petitioner wishes that she had the doctor's notes was merely that a note it was an unsworn statement and it was an observation but the doctor all these things are on sworn statements the transfer notes all these things you've been talking about


defendant failed to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court nail that case was decided at a time when the ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel did not excuse a procedural default it was a no


out made mistakes and that there's a reasonable probability that it impacted the judgment of whether it was capital murder or murder you get a set opportunity we fail to meet it you call a sale on prejudice what about the testimony talked about where the


sentence was hand enhanced in the federal sentence based on relevant conduct the guidelines seek to balance that there's a counterbalancing provision that he doesn't then serve additional time released for that enhanced


acknowledgements about the lack of evidentiary barrier and the correct prediction that the state was taking a wait and see approach and you take that in conjunction with the of the very serious allegations at this stage


commercially reasonable enforcement bureau quickly indeed up agreeing with the parties that we had some very fundamental legal disagreements about what the nature of our request was eight


best answer the best way you can yes or it's it's clearly established that as a police officer you can't right raise the level of use of force when you have a stagnant


all the good jobs are technical and change all the time as ya know what we had in last i want him you can't even be a lark if you walked out what went on everything has changed and it's not it's in every field everything is complex and judging and if they had not


imagine how it could how it could possibly be considered a political subdivision i see that my time is up unless you have any more questions i'll be back on the


advantage of private enterprise the state chose to allow private citizens to create these schools and boards composed of private individuals who choose what other private individuals will join them to run


and all of them agree that that meaning of a for money for the for housing is more than just not discriminating it means to taking affirmative actions over time that will begin to dismantle residential segregation


case there folly supreme court precedent but the they stand for the proposition that a county commission as court cannot assume a duty for the appointment or discharge of a state officials appointee the county commissioners court cannot dictate the terms of employment over the state


judges are fine are the final policy maker operating for the state and no money liability can be attributed to the county and likewise there was no county policy or custom because there was no final county policy


also has already been barred for two years inflicting in irreparable professional reputational your reversible harm on her the pending a foresman action also inflicts immediately and lasting reputational


of removal restrictions right you have you're able to raise that claim when you're in an administrative proceeding that is before an able jay and at that point congress says ok here's how that review goes the l g hears the case than the commission does and


could turn into a bad result is we're not going to put you through that you don't have to go through that process to challenge whether the a l j or this in that case the board was properly constitution casa


fact the other findings of fact at the district court may so i believe yes and i think actually both sides are in agreement with that we don't believe that different facts would be introduced into evidence if the case were to be retried and so while the


terminations it also said that it would pay for the family to travel back to the united states for their vacations while they were down there for those st two years and then looking at while they were down in argentina a homely provision


and that's a violation of due process at that point and all it is it and it also shifts the burden of production and that's what's best for that analysis breaks down it doesn't break the th circuit


court and can as we said to the the unusual situation here is the unilateral macca error and that we believe that this court should hold should hold the secretary accountable for the errors by a biased contractor


a foreign party the hague convention applies in this case june is still with a th party and it was a party to a judicial proceeding and according to a convention should apply


he might have a smoking gun with maria martin he might have a smoking gun with with mrs kight but none of those are smoking with floor federal solutions which is my quiet and that's the the the gaping hole in his


alleged how that was being violated and mrs martin knew that it was being violated and she was told so by mr jamieson and she basically told him to forget about it of the the


out what is the most meaningful distinction in light of the court's prior rippin this court for pinioned what's most meaningful distinction between the episodic act or omission claim and the conditions of confinement claim and you just went through the


that she would face serious harm unless she works indeed his actions included picking her up from the air when she arrived alone from africa as a child eating and helping to beat her and virtually abuse her shaving her


windfall often an acquittal in many instances based on an error by the district court judge and so that doesn't dissolve double jeopardy but mr broom didn't try to go


the representation one part of the the misrepresentation of medical necessity as i mentioned before what is the import of including that diagnosis unless you're aware that medical


from pursing the sincerity or the substance of the religious beliefs of individuals texas does not root out all marriages performed by officiants deems insincere or not religious enough is a free exercise


that are in the community that would not determined by the existence of this policy that that was determined individually independently before the policy which this is very similar i believe to the case to the


a little bit about the abduction of hansen's started with united states versus kiel here's the facts from the opinion while one robber vaulted the bank teller counter the other robber secured the offices officer offices and other rooms


questions about the on that i would like to really address the timeliness issue which i believe is the easiest and simplest way to dispose of this bill timeliness is an element that is reviewed because the district court made findings on it for


don't know what happened in april of two thousand and seventeen they require the additional level of care which is why the state requested her medical records on a number of occasions but the type of two hundred and forty seven basically intensive care unit type care she seeks


for support for her need for twenty four hour nursing care so her there are a number of in terms of her support the doctor she submitted for identical letters


complaints that were being lodged here against the insurance agents were related to the absence of an excess policy that was a private insurance policy so there was never any motion of course on this circle you around away from what judge


at that time that we learned that our product had a different post our product had a different cap our product had a different material yet he brought in this appropriation of trade secrets claim because there was some


and they were paying they were paying the mortgage so that was that so there was consideration going to offset that it was rent but it was really just of passed through to pay the mortgage on bailey shelters property and also that's where the funds would


only adopting damages calculations that wholly omit that period of time after the contract change but then using that same theory that our contract changed her billings happened sooner to devalue the harbor links claims and say well even though


and even if those counts had been severed into true trials he fails to show that the evidence of one conspiracy would have not come in as rule for of or be evidence of his probative of his knowledge intent and planning in the trial of another indeed knowledge was the


that he assisted in some way the individual acts the established different paths yes and setting up the scheme that allowed this whole thing to happen he was critical and in doing math and that's what this court has held in


five more participants then you go to the no no two to qualify for an adjustment the defendant must have been the organizer leader manager or supervisor while of one or more other participants then it goes on to say an up or departure not the actual


i would have i would say two things in response that your honor one is i don't think it matters i don't think at the end of the it matters who did the way it was assigned to for there and we fully admit that the contractor did transmit the error date in or i will say though


what you you were just talking about with regard to the wage index timetable you've referred to it several times on the record on appeal at age ninety five which is part of the stipulations that were entered


now another another another point i would like to point out is on the banks argument to get to that quickly they're going to argue ok their main argument is the statute of limitations has run in other words were were serving a fraud claim


shortly after that is when he sat at the desk part of the trail into front of the phone wrapped a cord around his neck mr law's testimony was he couldn't tell whether he was doing it effectively and effectively because you're sitting slumped over


and that and that's not the only evidence that mr melvin was treated differently than a white employee either because there's evidence in the record that he asked for a pay advance and was not given it they


my issue with the argument but to make chief issue with the the government's argument in this case want one more question to you to mention your concern about reading liability too broadly under the statute and i certainly understand and sympathize with the notion that we don't want this to


friction which i don't think the loss of words here he said he possessed them so the issue is he's good at leading guilty as a matter conspirator possessing guns there's no case on this as the nd amendment guarantees drug dealers the right to carry guns


i think the conversation here on in february of two thousand and seventeen was picking back up and saying yeah it was a continuation of what was happening there and also there have been violations of


seventeen and the way you articulated the standard is a little bit different in order to get at puts an emphasis on the materiality of the reckless or false statement or admission the way you described it


how does that affect it doesn't because we're not relying on the swedish district court decision for some sort of precludes effect here just for what the law is just what the law is exactly and it is the only law on the record you know they had ten years to put in expert evidence of swedish law and get some expert to


just new cases where we use a current based on that you know just duncan is asking these sort of the cases on the side of the coin you know where's the demarcation line where we have clearance so my question is what's


back did not recapture the right to sue for extra contractual fraud then it serves no purpose and has no meaning the ruling also violated the bargain struck by the parties the sellers only agreed


that questions about the disclaimer of reliance argument i'm happy to answer them otherwise a given limited time would move on to the loss of vision or


offer that it was not to suggest he's a bad person we'll ask him because when he said when he took cars out of line what he did was keep actively said look customers you may be expecting your car to


the outcome of eight as i have a wrongful outcome that's very minimal here too is as i mentioned at the outset while she needed to engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct the only question was the appropriate sanction and he has not brought upon any


understand the director is been in touch with one of the writers and they're kind of having this he's the he's producing it in connecticut they're producing it here which is kind of fun right that is you


that simple set yeah very simple but it was fun i think that the kids in my high school were talking to me about the kids at west we're talking about my theater kids today was this is how much they know about everything which always amazes me is that they're like


there's so many quick changes in that show and i'm like yeah they really were and they were literally you know running off and changing and coming back and and and the ensemble members were becoming all these different character and well you know


you know it's it's funny but safety comes first and you know the feedback that we've gotten has been so wonderful but what we need to do is really get the word out we need more we need more


sure that these revenues go to or the right things there's all sorts of construction being done on roads and infrastructure in this city all guaranteed part of that is you know it's coming from cannabis


nearly three million residents in the bergen county area in the five counties around there the demand is going to be extraordinary and it's going to i believe you jersey will


not good to you know for kids to to check out and possibly write and let me let me address that i have some friends here in new jersey who are who drink in are also into the cannabis lifestyle sure i will tell you to the to the person


the high school exactly and there's the front of the lot and i did this the other day so it's still set up for fall i see you have some mums there in the front and some pumpkins and so on let's take a look at the next image ok i want to start talking


to see you know you do your buying probably kind of early on right probably january that it's not here is that year so you really have a heads up did you see anything when you were buying for the fall that you liked or was maybe different this year we had some really nice rates you


sure in your lifetime you've done it and you think you've seen people do with it or that you like getting to me the simplicity of just using boards or pumpkins or things that are a little bit unusual the naturals as much natural as possible yes ok let's take a look at the


well the ones that you have in use just use those and i have little i guess little little sticky you know you can put them all over your board and just be creative


selling for two thousand eight hundred if you want to buy a costume personally we like them from our closet ok so why don't you start us off with our a picture our first picture or if our viewers can see now this is becoming such a popular show


glad you're bringing this because i agree i mean it is a great time to feel that way but we notice that a lot of women probably you know not teenagers or in the twenty's older ladies the moms


yes not you not just once not an hour be patient with the yeah the drugs are right you have to be patient with it it could be three four times to get the perfect break yeah yeah it totally works it's so so simple and don't only do genes i mean


our scholars at their home schools so we continue that academic and gauge when it's not you know there are a lot of programs that are either a one off you know one week boot camp for the college application process or you know into the contents of science


letter recommendation for someone who's applied to be a police officer in trenton and whatever that next phase of their life is to be able to do that is incredibly inspiring so it's not that there's a role model that's like someone who's done some extraordinary achievement in and of


experience changes lead over the next wow and somewhere in between i had children which is the most amazing experience right i'm very blessed to have that but that does stunt your growth as an artist a little a little bit so i slowed down the whole national thing i stopped going to nashville i stopped


liberates other people also considering talking about this could be saving somebody who's life today's that isolates watching the show because they're learning some tips that you know i'm experiencing this maybe this is i could try this or maybe i could try that


actually so there's no one recipe exactly there's i don't want to have to try it all exactly what works for you so that's the part where it's hard and so many different ways for people you know it's such an individualistic experience


is seem a little just yours you yes look because the color is our segment we're supposed to be teaching you guys the we're learning something new today well so that's the thing you know sometimes color can dress up the look just the color itself or so and a color could


is the most interesting thing about you and you know i'm loving because we just came back from new york fashion week and the runways and this is been going on for a few seasons now the models on the runways are all different i love that they're doing it is the way it's


everywhere can use them so that we enjoy see tail that became one part of our mission and we created the web site the web site now it's got more than a quarter million users and one hundred eighty four countries and all fifty states using these materials that were


and they had beautiful floral beautiful colors going down the runway like this gorgeous floral drive dying it was a partner in the what they normally do and you know what sometimes designers have to do it and i absolutely loved it because


careful when you photograph patterns and yes now was that harlequin pattern difficult to shoot so you got the angle where it wasn't too busy no actually it was probably the only color that was in the room which really i


when i met my husband ok and how many years ago was that ten years or ten years ago and you know i was never an athlete i could barely run a mile i know i would run


clubs and you know listen to the local bands and and so they're still playing we we just went to see john head on at a johnny as us is a philly south jersey heresy kind of guy and we went to see him not too long right and he


me because of the lack of rehabilitative resources and support systems there are prison systems did not provide for the people incarcerated we exercise he expects for us to be


more resources on me right the next person out there who worked at century a did to overturn the conviction your tradition you know was was thrown out and the prison door opened up and you walked out to freedom what was the feeling like twenty four years later


to new code from osha as you turn it on it cleans out fifteen six hundred cubic feet and here going to you can stand and talk like we are with grinding machines let's say somebody is doing their basement and again there was a water


classes prior to changing my degree over to environmental and it just seemed to fit it was a natural fit and i really enjoyed working with actors and i wanted to be outside and of course had by then worked for you


like region women they like wake up and they just see it in red gal have to be there who knows what we'll do today but we'll just throw on the ground it just a magical goes very well with their skin tone your hair just throw it up and that's what it looks like to


couple of pictures you have like eight pages a lot of photos as they were they really like the outcome of ok so this this is the the living room shot and i think the living room is just spectacular now the the furniture from i want


leahy he's a cia graduate cone areas to today of america not the other place and has over thirty years restaurant and food experience good to see a good afternoon yes thank you for having me rich our topic today has happens to be something


there that are watching our program if you're thinking about doing a kitchen renovation a couple things that that i would do is get somebody like john somebody that's a professional that really knows what they're doing practically in a kitchen and get their ideas first they're wonderful places that you can go to


honest enough to own it and say that i was there but there is still light very severe still a way yes you know thank you so much thank you this was my tired don't


of like this people decide that they want to make a life change the first thing i'll go is to teach dot com i don't know if there's any sites that you recommend maybe your club a bank or site to start or any sort of the multiple listing sites that you definitely i would tell people to use


kind of like you know your you're your looser you know dining room you may worry about the people next to you will be more cautious a bit more reserved humor yes we've got three and a half minutes left i want to cover the most


leads into what i was going to say sure we would love eventually to start upgrading our product line we have plans for bars and cookies as well that we want to add and of course we have another twenty or so flavors


dogs go that's a new one that we just added so we're we have a charitable giving committee that reviews all of these things people can get matching donations for charities that they're involved with so i think that yeah there's no plans to stop any of that it's funny you should


construct it's there are the result of the direct result of us as a community and as a society not responding in an effective and helpful way so grief is good and it's


geometric print was in but now i'm seeing it shift a little bit more towards teal right teal's another eighty's color that has sort of resurfaced this time period with grey and teal is probably the the hottest pop color that


would say for me in a perfect world i would have hardwood floors throughout my whole first floor because the visual line from other rooms the continuity makes the spacing bigger i think big and continuity but if i had a situation where i didn't have there was a change a grade i could make that work and i was going to


girls and you'll see later on in the episode a lot of the at least today are going for full on shine you're right but how is yes being the first then i guess kind of maybe not as willing to be


because some and they you know they might look at a woman they weren't and was a little too high maintenance by what she's wearing i mean i think a lot of many might do that on the first and probably be or they might say this woman doesn't really know who she is or maybe she was too covered up and they're like this woman is really confident


sort dot org is the handle but it is out of our department of agriculture and of natural level and it allows young companies like us like me to take


to the police officers does everything they ask and he gets arrested anyway so i mean i think you could argue that that would be reason he might behave the way he did once he said well that's the idea is


psychologist and tams the petitioner wanted to transfer back to tampa to be with the psychologist the petitioner had no intentions of injuring anybody right there he talks about his intentions and then he ends with the petitioner started throwing liquid substance with a


are very easy but but courts are always making determinations of mental illness they're always making determinations of how an individual's memory illness may impact you know


formality it isn't just a formality it's a procedure gets meant to be followed to guarantee that liberty interests of those less fortunate than us who need the services actually are provided them


does because also in looking at the actual request i think just turn and you asked counsel if there was a specific request pressing the access to those well sites i don't believe they'll find the record as any such quest when we're talking


i want to add nicole's name because nicole is not working and she needs the money and i believe and what we're urging on court the flying was that the money would go to nicole caylee


considering the arguments of counsel judge robb determined that the the customer list of mr reeves as well as the information about the customers that mr grant


activity of the property during the term of the trust and since it's terminations to regarding the sixty thousand dollars home supposedly being a consideration to jennifer carter it was originally


increases the sentencing range so it's different here in that it's not a set term of years as it was bill but that's a distinction without a difference it's twenty five to natural life that means that increases the underlying class


the taxes shall be paid from the assets of the estate this is a position that was developed some years ago not long after mr i did the study at the time the issue arose she obtained a legal opinion from the trust exactly


judge who doesn't think that his claims are moved and he's also he's also in a position where he's he's been told that he could represent himself but he said judge after judge say yeah i'm going to let him represent himself i'm going to let the lawyers


put forth facts that are sufficient to establish that defendant was involved in an automobile accident and emissions of course are are conclusive and require no additional proof on the matter dispense with the necessity for


which meant that the plaintiff failed to meet the ultimate burden of proof here the court's decision was based on phase two the judgment order entered by judge kavanagh said that the court after having considered a review depositions of first


had nothing on which to base a decision on the best interest of the time because the court had nothing had virtually no evidence and refused and turned a blind eye to the attempts to provide and ask for an


tried to make this case about every legal issue possible other than what is really


you know based on the fact that there are there are undisputed facts that mr lester suffered a permanent injury because of this accident but two thousand dollars cannot be


is a recognised disorder we'll be stuffed probable cause to trial on that issue now again that trial is and that is not addressing the question of whether the people who made the diagnosis committed professional malpractise your claim of professional malpractise


life nurturing him herself and personal power things that have much more to do with psychology and counseling than with education in the traditional sense and i should point out that the tone of the recommendation in addition to the


giving taken this and it improves the application process as justice meyer stuff you know just the tone of this is harsh and the board's own brief tells us why in the past i think he said since nine hundred ninety seven whenever there was a negative evaluation


krause who was the media at the time that then became a child bride when he started my client already after and had him in counseling and the same day that they had their first point was the same day that mr prosphora letter and said chance from his own counseling so that she changed that


execution of the digital option trades or the person trades on the specific date so it doesn't apply to the entire investment strategy and so to the extent the court would hold that the disclaimers do apply it only applies to these trades


his actions after words while there were some witnesses who testified that he was out there he was a cold fish there were other witnesses including a newspaper reporter who's probably the most objective person on the scene who testifies that mr le grown was distraught at the scene


going down in the most important factor i would argue is the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had her parents not divorced in her parents were together a short period of time during the course of their marriage before the separation


testimony that he said or a month ago or two months before this was filed in december she was living with her brother josh it was upon his information and belief that at some time and jennifer have been in florida with her brother trust her there was no time period attached to that now establishment


routes there are five or six independents left one of whom is c c disposal and obviously if you only it continues in the same vein that it has it will be interested in buying up the


says the court did not even consider the fact that he that he uses nonmetal matic and we will make that argument alternatively the court should have the word of the one hundred forty seven thousand at least of the property which was valued at two hundred fifty


well remember he had a twelve year old he didn't want his second wife to be in control of his assets should something happen to him and he trusted kendra is my only answer i have no answer i will say this though we don't know what the judge thought you know


granted that the public comment period opens for us the p a at that point that would be when the mahanta valley water authority would offer an opinion to the extent that it elects to object it hasn't made that decision yet but we're not


it's all for greed because the water authorities minutes are public as your honor asked and apparently someone affiliated with clinton landfill learned that the water authority was interested in investigating her busybodies everywhere busybodies


so heavy that she could move through cycles of lights dead stopped and says that our young driver pulls out of school going thirty miles per hour and she was able to observe him for thirty seconds on his approach and she did he just


trial just before jury selection prosecutor it buys his defense counsel for the first time oh by the way the witness you subpoenaed miss sandy she did identify your


a stablish is obviously that the majority finds cannabis is harmless and the majority police fear penalties are required the majority also is consistent with the fact that we have legislation criminalizing


i will represent to this court there were no demands prior to that indicating that that was a position that was being taken again until the course of discovery and after the april two thousand and


right you need a protection does the person have an irreparable harm without the injunction is there a lack of an adequate remedy at law and his or it likelihood of success on the merits i would say applying those four


stan sued all we knew was that the money had gone to kerry we got more expand statements through this through the discovery process and through the citation process we had no idea where that money went there's


repeating any employee laid off or discharged for any reasons other than lack of work or lack of funds they file a grievance it's that simple and i remember from contracts


reduction act of two thousand and five and implementing them case by case which is if there's anything that can be described as arbitrary capricious surely it's that where a worker you know in office i don't even know the address of it's a call from


business that's hiring security guards putting them out there theoretically night at least on paper however them to watch out for nighttime potentially violent criminal activity in the parking lot directed at their


so the board wasn't simply allowing every member of the proposed bargaining unit should join the board was looking at it on the night in play by play basis in deciding whether or not there was sufficient evidence offered


the commission's decision isn't that the opposite it was your honor and i think this case is it is a little different because of the fact that the only medical evidence that was related to treatment


to their individual experts the c t scans themselves don't appear in the chart when you order a truck what they were referring to at the time of the original disclosures was their review of the chart which


she was just speculating it really got is that he said leading fashion is an assumption on your part she said yes she's been there twenty six years of what it means leading fashion you can lead a cross examination of the answer yes


no reason not to provide what exists at that point in the future well understand what you're fighting over there well the the fact that there was the lawsuit that was roger


to these companies of showing that they have a mutual understanding that the federal government didn't get around the passing ocean to the seventies and therefore lack the power make companies tell before that the companies that into what they did please


substantial client's standard the chadwick case is a perfect example we cited that in our brief and i believe it was cited by cited by the court here the commission yet it was actually that they found this was substantial compliance obviously there's no


potential or suspects the investigation that might have lived of the suspects that would have permitted the defense attorney to raise the issue before the jury as to


defense counsel arguably the state would've been able to put on the investigation that completely ruled him out as a suspect and again in relation to your gums confession


well you know what you realize what we have here is three people here who have confessed in one form or another to being involved in their in the murder there


that his reasoning for pursuing questions about what happened is past that he was he had put on the record that he was trying to show that his behavior had changed significantly between getting in fights and just as general actions


deviant behavior and how he changed and the defense counsel objected and and they had a side bar and and the prosecutors didn't tell the court what was coming but told the court that this is all background leading up


the standard isn't you know what the weight of the evidence that it's palin hit on that aiding and abetting on the inadequate instruction to be absolutely and then out of going to actually goes to aiding and abetting because both potential mens rea or for eating in a betting


applicable to this case you say you say that what you call the default occurred because it wasn't argued well enough or properly


based on abuse of discretion flavored with right to counsel with respect to the second council yes yes and united states versus war and i'd say that's one of the most hopeful cases and we we quote that extensively and or opening


would have been attacked under under the executive order underneath but not directly under the executive order your honor which as the order itself states does not create separately enforceable


of the record and so in any case whether six six lanes ten lanes the agency proper properly looked at the evidence before it and determined that these were not the preferred alternatives


hughes should too because at the end of the day the overriding theme of dorsey so how about this quick how does dorsey come out if this is the way the statutes worked ok one hundred nine is exactly the way it was then your fifty five three a


two three seven four two g one in this is the key you know one of the key provisions and it refers to the guidelines at the beginning then it ends by saying that one effect in such day but has this clause together with any amendments there to


jury so we're going to go ahead and use them now that's capable of being interpreted in many different ways but so you do not recall and cannot point to any any written record that we


think that it's discriminatory when it comes to the railroad because the seventeenth cent pay back let's just say the truckers goes to how is it built up keep the roads that trucks rama and then you said to me i think


only found out that there was motions to compel at least twice filed about getting that particular evidence because we didn't believe it said what the plaintiffs said it did we only found out at trial that an agent for the plaintiff


cross examination wasn't even going to occur tomorrow so after that first day of trial in this was a two day trial so we've gone through half of the trial there has been meaningful trial testimony in witnesses the jury has been impaneled we are squarely


this is this is a i'm not arguing interstate commerce issue i think that that is what the limits on the federal government to prosecute is something i think is in a little more state of flux them than other kinds of


gang signs it was all inextricably intertwined with one another it wasn't something you could separate i mean they were wearing bandanas over their faces in these photos while they were flashing these gang signs but there's the there are disguising their


facts and elements and i don't think that's a distinction without some significance again there was no objection here so there was no discussion in the lower court about how this was drafted and i don't think there were


purposes of the second prong of fear and i'm not so sure that would fly now but it certainly we believe is very relevant to demonstrating actual prejudice and what would you rely on for that statement are there the classic


could potentially make up for it and i guess my question is is that really so i would think you'd have to have some strength of evidence to move on that's been our argument in the district courts and what's happened is we counsel has tried to to have a


for price cited a washington case that had to do was surprise but the facts were a little bit different there in that case the fellow grabbed a counselor's breast and she didn't do anything he took his hand away of his own volition and in that case the washington


history of sexual relations no i don't ever other than out of kentucky no no because f p testified that that there were many many many occasions on which they had sex i'm not sure she said many many many but she


this to do the bidding of this pastor yes ma'am that was part of it but you don't seem to jibe with the physical force requirement of kentucky law well on many of the counts there were there was physical force involved


what it was not at all that would be appropriate as an officer of the court his name is what whose name is sylvester north and i do have his mother in the courtroom to confirm that if it was needed but i don't think it is and that's


that's the case i'm looking for i do not know a specific and it can case where this would happen and the next closest would be ritchie well because the general yes but the general principle is that you have the duty to know the


just that there was a rational basis so that the jury could have decided that canet connect the dots from a between her personal history and the fact that there is a god to kinetic to make her death and


plaintiff said that it's either the state secret tactical advantage or the state have all of its evidence in order and then cease its investigation without further investigation the state had all of its witnesses in line here and i see my time as a


corner yeah i want to go to trial no i don't want to go troy i want to go to trial i don't like my attorney my attorney you know and various complains but there are several spots on the record cited in our brief for the judge you know compliments the attorneys and said you know this is just a difficult client he's


because there is absolutely no overlap between the pre f s a and post office a career offender range the district court in this case found no grounds for an upward


got and what he would probably get


thrilled for the wells they said they would what you have here is a company that engaged an enormous amount of people and spent a lot of sums of money and used much whitman to drill when they said they would


finding must be affirmed the you're the court the state court of appeals to not find that counsel actually showed the slide to even the pathologist correct there it was unclear whether


no idea what team eleven was enough times his deposition never heard of it he was told you go with these guys he never met these individuals before with the exception of one former city of warren police officer who was a tea agent at the time he


narrow street and so she would be able to hear across the way at the hall residence if device like that went off on the porch so all the neighbors


when the sort of scene view was conducted during discovery in the civil matter he was part of that from going through the house he had a very vague memory that he later entered help with paperwork but based on players own testimony that would have been


and then only if the state court identifies and applies the correct general standard and does so reasonably so had the state court here said i'm identifying knowing intelligent voluntary i know i have to look at it from the defendant's


explain why he did it hadn't taken the additional investigative steps his client suggested for example mr lanham said that a trainee of his who was working with him around the time of the intrusions philip to ground might


does not defeat the requests of the issue that is before the court right now and that is whether the company should be compelled to arbitrate this grievance and and how do you address the phrased in this c v a arbitration clause that the arbitrator


right it's different also when you're talking about the provision that i quoted earlier about no jurisdiction to alter the provisions of the agreement that the earlier part of that sentence says an arbitrator to whom


that they use in the rebuttal is someone that they withhold information about that would have destroyed his credibility so you need to look at it not simply just upon the the fact and without weighing the evidence


that nobody else testified to this that as mr peterson lay dying mr milburn mr gridley stood over him laughing watched his eyes roll back in his head watched him stop breathing or just laughing


this sentence so why would we send it back to him to sort of do that again i mean the dischord if we take him at his word he's already done that thirty five fifty three as to the remaining counts why should we just leave it there he's saying that he's trying to craft a


when it's done it's direct all the way opera i mean if you accept the theory which i'm asked posing counsel to assume that we would reject it but if on the contrary you accept it then the time in the in the interest of times as part of the direct appeal


that would have been harmful to mr peoples that is their main argument but and and so how do you respond so i don't think that it makes sense because there were already there was already a lot of testimony about the car chase including the fact that the car was stolen


can decide as a part of that jurisdiction the court can decide the very existence and validity of the debt it's a bankruptcy court after all the whole point of the of the bankruptcy court and big


tie and sadly the suspect expired the court goes through the history of hawkeye's and they point out that there was no unconscious there's no per se rule that hog tie is unconstitutional so they found that the officers were entitled to


this situation well if you look at the record and you look at the video in fact that's what happened saw an officer mayo is called to the scene and sergeant mayo says extract and so she goes to try to pull


individuals to focus on what's happening in the state right before they go to the federal court so the state has the best opportunity to address those issues and then finally the other reason that


theft show also include forgery mean and if you say well it's just a loss for to have that's not substantive that's not of significance and so suddenly you have the coverage policy that's only two sentences and now one


significant that mr scenes on july twenty eighth was only one of about ten or so employees who engaged in the works of it there's not evidence that mr seems did anything to stand out as a leader there's no evidence that he himself even


august twenty second which was eight days before his arrest we also have the story about the rental house is also pretty strange and i thought the


particular way in this case i submit to you that it isn't the only only thing that the board refers to is a secondary boycott case or i would suggest that the underlying statutory reasons


posse to make sure that it doesn't violate the national labor relations act so i think the other facts that we have here shed light on the context but we're looking at this precise issue of the handling that occurred on september eighth we're looking at who made the


terminated as of this date it doesn't read that way in the relief section they just asked that it be terminated and it had to contemplate that this would not happen until somewhere down the road and indeed it didn't happen until november two


district court and what the district court focused on insta gura the district court focused on that criminal history and his concern about that individual as a sexual predator in mr brown's case that is not the tenor of the sentencing miss


the jury asking how three is the question have you ever participated the actual charge along with this answer of no just that include the when in truth language of count three is when in truth


defendant didn't even tell the court room information security officer who was assigned to the case to review classified information we were not given the nose that was required under secret and this was done because then it wanted to surprise us one to show her


ruled that in fact that was a breach of the police agreement you can also look at harper your honor and harper it went a little bit farther where the prosecutor was actually became an advocate for the p s r guidelines sentencing


the critical element for the court here is to review the case under the factual scenarios presented to the court within the record is that the breach of the plea agreement is through the eyes of mr to see if the defendant


he said it only changed his way of determining whether d's well i understand that but it's a decision that makes a difference because it yet sort of says you don't look at the background facts anymore you only look at the elements of


no he did not have to for his statement was that anonymous changed the law not only that he changed his mind but that anonymous changed the law that's what he said i don't think that anonymous did but because of what his motivation was


the case that's relied on most by the district court in the tele sense cited that as well but cotton commercial relied on two cases in particular that the texas supreme court has rejected the first was great sentence which was this court's


limited to these cases rocked and i would even if there were a general proposition contrary to pearson law and reading your cases in this case if during voir dire or in closing the prosecutor ever said you've got to only consider


defense to bring up stuff twenty five years after the fact in order to explain the prosecutor's malign motive and it was malign motive but it's not ok for the prosecutor to


and essential to that process is that the elections him selves are to be conducted under certain laboratory conditions it's actually a much higher standard then our political process and from one who speaks for


were pending and there were three amended charges during the course of the investigation and i'm saying that the employer could not react to the substantive complaints against it for fear another charge would be filed against it


was specifically okayed in a separate statute but there are no statutes that say it's ok to take low level things from your subcontractors in order to develop goodwill let alone the two hundred


gives rise to false claims act liability is often going to properly be the subject of of many other statutory violations criminal ones like the ones happened here and i kicked back ect liability as well as false claims act replied


our harsher let's grab and they say the equities for example in the harbor insurance case which this court also cited and which is also relevant here were actually given far more compelling there was a need knowledge of the


on this record as you pointed out there is no evidence that the well i mean i didn't agree that's what i question i'm not disagreeing i'm neither agree nor disagree that it's actually so in this record it's your position that there is no evidence of it


preexisting group the claim is that there has to be meeting of this group to begin with right and he saying my group is not racist and we want to meet and so an individualized determination needs to be made as


significantly less hopeful than the average participant because what part does the record show about what his activity was irrespective of what wasn't put in the record but just a records show really all we have is that he was caught


representation it was necessary to update excelsior to require employers to provide petitioning parties also available cell phone email home phone number contact information and the board


i'm a supervisor employee in these situations where it's unclear and so i don't even know if i can talk to to my friend over here about the election as a fellow employee or whether i would be deemed to be management that seems to be a rather big


evidence that they had any idea at the time of this transfer that those music rights were worth anything at all there was zero evidence that they had any expectation that they would ever pay money so they were simply no


but that's not what i intended to do i intended to do something good noble or at least wholesome and that the law is simply if the court knows it's up to bear singh to tell you what you know when the trier


and that is exactly what we have trying to do you said well you didn't attach all the underlying lawsuit so they're all on the record whether we attach them or they attach them to district court head before all of the underlying cases and there's


accurate to say that the facts are largely not in dispute in this case and we would argue that even if we take all of the factual factual findings of the district court that the district court was still clearly erroneous in finding that the plaintiff had not established a


precincts impacted the fewest of any plan that was offered and three thousand five hundred fifty two persons changing wards mr naylor's plan there were there were alternate versions of it but the one ultimately given presented to the council


a certainly within our recitation of the facts that the facts i've highlighted are resided there and and your honor you know i mean you have a footnote three even if the court decides on harmless error of you when applying harmless error the court must


salaries of the employees who work under another elected official and that ties right back into the pritchard an abbott rationale from the supreme court of texas because elected officials have a unique spear of


applying the harmless error standard to this case would you have to do you have to look and see that if on appeal was some evidence presented in the appellate


and how it would have been favorable the testimony he's offering is equivocal with the best and as i've said in the context of actual innocence it simply doesn't contradict or undermine the critical testimony linking him to the killing of mr holder


that the this blow had a severe fact on the agent and the medical records that i just in the texas rangers report confirmed that there was concussion in the sense i was a victim with a very strong you know there was anything in the record about the


facility was wearing his uniform and was driving official vandar in these transports they were lost in the cage back of these fans and could not get out unless don allowed it generally these women were highly vulnerable


discretionary function test that we don't have any poor role with the united states this idea that a constitutional right has to be that the mandate has to be specific and intelligible but neither are plaintiffs


show that she was not lawfully present in the united states to plead that and i also don't see where the citizenship of some of these individual defendants is identified c c s identified as a citizen of maryland i think in


we are in recess until tomorrow morning


where it was an ambiguous statement and it the core analyze whether it can be construed as a statement of his silence or another reason and the court said in that statement it was in big us let it go but here there can be no


created a genuine issue of material fact about that because both campbell walker campbell walker's mother as well as a number of third parties all testified that the up other children knew that they knew about that this corporation in this structure existed


the record is a little bit unclear it is it is are we understand that they actually were aware at the time the records were moved from edmonds washington down to new


fact to credit campbell walker's self serving testimony that there was only a few thousand he also testified by the way that those were freebies that were not charged which of course was belied by his own lawyers letters


darshan payments those were kept secret and they were ongoing so they continued again unabated after robert's death up to fifty thousand dollars that campbell walker authorized to pay himself after he


opinion i believe the l t does refer to it as a food demonstrator job and cites her work history report also at the hearing with plaintiff and with racing and her attorney present the l j indicated i


if mr roth represents the cvo we know that under the public records law there should be a record of it the record is very clear in this case


appeals did not have jurisdiction to render that this is and you have to accept that what this court itself is limited by its appellate jurisdiction you know we're way out of time


party beneficiary counts as a party for purposes of arbitration that is can you force a knot in florida can you force a nonparty to arbitrate even after


under the alternative way of and of protection of the statute one alternative way besides invoking is to apply for benefits under that system the definition an organ statute as to what constitutes a worker's compensation


several cases to that nature and it would appear to me that if you want to invoke a punitive statute under oregon law saying that you are your employer did something discriminatory to you if the statute says under


sexual touching which has nothing to do with the alleged separation and then in plaintiff's own words at the supplemental excerpt of record page seven in her deposition she complained that he would separate her from her coworkers when she was talking with them


room got it there was a brief period of time where coach skated the tried to leave the field and then come back hours later in order to pray he came to the conclusion that that was inconsistent with the religious commitment that he had made let me speak specifically but


contacts sort of disclaimer but it's not cases where the cases like this one where you have as i said the coach has this privileged position to come on to the field it's not open to the public when you have is in cases like hills you have a there's a limited public


is still pending in this case versus what is not pending in this case there were four issues brought up for appeal by american seafoods with this one of which has been resolved conclusively that had to do with a set of summary judgment standard versus a motion to compel


that's correct your honor right so well you're still arguing for that anyway and saying then that ho was which defender of the rejected that the ship analogy as i understand it spawning that that that's not the way the world works these days you're saying


but there is language in earlier opinions about this shit comparison which yes your honor and the way that should be interpreted is if there is something that has an on land analog that is something that's awarded for example


expenses and in this case seven dollars ninety seven cents isn't very much money it's not very much money to anyone involving the government or say about the real problem here is that they're not interested i mean that they are not interested in the


landlord chooses to terminate accept the surrender and there is no reservation it stops right there at i understand that that's different it's different from the reservation because that preserves your rent and damages into you let it could be three months it could be two years i


was inadequate and so i thought an elegant solution to suggest that the process should be worked out so there really be no questions later about whether the process was adequate or not the question i guess is is is offering


on chain of title and i guess i'd like to talk about chain of title a little bit more because in in case berg we obviously took the position based on our experience in so many trails cases that you don't


the median strip therefore you have no ownership that would give you standing right why is the court wrong i think for a variety of reasons your honor starting with the fact that for reasons we've already discussed


protection act and that is to foster honest and fair competition and that is that the element that the thornell court spent a great deal of time on with respect to state farm what's the interest to washington with respect to state for say


that say if the contacts are evenly balanced don't want a context in the context of the interests you of course you do enter into but in that instance i want to direct the court to future select washington supreme court case that adopted section one forty eight for


district court to do that i don't think it's necessary i think the court has enough argument before it today on that point and and again all you need to do is start with the future select a decision itself the washington supreme court decision that compares the relative interested


case involving the shooting of a woman who was holding a knife was a very unusual situation rica requiring quick thinking by the officers and no actual case cited exactly on point and here we had


for the orders from those customers were part of what was seized by the officers and he says that he was told he would be arrested if he didn't consent to try to turning over those items now


the two individuals complaint but they themselves chose not to assert a claim under the circle system supervision and thank you one other point only what's the exact language in this in the statute that says that


mr brown did not know that the victim would be killed which was the theory that was charged but there was also this allegation that the victim was afraid that he was in


that but if you look carefully at our brief you'll see that we have a section devoted to detailing what we had already produced and we didn't reduce accused was not in response to the


logs before the home was ever built so it wasn't any work that the contractor doing time actually did to the home when it was being built that caused the property damage and we also maintain the j five doesn't apply for the simple reason that


phrase products completed operations hazard which has its own definition correct then how does that read into the exclusion of products completed


to send that back to the district court thank you your honor as as counsel noted the case is talking about the efficient its use of the court's time and here these exclusions were all argued to


same basic elements of an eighth amendment violation we take mr bones deposition and we ask him these same basic questions and he admits a number of things three key things first he


requirement and what what those cases do and that and then it flowed into washington toxics was shifted the burden to the agency under section seventy but under winter of mine the saturn cottonwood the burton the burden is always on the


the b l m has no plan that addresses the survival of the northern spotted owl so that was essentially on remand from leon county the companion case that did enjoying the ongoing sales that had consultation so i would like to


hour on this property i spoke with why a person and said the following they understood me and they did nothing or they dismissed me there's no evidence in the record of that nature there is evidence of


orchards those were decisions through the h two a agreement and in fact in the evidence that we're with in valley fruit in green acres discretion and they exercise that discretion but beyond that they did not pay council have i think year over year


that there's a night hundred seventy definition if there weren't we couldn't be here so the only question is it is there is that definition sort of like willy nilly sort of controlling because unless one thinks it


anything to you know it's rescinded or to change it thank you me the question thank both of you for argument's very interesting legal issues here the case of daniel versus the national park service is submitted in wagering thank you


if you take that literal interpretation is that the for example the the couple in duncan who ran their company called done corps and they were fine they were entitled to get a discharge but


but more importantly what's missing from those cases is any analysis that really supports that conclusion and i think the place that we need to start is in the language of the statute itself the fair credit reporting act under this is fifteen u s c section


you said so someone could wear a cross and that gives you no information as to whether or not the person is holds themselves out to be a christian answered that would be no assumption that i would not make so what do you what do you make of that testimony how


question the question is could the jury have concluded that people might have been able to tell and this religion be playing religion no could she have been of middle eastern descent and been a coptic


sanctioning counsel for what is alternately a violation of rule of professional conduct three point three we're also here test court relatedly to vacate the monetary component of that sanctions order awarding fees and costs


as being part of the problem holding him back from succeeding looks like in the therapeutic community program so i guess based on all this that was going on in the build up between mr gold's b and the staff at the end i see


what really this case is about the section to challenge but what this case is about judge can't carnes is whether a citizen of the cator mr bouck kids can get a court this court or the district court to


really mean by that quite frankly is my law clerk god bless or had to create for me in a pending innocence of your twenty six arguments and chase them all down because there was no you hadn't really given us a lead about


of susan geary of the state department and from rob delaney of c c i that they never would have approved these jobs had they known that they consisted of massages with sex acts on the sex trafficking counts mr cooper repeatedly told who


was a court reporter there taking down the testimony there's just no indication from the document at all is that different from courts looking at legislative materials to figure out the meaning of a statute and


change actual loss of the test and this is in the record here they agent lorgnon testified that that spreadsheet was pulled that was every single tax return filed out of that business and that business did file more than one tax return for it to individual taxpayers for the same


to occurrence has to be a series of related events everybody agrees on that what is related typically what the cases in the area of fidelity insurance million prime insurance of look to those applying the cause theory that georgia has adopted


mean the plan is no longer in place i think the plan may be in place to some extent judge and i hate to just be given that if you will be to some extent yes


about the dismissal of the case it seems to me that that occurred after the falling of the appeal the effect of that is something that the district court needs to consider


plaintiff's complaint petitioner that point should be dismissed so there was no admission by the district that there was a request for an ip meeting or anything like that that was actually quoting in that brief quoting


it it's part of the state department of education is a right and just like i look at least course of rules in other cases that just being a part of an agency does not and in and in the state of state immunity this is part of a


how changed is the policy you know sort of with respect to the people named on the policy the sort of language in the policy the insurance risks and the policy sort of how florida centric has this thing become this is this is the the difference


the individual denied you know they denied the claims they were actually asking those cats in those cases by the housing authority what was going on and in those cases the eleventh circuit has said you cannot like that under reviewing


lose on qualified immunity ground because the law has to be clearly established at the time they acted and if it was clearly established at the time they acted there's no need to extend it it's just that is


year or when the status was decided another either of those she would have that would have ended up one twelfth two thousand and nine she's deny are about one twenty six two thousand and nine her years gone so she would have had a


court's time on that i didn't i just it was our position this whole time that she was in fact that that regulation just wasn't in effect because the state of georgia as long as all the other states had a real hard time implementing the


expert never said this is an expert never struck to the jury that he was an expert and it cut and it cautioned him to take his opinion testimony that they were to take that it was only his opinion that they were to look at the evidence and determine for


this was so close in time to the rest of the incidences are going on and intercepted phone calls talking about drug dealing pointing out that any conversations with carlos where that mr hawkins is having it's it's


presented any photos to show how far away the attic was from the kitchen there was no there were no photographs showing how high the ceiling was if mr gibbs would have been able to get into the attic without without a ladder they also the government


or or size other than the fact the records as there are portable classrooms there are i guess brick and mortar buildings and at six thousand other than removing her completely from the campus would there be any way given the nature of the school for over a


who said earlier today


it was a lesser included offense but the fact was he pointed the gun your are your only argument is my as i see it is he he is guilty of a crime he did point the gun of the officer but the officer overreacted


truth of anything he said was irrelevant and harmless and the mower over it was clear that the government was not trying to get the get the jury to think that what he said


you standing on a state or federal level but the municipality the courts have said is different i agree with that it's arguably a fiction because you have a city like new york with eight million people the amount of money you


to where we started before the scheming began my last point is i just have to point out the district court was absolutely wrong on generalized grievance you tell me your best case if they do a facially neutral


bring your mail with you onto the in your briefcase on the cruise they have the right to examine it judge just like i do i know i'm trying to understand though and


in fact some of them couldn't even obtain the ingredients now why could she not have asked for the names of the pharmacies under the same conditions as the other states who were able to get


but you tried to question whether it was a valid are not and that's what we have one question isn't available and the question is whether or not to district court your argument has to be that the standard is higher on the


choose to believe the the prison employee right then what you're doing is you are creating a situation where the word of


the the assault that's in the record between ricard and greene occurred in administrative segregation but again i think i want to make very clear that this is


and in the motion in the motion for sanctions affectively the bankruptcy court treated this response that was filed as a as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment if we look at the motion for sanctions as


which is a case in our breeze it's a case involving punitive damages in that case the compensatory damages awarded was five hundred thousand dollars same as this case and the important fact is that it was five hundred thousand dollars all an emotional


database there should have been some testimony as to what that how that database was created so that the at least there would have been a cut there would have eliminated any confrontation issue so really this should have been but more importantly i think and more


view does he have any obligation to try to paint mr james as a as a human being or sympathetic in any any regard i do believe he they do have a


life in prison without parole and that he was sabotaging his case to get that and i just want to clarify for the record both impetus reply brief and here today in court petitioner stated or tried to cast doubt on those comments by saying that those aren't found anywhere misfits


laws that adversely affect recognized economic values they approve zoning laws that quote may destroy or adversely affect the recognize real property interests so long


under the plain language of the statute you do not impose spending measures you impose taxes to raise revenues the only thing that the court has asked this court to do is look at the tax the actual money taken in and that's exactly what judge cohen


twenty three cents per gallon twenty three point four cents per gallon or nineteen cents per gallon versus nine cents a gallon any district court in the circuit court can do that so i think that's the answer to question there's not a hard thing to do here that's why just a


scenarios that it's saw were intervening acts as the plaintiffs indicated or as we indicated there had to be a direct loss and so under the district court's own reasoning of the plaintiff's


finding that the united states presented a reasonable approximation its case in chief of ill gotten gains earned by mr stints no approximation reasonable or


for the litigation against mr stenson that is a deliberate intentional misrepresentation the facts in the law they actually argued and he argue an appeal that form forty five forty nine that she used was used in a normal legal


all of the clues that the complaint talked about are also consistent with people who are impaired by alcohol of illegal drugs also asphalt any number of things that could cause the symptoms that mr


say that from a deliberate indifference standpoint plaintiff is really arguing that what comic says comic says that just because there is better training that may assist officers and doing their jobs


there any autopsy was there also and i'm not suggesting it's relevant to a lot billet here not but was there any indication that of drugs in addition to the mental illness the same so irrational no


rehearing our motion for reconsideration with regards to not i thought his guideline range was calculated by applying to k two dollars b and his criminal history category was six neither of


overall sentence was lowered but the structure of the senate's had been changed and i think in that circumstance the court held due process doesn't require hearing for that type of remedial modification right and i think the reasoning for that makes sense right it's it doesn't go it goes to the structure of the


section nine point five of the replacement participation agreement a contract that coincidentally does not have a prevailing party provision in it but that is simply not true if your honour's would turn to tab one of the notebook that we provided


longer scheming against his family as the court may know this was a familiar sight in which the mother and son of the father were killed we have raised two claims


the response by feltham and it's not based on the substance of the proffer what he says is your father's pouring his heart out to me and i don't see any remorse any repentance by you it is far from clear


whether a reasonable attorney should have expected that it would in fact turn into a point the problem to me with the district court opinion in this case ignores the fact that pretty much any time you lose a case as a lawyer your client


your honour's have already written my replying to is an insurance company start to question an application where they have to grant risk exclusion after exclusion well i'm just rhetorical the asking


would have to check double check the exact record site i know there was the notice of service itself was included in the record on appeal that listed the address that they sent to mr shelton i believe that's the evidence that cited


where do you go you go and you look at what the little lot with what the liquor liability exclusion says and says it applies it does not apply to claims within the the products completed operation hazard


who's the owner of the restaurant walking out and getting a couple of salad just grabbing a couple of salad cups transforms alcohol that p p i did not have a license to sell into p p i product and i think judge


have any analog to that here what we have is several general allegations of security admissions employment and placement and then we have date ranges matched up with those are those generalized allegations


there were any problems with the two thousand for a loan he would have been privy to that knowledge so by failing to raise the issue and waiting to raise until after the magistrate judge had issued her report recommendation the palettes have waived that issue


force is only that force that is capable of causing physical pain or injury and it further suggested that a slap in the face would suffice moreover the argument that chris johnson can be read to require something more some strong force has been rejected


attorneys the court before whom this motion for summary judgment was pending by the intervention plaintiffs is the same court that it disqualified mr hill's


is that all of that information about trauma trauma guns was never applied to the facts of this particular case that's what i understand argument to be my misunderstanding your not your honor but the point i was trying to make simply was that they made the opposite argument


twenty two the record in no way then we could be considered to have one more than one disability in same time the fact that a disability is caught by more than one injury or sickness or from


second which was early on if that's the question of whether that fall contributed to his initial disability certainly there's no issue about that but the question is his own going five


we don't know if one hundred ten thousand includes future meds or not do we but we know it doesn't include the undisputed amount of feature medicals which were over a million dollars so we know for sure that it does not include


leader of the union leaves the company so i want to answer that question in two parts if i can i think the first place to start is to look at other cases leave aside what you think about creative vision but is kind of a benchmark for


court was teamsters from the one nine hundred seventy is where the court in joint strike conduct by a union where the strike was going to pose both economic loss to the employer or forced the employer to


marcus what was what was the economic loss that you were paying higher wages in those particular particular units correct well not just that they were higher that they were so much


and you know the alice in this case before this court is it is for an abuse of discretion and whether or not the district court abused its discretion in following the prior cases and to find that the concealment is self


i would you write that i think the false statements are are a key position i think that the repeated false statements to get into the court were really distinguish this case from your run of the mill case


naturalization so but it seems to me materiality is in there i want to give you a chance to make your argument that i figure argument is relevant and predictable or are somehow different we are saying it's yeah it's actually materiality that's the difference will it has to be


in other contexts as well you know in the like in the delegate case we followed folx in osha contacts and we wouldn't find continuing violations for failure to continue to do this reporting the safety reporting


started asking for documents from the company in two thousand about these issues at these plants five years before the first one of these modifications is alleged to have occurred they could have done what they were supposed to do which is challenge the modifications at that time but


the government's complaint says we violated never cited in the briefs of this court that's because that regulation very clearly says the obligation is before any actual work has begun again they can't explain that away because the language is so clear as


she worked with everybody everywhere everybody and when she applied for per principal position she was still taking classes to be certified as it's in that system principal there were other people who were already


inch if the lessee procures insurance pursuant to its obligation to do so and the equipment gets destroyed in e g images it owes us or to be offset by proceeds that squarely sued for blood in the insurance matter what they were sure


was obligated to protect against all the costs associated with destruction replacement of the equipment paragraph seven eight nine when reading those through this equitable lens the court can only come to the conclusion that these parties secured that obligation with these insurance proceeds


i think your honor the way that the court the texas supreme court today the way that they are going to construe contracts insurance agreements and third party beneficiaries whether they're implicit third party beneficiaries or intendant third party beneficiaries exactly how they did it


on when this court certified it in the taos case they found specifically that the courts will not come for a third party beneficiary by implication or anything else and lister's clear express language so i think they may have a problem going as


is not exactly observant of the laws it's not really someone he could trust i think the cases in the circuit would dictate that that issue is irrelevant that the issue of the high speed chase and we've started those cases for the


is very supportable that this was never a greasy crime in the first place as was the backwoods drug deal gone bad we have sean berry using steroids we have evidence that mr byrd was dealing in drugs and no evidence that he was dealing in steroids


clothes a person who is not involved in a crime does not have to think about that when he says we've made history we've made history doing what we made history killing james byrd jr the other way to read that there is absolutely no other way to read that


certain attorney fault we're going to allow that to because under cause i'm under the clause and unprejudiced standard now if you go back to williams what the court said williams was that easy to replace the cause of prejudice standard and it did and it replaced it with the


provided it again to serve that accountability loop the congress intended to create and the under the the amended provisions of the i a e a and address that which she could be contacted the government could have sent her written notice of that address as it was a crack at that


out and how the proceeding cases to the distinction is based on the reason provided by the board for dismissing the appeal


transparency is the key and let's be real clear and we did that and we sent a copy to the other side this is all for the third andersen trial yes your honor everyone saying you did it perfectly there but the deposition


you saw her affidavit in the in our our papers where she's calling calling calling she can't get anybody the foreclosure is coming up november seventh of two thousand and twelve and nobody will talk to her


state reasons i think that could be cured in the same way that this court cure the error in price versus came in the back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing there aren't any more questions about that that's an issue i'd like to move on to the issue


the state law abuse of discretion standard that is less protective than the federal arbitrary and disproportionate standard therefore there was no adjudication of the merits under johnson versus williams secondly under terry williams and


threshold heaping function to do tell whether experts are qualified and there are multiple reasons i could spin it right multiple reasons to keep out experts including relevance reliability qualifications if they're not qualified not


you accepting that appointment and we also appreciate mr klein and being here and both of you all presented very helpful arguments and we appreciate that of course it's a very serious case and we take every case


a professionally accepted conclusion that you are able to go to work that has to be accepted on its face seems to me otherwise you just go on and on and on and anytime you don't like a doctor's opinion you say well he's refusing treatment because he


declarations that are also in the record i i would be remiss if i didn't point out that these fifteen declarations that are cited extensively in the defendant's briefs were not in fact cited quite so extensively to the district court they in fact cited these precisely


in the factual background of this case and what transpired and the other lawsuits that have been up here before the panels and so on and so forth so bus you can you know cut to the chase and


a younger white male who'd been terminated for poor performance and poor management allegedly he told page or elite plaintiff didn't know who who told plaintiff


the district court's failure to actually spell out why it rejected the medical mitigation argument if it even is an argument was not an error and it certainly was not plain air under this court's decision in van


knew when collins came in but that all three of them isn't the testimony agreed among all three of them that they were all three ordering him to put his hands behind his back and


will employee so did he have a contractual interest in the existence of that policy you have a contractual decision no you and he had a benefit as an employee however the way this this policy was rolled out each and every employee had to


that no declaration i think we figured that out ok i'll go on that and based on that i'd think that it is clear that judge brain did not abuse his discretion in denying the simple request in the


the assumptions that he was given were sufficiently reliable to permit him to draw the conclusions that he drew he is an expert who is used to taking real figures real sales


things and she also said the other so you can't come to conclusion he never heard a supposed to to conclusion he never addressed the issue of made a finding did me the only that you could you could


on paper that they get a four on this this skill and will go in and that and that's good with us but i think that it's pretty telling that we don't when we have hard data available we don't rely on it in one particular anecdotal story that one of my clients


to threaten a battery or attempting or threatening a battery in an under massachusetts law battery could also be convicted or committed by harmful or offensive touching and


questions well when you were talking about the jurisdiction


thirtieth ok in that pleading of what year twenty fourteen in that plane alone i refer to these as private tracks twenty nine different times so it is totally false for the board to


ancillary track but let's say the board in made findings that at one point there was a core of the moving through so let's say it turns out that


about the fact the scientists and the same thing at the hearing i don't think that changes that your honor the fact is that as part of that agreement he had presented that right now he was accepting that the shoe into the agreement in the agreement and then


lawyers at trial so there if there ever was a case where being forced to go to trial with a particular attorney would undermine our faith in the fairness and integrity of the proceeding in and of itself it's one where the attorney is going on the record in this is this is


the district judge making subsequent orders that limit the person but to say that somebody can't have a theory even if it's a crazy theory and that's what he wants to do it i could see that


the district court here did not abuse its discretion in denying probes request to replace his attorney at the final pretrial conference all four of the factors that this court considers here support the government


said that the defendant must present the same claim on the same theory presenting both its factual basis and its legal basis in state court or the twenty six b application raised a in effect of assault in effect of


in the record your honor to support word that the argument somehow is in conflict with this case right well i think that the board appropriately distinguished davis by pointing out that in that case it was determined that there was little


there's the board's findings are well supported the company does not dispute for example in terms of skills that mr miller that was the that's the second mechanic that he possesses identical skills to the


which is is i understand all point of this you know i'm not sure what the state run media is and i'm sure that in the state is not argue that they haven't identified a remedy that we should have been using they do have post judgment remedies


you have to now we now know you have to prove its material and if you did in this case you have to show harmless error for the error to do for the inability to prove materiality which requires a showing of intent right


to adopt her to extend a vote to women seventy eight years of it and would you be surprised to find out it didn't work and it took an amendment to the constitution to finally achieve that after


both ways and she would agree no because we're now at the point where if and this is why the recognition case is so significant because at some point when the democratic process is played


with respect to this case the pretrial publicity in this case was widespread this case was in delaware county it was one of the biggest cases at the time and we direct the court to


specifically to two articles though one i draw the court's attention to primarily because it's actually referenced by one of these two jurors who are going to talk about but there was a gag order in place here and the articles that appeared in the


i think gerald hand is guilty that's an answer and say that well do you think gerald bob hand is guilty the answer is yes so i would submit that is an opinion that is opinion that


if you go on to say if selected as a juror on this case the court would order you not to read or listen to or want any accounts of this case in television except or where you have any difficulty following this or know


if they were supported by valid consideration this simons were valid and made petition a jeffrey parent o a bona fide a purchase of a value within the meaning of the forfeiture


with the tools but he also said that he knew that this that these insurance premiums were being paid to the houses all right does that mean it he knew there was fraud being committed does he know and let's take me one step further


the rangers be made for camps to be made to sell these particular policies and it jumped that juncture he was advised by an attorney jeff help yourself protect yourself get an


assignment of the interest in these particular products of from what i'm sorry protect yourself from while protect yourself so that you're going to lose all you won't lose all of this money very simple


policies owned by another entity were so effective for which he was aware that they were the premium had been paid from the proceeds of the very business activity that is now being


best i just wanted to say one quick thing i wasn't charged with speaking about dubner but i just wanted to point out that my client pepper around was actually one of the officers who was placed at the scene and he denied being there


raised but before i do i would like to reiterate the point that you just made judge rogers and that is that the notice of appeal identified very specifically the orders of the trial court that were being appealed at that time in


i believe six or seven officers identified again on the information report that they were present during that really street raid and the reason the court cited for dismissing the other state actors were they were not present in the home during the raid they were all periphery


applied or they decided that the investigation was reasonable based not on any sort of examination of the investigation that was done or whether or not the investigation was rose to the level of


was for over eight years has no husband nicholas lorenzo is a caucasian male and is still cloyd facility source brought this case as they were the lowest paid account managers at facilities source had not received a promotion to a higher position like most


misrepresentations on two separate applications the first application was an online application through career builder he was in this was the appellant gary was he was applying for an entry level position and in fact he did that twelve days after being


counsel was proper because he imply of leeway if or forfeited his rights by his conduct our position is that that is


same effect is not aware of any problems it has ever caused as we know from judge watson's decision the district court specifically credited repeatedly the testimony of brandon why now he's a active political consultant in the state of ohio


know when they're alone ok thank you


circumstances of this case one would believe the private attorney would have the right documentation needed to file the foreign support order for the revised code three one one five makes it mandatory that the child support enforcement agency be required to enter these orders the


these are constitutional argument at all by your argument or the other side that you're right your honor but this is an issue were due process rights are being blatantly trampled on for the past six to seven years this mother is trying to get support services so she's not


complaint of discrimination can you direct us to the portion of your complaint where we can find these allegations of discrimination that meet the hate cup requirements before the continuing violations theory


reregistration it wasn't a full blown we are going to dismiss this case and reregister it was an attempt to just amend what the original registration was for for the order it was registered back in two thousand and


simply with respect to what was before this court what was not before this court was this you carry declaration which was stricken by the district court so the court did not have the opportunity to


persists in it any way i'm not sure we can view it as quite as minor as a matter of law as your urges in this context judge reggie the language of the wordage that i use of minor infractions came from


escape there's a felony dwi in there and a number of others there was very little information describing the underlying conduct for many of those convictions presumably because they were very old and in some instances there was no underlying information describing


closely resemble the defendant and this is just advisory now not not controlling it's our opinion intro bianna that talks about the incremental review even when you're less than six but we've


far for that for the government but i think this can be dealt with with the current state of the law which right does not require that a judge in lockstep you know explain that each increment how to proceed but


he pointed out the portion where the thirty five percent was due to the corporate plaintiffs and there were two duction if you take a look at the verdict the it's clear the jury did not award any of the deductions that were being sought as far as the corporate


five percent from the gross whereas the defendants were claiming no from that and that was the issue there but again corporate point was never had to obtain full records of what all their sales and everything work


he is being told that he did something wrong he's got one more chance and the reverse i think is actually dismissal is too extreme because it was just a single in my mind a single


to do and i think the problem is that when you have the settlement agreements and this court has already ruled in this case in other cases that there had to be treated as contract principals you say on the one hand that we're only bound to what the settlement agreement requires but then you turn around and award fees


hundred hours for attending the e a p meetings just shiny reduce this slightly for meetings in which both council attended we explained very thoroughly in our brief there was really no role for council at these meetings and in fact the state of connecticut paid for one of the advocacy groups to have a member


with the information they had only in this context to even ask ourselves well ok there's an improved an investment we've established that in the complaint but maybe the imprudence might be better for the plan participants than it than than harmful to


thousand and five case yes yes so so the the marks that are at issue in this radiation are the same marks that were at issue in the two thousand


all of that is sort of water under the bridge and wrists resolved right or am i wrong about that but you are wrong because let me just get to the point and i'm sorry for going on about it but the contempt was dissolved on the finding that it didn't have course in


quelling to call necessarily on that basis if there were other people who were not african american who had the same kind of situation as you and they were treated differently they were given breaks and they were allowed to do certain


have to say that i'm not qualify to do the job of the project director when the defendant themselves are asking me the questions that


you don't have to jurisdiction we don't we don't have power to could if they defrauded you by taking this money from one period to another that is not something that in itself our


questions about automotive industry not about his job duties as a recruiter and certainly not about the job duties of the manager what they're supposed to project manager so with that


that he could take a salary and a nice little bonus for him self as that cooperating witness testified and told the government in a proper session and then the government would have been left to explain to the jury whether it was going to


on the bank fraud statute under the bank fraud statute i also wanted to raise just one last point with respect to the other claims that would be subject to did novo review and that would be the constructive amendment claim that


active employment and you know a person who you know a parent who does literally does nothing and watches a child starve has not you physical force and understand it's obviously a terrible act and deserve to be punished but that person has not


he not want to be at some point subject to parole for the rest of his life he could apply for a good conduct certificate he could apply for discretionary discharge of his sentence and these documents will be considered and the idea


whether the defense is true that this was a concocted plot to get rid of mr ferraro because of his disability or first of all i believe that you know this court has held that the mere fact that one is terminated in a thirty twenty


well so it just says the partnership shall be immediately reconstituted without terminations without the necessity of winding up any appreciable fare as it doesn't say reconstituted as what but again i think these are the sorts of questions that that the committee gets deference to determine it's not


they made this statement in two thousand and sixteen about something that had been going on or they said several years ago in order to come out you were why do we have to say that the c m s was simply wrong


that they're reasonably and in compliance so my suggestion your honor is that this bullet point shows you that it's not just a a generalized puffing sort of statement that iran or had concerns about in the u b s case but rather that this shows a


where to start nor does his father and he is accessing one phone call a day and he did not have any phone calls at all for months and months because he was in the midst aggregation much of my guesses and forgive me for running on i know


sales regardless of that the monthly sales of miles had stopped in october once i got married no water predispose and here's where the lower court erred the outrageous government conduct he applied the federal standard instead of the state standard


the law and that is well settled in one thousand nine hundred six and in all the cases we cite that there's just that is just clearly air erroneous even back in whenever the sentencing was as to sort of these the three standard three other conditions that we didn't


project and throughout the environmental assessment millennium complying with the section for one conditions maybe you could take a moment also and just address where you go earlier about the likelihood of success on the merits because the you know statute says one year


questions until you decide that it's completely why didn't you just deny it when you came close to a year deadline and then you know without prejudice to renewable the issue is that if force is the department to deny an application where the department might prefer to work


it is yes but i would say it's beyond case law because it is it is so fundamental the rule of card is not unlike a simple case a card is a principle of law and i don't notice that the government has attacked


and it it does say that and and


decision to revoke his benefits and his welfare coverage we are in this case stems from what actually occurred in a two thousand and eleven case which was also decided by


case that's where i was familiar with the rules and that fact i believe hovers around all of the other issues in this case the defendants remove this case to this court automatically with