witnessed a political assassination behind her place of


credible the i g also found with a much less or with a much more limited discussion that he had failed to meet its burden of proof of course this case was filed an appeal was filed with the board and the board dismissed the appeal with a


but i guess my question is why is that and why is there not probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant to go into the house to see what he's using to manufacture after creating these items that he is


record even is that she consented because she didn't want to have to wait four hours for the supposed search warrant which after the fact they discovered by the way it wasn't even applied for there was no search warrant there was no application they


subpoenaed and who they could have subpoenaed when in court rick mayne took the fifth so there was follow up on those questions that were essential because we have one jury that hung on the issue of headroom is your question


general in lieu of removal proceedings so petitioners argument that he received no warnings or no advisable in these regards has been rejected by the


knows anything make it x knows x but it wants to get confirmation from my attorney that x is true where you start off with the general principle that fear arranging information is not


wife has been to be a very important member of her life he went to court in her early years to establish that relationship and to make sure that the mother would not remove custodial arrangements from his daughter he remains


suspicion of drugs that is what the records state that's what petitioner stated that he that's why the police showed up they thought he had drugs and he said he didn't but that's a legitimate police activity to come to somebody's house and search for drugs so


i so that's what he says in the v a writes their short opinion is if he had said anything at all about china so if we conclude that maybe the government has an answer to that but if we conclude that what i just


place and that they had already remained on the premises for five hours and since this small office area it's very and they were as i pointed out in the briefing there were other it was certainly these were not the most credible or honest of agents


knew the difference between secured investments and unsecured investments like stocks and that the films were more like the stocks and that houck was familiar with the movie business because his son in law was in the movie business and that how could receive descriptive


wondering if if you are really asserting to us that we as the panel should hold an constitutionally unconstitutional a distinction between exclusion and deportation


speculation in trying to figure out whether there'd been a promise facie case and i don't think at the stage of deciding whether there's a prime officially case the prosecutor the prosecutor or whoever is being challenged is required to state his or her


treated fairly yes well if the person if there are no charges were filed and there was no trial there was only an arrest well they were not defendants she's not this is perfectly consistent in fact


denied asylum saying no well founded and that was it the board they wote but added in and saying in addition we think this was a frivolous claim and therefore you're barred for life they say well but they added that one sentence that


testimony from williams and from honey cut and from gezi in terms of what holmes terms of what hoffman told him while in prison but primarily based upon on wages we have that testimony and what do you do you say well yes he did slit her


choosing one or the other you know we did it or it didn't are you i don't think that i have to choose that because i'm on the basis of his mental health he could have done it and he wouldn't have had the intent he may not have done it and he wouldn't have


clearly the i am was unspecific and that's what you're saying that's the problem and they have to be specific well we have the alternative of reviewing what the a l j did


individuals who signed this were law enforcement officers and they recorded their observations and it went to material element of the offense in this criminal case and the rule itself the literal reading of it doesn't make any exceptions


what about your second point that second point we don't have any case law on this issue and again it's a complementary issue it relates to the competency of the witness who testified about the absence of


him to court yet he's sitting there on the witness stand looking at the file he did have the file and access to the file i don't know if it stayed within the whole time but what i'm getting at is i don't understand the argument that


individual certified for the purpose of saying there is no record out there for him applying for permission to return to the united states yes maybe it wasn't in the file is that the entire


cracked and how do we measure potentially run or we would we would measure it but the government made statements like this officer to voters has made an inconsistent statement about whether powers initiated a fight that is


or he told her i had to get even with what they did for me before obviously we for going to the prior shoot out where he was rendered a paraplegic he also told had smiths simply that i saw my


bill to rely on all of his expertise but let's go even beyond that let's go to what happened post trial and of course there was the presentation of the testimony of dr banks


murder case defense as a defense lawyer it's also his first capital case and and i think that part of our emphasis on his background and on on appreciating the problem that was created was that he really didn't


said that was a red herring as they seek to use this definition to adjust status today not when they see that when they first hit the shores they're seeking adjustment of status today


would really be helpful to me


ground and i don't think this court can hold that because the whole that would be to read the on account of requirement out of the statute it would also be contrary to this court's decision you know tommy page eight sixty four that i mean where the court said that even if


utilities the other costs of doing business the remaining seventy percent was taken back to the store put in the safe and was used to cast checks for for the remainder of that period before the


some of it went into the check cashing also the commissioner is not counting into this original pile any of the cash lives retained in the store any of the cash that never went into the bank to part none of that enters into the


right after telling them that this is that this is a problem that the judge then else are proving their parents came from is a very very important element your case why haven't you made an effort to get their birth certificates


a state sort of my understanding of the argument to some extent that the court seemed to be focused on whether he was a baptist or not and improperly shifted what they would say would be an impossible burden to the talent


the letter and the request for a witness were not directed at his attorney if you look in the record they were directed at him personally you must bring a letter and i'm sure he says that attorneys understand that when your attorney sitting next to you and said this is what


marriage i have the impression from reading the brief that he was the equivalent of a mail order husband but that he arrived here and basically never consummated the marriage and immediately commenced divorce proceedings he moved that wife he lived


the money that exploded and so you know have you have that i mean i think they have enough to go forward but obviously the only issue here is whether or not to overturn the judge's findings in the motions


that we're dealing with a court turning one crime into of greater crime rather than just review simply non criminal behavior into criminal behavior and as i understood the briefing of respondent had


and be recorded as part of the record rather than go through the whole business asking the same questions over and over again i did in two years you're wrong because their conclusion was only the evidence constitutes the record


apple application with the warning was retching him and his plan which at the time of the application and they don't know that there are no indication of that in the record what about what about page one fifty four in the transcript where the judge


of their own contributions in the adice is the record was clear the cost of the benefit the death benefit coverage was approximately seven hundred forty eight dollars the assets paid four thousand dollars they


life does he have a reasonable fear of future persecution


credibility problems and then get


i would like to begin my argument with discussing the figures analysis and discussing the initial in court identification in this case be nearing the


poor o citing partridge a cal supreme court that asked for twenty five notes the broad coverage and narrow exclusion principle as well illustrated with respect to the phrase arising out of so it's narrowly interpret it even though the phrase


your theory in the cases you've said that the f b i made the decision you just said the f b i made the decision not to notify well then i misspoke or that my theory of the case is that we were prevented from actually learning those facts which resulted in


well the court has to respond to each one the first step is whether or not there was discretion involved and the second step is whether that discretion was policy based or not i think i heard counsel


in this circuit said specifically that you do not have to make the government does not have to make an actual showing of a policy decision or an actual showing of a decision being made the


within the kind of policy judgment that is covered by this discretionary act now but there might be other reasons for it absolutely i don't i don't see how one when i tell you but house cases have to deal with that


also in law enforcement the savile case that the governor relies on there were allegations about whether the the investigation because that wasn't a about a prisoner or a person being killed it was about the investigation as to why he was killed and whether coming


for my medical bills you need to satisfied me and pull money for my mental anguish that was the only other claim he made that in it's in and of itself is not enough to come to our go forward on a


well i think that if you look at the examine it at the physical examination records throughout the record none of the doctors in the record none of them have when she walked in found that she was like walking with a gate or that she was walking slowly the examination records through throughout the entire


medical sources as opinion one of the things that gives me trouble in working through these cases and this is a prime example the a l j thought was unspecific and simply stating the conclusion and even your brief when it got to


succeeded what claims the plaintiff was unsuccessful in determining what's a reasonable fee while recognizing there was some success by the point of c are correct and i think that the district court did just that is the district court did not deny


wrong term to use but i for mr i understand where exactly the status of mr greedo because in the district court's order this court talks about how he was on supervised release and that's incorrect because he was on parole the whole time


basis well let me ask you this that it is the so called upstream side of claims limited to the fourth amendment or do some of your other claims such as wiretap packed claim in


even though it was so long ago because he had been carrying a gun and it was volatile and again the government has never articulated a basis why that particular evidence would have been relevant to this charge


convict mr scott simply because he'd done it before and whatever you say with respect to the other counts i don't think there's any argument that the evidence on the one twenty four c charge was overwhelming and in fact the court when he was


instructed that the elements of cruel heinous and dupr ved are separate elements disjunctive and that finding either or any one of them was sufficient to find the six aggravating factor it's interesting


instead there has to be something new that arises to cause that they do sherry's go through a whole due diligence review process well i guess my formal question is whether you preserve the


was no your argument hinges on the summary judgment or your position is the summary judgment were precluded us from making this argument a trial yes your honor ok that's the natural consequence of that order and applying phillips and the continuing


time frame whether each of the investment options has equal public accessability equal reporting in the usa today that kind of thing so it's not so obvious that you just as justices kagan and just chief justice roberts were speculating


under the authority of the author sufficiently permanent or steve will to be perceived nowhere in the copyright act nowhere did congress say except for when it we're talking about motion pictures has to be the whole thing or have to be a certain link


there and you're not an independent creator that licenses your copyrighted work and you're not a collective work on you're not a sole author are you saying there is no other way


million five second snippets and if any of those people in any of those could allege that that that that they were the subject of fraud or something all of that speech is going to come down the news organizations are saying the new york times only times and


was used as a prop in a movie and the court held that that was entitle to protection there was a quilt it was taken it was put in a movie and there was a copyright interest in the quill happens all the time in hollywood or t v shows were clearly lights we look at you know there's a


under section thirteen three year period before the insinuate took it over as conservator the claim would be extinguished all that the expander statute does is to create an exception to that general rule and that falls within this court's


three year riposte period that congress made specially for section eleven and section twelve claims so this isn't this isn't turning section under statute into an oldie far from it it's saying that it should say that you respect and congress


what could be presidential presidential spill over multiple conspiracy arguments so in a way the fact that he proceeded to trial by himself actually protected him on the second part of the question let's


away is that is that what happened yeah i think they left him sitting on the sidewalk or something i think i mean i do have a suspicion that they didn't really know what to do with him i think they were waiting for directions from the da or whatever but yet he just wandered away and nobody did anything


recovery but that would have involved noticing formally in class members as a practical matter that makes no sense that only is because you expanded the class so much why didn't you stick with a smaller class of that the amount of money available is more in line with the


affect the federal claim or the state claims well can we conclude that the cherry awarded it was wrongful death damage just based on the state claims that were presented to them i think i think not your honor if you have a single sum of damages that is


juror jurors this is an application we're saying it's a commitment and if the jurors want to know and if the lawyers want the jurors to understand what is an application or a commitment yes i


other than that a cashier's check is a commitment and by the way that's consistent with the general legal understanding of what a cashier's check is also can so i agree with you that it's hard it's hard to define a rule that would be consistent with boring and wells and also have him not be guilty but


thousand that if there is a material issue of fact regarding allegations by a defendant that if proven true would lead to a motion being granted then the neven a jury hearing must occur


one of the declarations that his attorney filed this pilot term said that he was surprised that he said that that was his signature on the document and that that was the document that he had sorry because it was clear in just a


say in terms of defining the contours of this special condition over supervised release that gets back to the district courts frustration with trying to provide guidance regarding obscenity because the


not been subject to the same problem well therefore under a substantial evidence standard case is pretty well done even though we can articulate other particular evidence that may be contrary


with you that nobody involved as a defendant made any statements about the language the fact that he was getting out we then have a situation where we know it was


normally it is at the discretion of the district when the child receives both regular and special education services but the parent also has a role in determining who should be present the parent is seen as their role in the meeting is as an equal participant


we had to due process hearings in this case establishing that the district was in full compliance the parent claims that three letters that were copied to the state in


he got a five thousand dollars relocation payment and as we laid out in the opposition's the most crucial notice we have found no other evidence that he was paid anything in connection with this case as to prejudice which i think part of the problem with limited


detectors one of the outside of rubble and a secondary metal detector right outside the court room and so when the court found it wasn't feasible to screen jurors coming back and forth it literally meant because you had to run everyone through a metal detector on their way back then the court's


after that time after the government became involved and strickly to participate in one load that with their concession at the supreme court now that puts this case in an impossible


may please the court counsel