page literally what's the what's the real world ramification of the argument you're making i think the real world where ramification is that the person in that circumstance has to expect that that information might end up on the front


it make leads the court we all know that in the run up to the mortgage crisis in this country there was a few or should ever a mortgage companies to sell mortgages and package them


such that it can rarely even be made on summary


there's nothing in here that says that redmond is responsible for a car at least primarily and that's the mc it is at least possible primarily i just find that mind boggling each


been the subject of other cases as we've explained in a brief there are significant factual differences between mr christian's experience and the other reported cases we're here because quite frankly the export is that we decided other tactic cards cases


the deal really said neal i've known you for years you're in you're always looking for financing i know you've been involved in aircraft in fact i consulted with you years ago when i had a potential parents customer who want to do something i'm asking a pretty pointed question where in the record


if you think about it as having the intent of making sure that we can't spring anybody on down at the end of after the end of the term that we haven't provided to them in writing on a


when the f c c and the courts first articulated indecency standard in the mid one nine hundred seventy s they confronted the paradox the legal standard they devised was less precise for the ten than the test for obscenity even though indecent speech unlike of sanity


regulating content the f c c tries to adopt a lower standard by relying on section five zero three b one b which relies to general provisions of the communications act and general provisions of the f c c rules the more specific


there isn't one and it flies in the face of the language that the f c c used in the two thousand and one industry guidance in explaining how the indecency test works it said no single factor is generally dispositive and


her needs were and i e t e p team met in november the i e p teen in november then prepared an interim for the next three months and that indorsed the tutoring for three hours a week which was then increased


harder case but your honor that's a very different case from psychiatric hospitalization where your reason for being there under the opinion of every professional who testified in this case was


are that we have two school district psychologists during this relevant time period the first was harvey thompson who did a revaluation in june of two thousand and five who recommended at that time that what courtney needed was a residential treatment center


conclusion but the foundation for that was her findings on credibility that she didn't accept your client's version of the negotiation your honor again to look closely at her finding her


that she also talked about jetliners with respect to the other points the issue judge green when you get back down to it is it or is it not a liquidated damages cause that's a question of law looking at that language unless you find that that clause in the us requires outside testimony which i don't believe


but there was no we didn't appeal of the of the free speech client based on a pattern or attempt to suppress it but we did appeal the clain that it was unlawful to


number one shepherd does i know there was some discussion earlier this morning about whether the operative phrase facts of a fact of a prior conviction is limited to simply


there may be a qualifying conviction under three strikes you're out certain things that you're a baby and non qualifying in order to determine which is which but here what you've got is a person who pled guilty


is a boatload we drugs involved in the second case now we're trying to decide if in the second case his sentence should be enhanced with a plea or a trial in the second case where the defendant sentence in that case should be and hands based


any additional time i didn't your honor because as a lawyer i had a right i thought to assume that on a record like this and i knew that there was not going to be any by


would be considered that's what they would have said they said at least which opens the prospect if there's more evidence such as from interested witnesses they could comment that the interpretation they placed on reeves also would totally eviscerate


that firearm statute bailey took it to the supreme court and the supreme court said no it requires active employment not simply mere possession or not simply having the gun in the zone where it might be available in the course


way this one actually it was when a vehicle when it would involve fleeing in a vehicle it was always a felony and that's why this that's why the supreme court shot down argument always a felony but there were great patience that was the whole point the argument they were there's there's this kind of


jones his his partner yells gun so you know his test may very well be i would i'm i would have gone for the flying tackle had i seen it god but well i do it it i hear gun and i


mistakenly concluded that the traditional common law rule of successorship liability should apply in the context of a delinquency action under a recess second the


asset sale you have a case where a plaintiff is suing one company under a collective bargaining agreement signed by the other company you're suing the successor under contract signed by the president says and they said that was not


charges could the defendant have been found guilty of felony murder defendant still would have been found on the murder and i would know the defendant conceded this in the initial rate based on the testimony that was given based on what was


question because of that myself i mean a lot if if she would have done things to put him in access to the vehicle to actually make it very readily apparent he's like to do it but in this


centrally one side of the family versus the other the state's case rested solely on the statements of tom's three children two of the counts the last two on the word of each one tom plainly had a history of bringing the children in to make false claims


this point to tempt defense counsel objects to track court again over the objection based on state of mind which in this case is shorthand for reasons for delayed reporting and the state's attorney continues what was the rumor that you heard happened i heard that she


criminal act occurs only after the act that caused death he could not have contributed to that that there is no cause and effect relationship between his conduct and the resulting death there can be no criminal liability here of


statements where no one knows exactly what mr di meant in the state can't prove what he meant in people versus partly a federal case that is sudden the briefs as well the court looked at a letter that was sent from an attorney or from the


so i think it's understandable if they do not get the exact details of the artwork of defendants face had to correct more importantly they notice that the shooter had a face tattoo this is a pretty small segment of the population of which defendant


fact that that money was registration and licensing fees the posited with the secretary of state given to the secretary of state secretary of state then puts it in that account that is


amendment they can't you can't as as your honor said you can't hog tie and a subsequent general assembly so can this be amended yes in this circumstance was it done properly no


have and the other thing is again the prosecutor might have asked questions different play of these officers approach of a different fashion if he's put what i notice that there was going to be a motion to suppress


with those situations is that a defendant who doesn't have the same level of intelligence as a normal person is more so prone to suggestion and that's what's been recognized by the courts and that's one major problem that


effect should be able to figure out whether the plaintiff is barred as a matter of federal law for possessing guns that is true the trial court for require the state police to tell the federal authorities that


has has refused to appropriate the dollars to permit the executive branch to do the very thing that congress told him that he she did and every and every congress since that has also refused to appropriate back


on the degree of harm of what happened is it could it doesn't it doesn't have any impact and packed on how the how the actor acted in my feet probative on that point but it's not it's not dispositive because


it's important because because it's his alleged it mission is only evidence and this isn't a case where a lot of times people prosecutors say go to sleep it's not snowing and you wake up in the snow on the ground universe you know


to reverse the judgment of circuit court with respect to the order to produce these documents one thousand as well as the deposition the pamela worst miller was an employee of the


between her and her mother not between her and her father that's why we believe she took actually house when she did not notify mr grove in advance of this presumably because


evidence of his failure cooperate because i can see instances where there might be at the time of the of formation of the joint parenting agreement of both parties spoke mother and father wanting to participate in a


joint parenting agreement later one saying no i don't like this i want to go for it all i want sole custody the other one that you have been doing everything appropriately out of the joint parenting agreement and it could be unilaterally exploited by a single


was was that the the intent the presidential real property disclosure report is for the prior to learn the same the very same facts about the property


out but none of this is a big surprise all of a sudden now you have there must be some egg or a fading factor here that now after s p n after you know we sat down for you know a bargain and you know it's november


asked me discuss it tendence policy wasn't provided disher never came up with an attendance policy there was absolutely nothing that happened at the table that addresses have racial issues


rather than looking to the to the to the person as a whole i don't think that was done here because again riley has a terrible substance abuse problem in his alcohol and he needs the thing and emits thief he fits all your qualifications hand aggravated dui


or even to insure the premises any further beyond that and the only obligation remaining are thirteen punch list items due on august fifteenth two thousand and eleven and it was there after in december two thousand and eleven at the


he testified and that is counsel without his finance consent against a sixteen year old kid at the time of the offense he's already gone through one trial as attorney was ineffective and here again it's the same


now because the defense claim is focusing on on one of the aspects of fact in his confession he claims to not contain all the elements of home invasion well specifically as to the mental state


petition so you know he's clearly already interfering with his counsel's right to formulate his issues in a legal standard which was counsel's duty under the act so one i don't


or the uniform present in the courtroom actually wasn't his because it was reflected in his report jeremy started asking questions and the court asked him to explain the relevance of his line


mind had jeremy filed a poster on the ocean alleging that the court acted improperly here in fact based on the court's statements it seems that had he filed one the court may have even become more upset with him thinking that he was trying to frustrate


i would you build the list i'm using the word hired though i guess placed on the list is a better term but i think you know what meaning so he did he came back after he received this letter about the teaching assistant position and that he wasn't going to be


minimum this is not the end of the process like any job you're so going to have to have an interview you're going to have your back from a review all of those things need to happen it's very important i feel to keep in mind that this is a school district the best interest


will fall or what part of him what's right the ground to that stick with the screws to say that we have to come up with some kind of evidence just to show that the child is likely to be injured that we have to come up with statistical evidence or expert


not say with a live that was a middy inappropriate amounts of carbon monoxide on may nineteenth and conceded that it could have started doing so a month or so after that all that service the four that's


assets it was a very fair equitable way to proceed and to be honest with you to force mr johnson to go out and borrow money to pay her for her share of the assets i think it's not fair the proposal though was then well then


extended rogers to the u of pain college expenses and i think that's a that's our process people i don't believe that that was wrecked extension and i don't think that the numbers


a reasonable effort to discover the defendant's wishes there's nothing in this record to show a consultation as defined by roe there's no advice to explain why the attorney believed an appeal would be a waste of money and there was


indication that you know she could have written to the judge for example and said that he is having disagreements or and is unable to communicate effectively with the attorney there's nothing like that where he is voiced any sort of in the dissatisfaction with his


affirmative communications affirmative representations to the plaintiff to say yeah i've got the tractor come by this one and even if you accept mr lara's version of events which you go after you in probably shouldn't because they do conflict with the plaintiffs


specifically identified by my client but what we're looking for are records were simply looking for records that show how many initial claims were received in connection with each of these doctors


to provide that to you no it would not have to and the reason for that is because every time the department receives an initial claim from from a citizen for example it creates a follow up reading so even if they're so i i get in a complaint i'm the department


oh with regard to crop insurance issue i still have not heard any reason to discount that those farms as income there are so you buy them yes they were into their insured his income otherwise i don't know if they're


kind of evidence before them to consider along with all the other all the other evidence as to whether the burden of proof in the end i think this was a fine place this


in the saying i'm saw that juvenile restrained with such force that he was pushed up against the refrigerator that began to move across the kitchen floor and the supreme court said under those circumstances those are specific circumstances that would justify a belief


out and you know how to do it you know how to fix it you know how to solve the problem and costing you money doesn't do when you just walk over there the law should and does impose a burden


to him he did he was instructed to do not turn the other fan off and most importantly if you look at trialist testimony i don't think he even had to take this in the way most people like it i mean even if you


or and not be subjected to liability it's when you brought the complainant or federal question jurisdiction is there an independent basis of jurisdiction for the state law claims is there diversity just jurisdiction you know i


your hypothetical judge i think you could object if we determine that the they were engaging in viewpoint discrimination they had a basis for rejecting the ad that might be up there could be upheld under these standards but it's so concentrated i thought you


may please the court david hackett senior deputy prosecutor representing king county in this matter this important case is about the ability of municipalities to preserve properties for their intended use while allowing limited speech activities if d


be a factual question and we would ask for factual support for that assertion and that that is probably how that one would go as far as reelect donald trump we do not allow political ads on our bus that advocate for a


alternatives to the no action alternative there basically little to none zero to one percent change in the capability of the habitat whether you conduct these for relatively small


in that statute though that we as a child pornography is sort of a conclusion returned don't you have to show other things within that statute as a certain age and a differential things like that there's a different


order look at the claims under twenty two fifty four d and even say that that the failure to invoke doesn't prevent him from proceeding with the claim it cannot be an unreasonable application of


you're on a we don't know what counsel then told mr long and later so whether or not he did tell him about that second juror conversation we don't know but it's really more of a situation where it's a sidebar conference and in fact the peremptory


information and a jointer but it also talks about the type of evidence that you would expect to see in this kind of case to establish you know if you have accretions to mainland and accretions to an island trying to establish where that line is to


thank you counsel i don't remember how much i think we had you passed your time so i'll give you a minute for about all they are free to be quick to the summary judgment issues that she's raised beyond the statute of limitations the


where diverse there's diversity jurisdiction and then it's defeated because the diverse party is dismissed but this is not one of those cases we don't have an issue of a diverse party being dismissed and


if it had been a second un a claim so what that means is paragraph twenty five a six was created at the beginning of the case to allow tribes to get their house in order and there was a


because the district court quite reasonably looked to the czechs interpretation of their own law now your honor as i will turn if the court has no for their questions on the statute of limitations issue all turned to be the immigration issue and i think


supporting medical care and that's why i asked the question now and we i agree with that judge that when he went down there he had been on the streets we know that he was look we know all the background and could you try to help me well my question


educational program at western state hospital i can tell you it's a psychiatric resident hospital and they have a program that you know educational programs that you know a full day program that doesn't mean that the district has to pay for


have been a legal permanent resident and so you the situation still wouldn't have been on the table that point the other waiver issue is there stand there are certain a freestanding claim that his removal proceeding is invalid because he not


you don't have any other questions i would like to reserve my time for a bottle let's hear from the who's who from the o's side and you have quite a bit of time thank you


records after the hearing she held the hearing open for several months she sent terry supplemental notice that a notice that she could have a supplemental hearing so i think that argument is mare less as well and for


of state may have occurred when jennifer slut schlatter told mr hill i've cheated on you with other men and if that occurred in the bedroom as mr hill claims


a question raised by selective as to which team mobile entity was implicated in the litigation and the simple thing to do would have simply been to be


subsidiary in order to protect the parent company from liability that's one of the reasons you do that is right now i think i think it's important to keep in mind the reason why the claim was tendered in this fashion is this typical of insurance the


the cell tower work when the building in new york city was performed in the year two thousand and six the courts that go toward the minority view around the country in the vast majority the circumstances


state law not under bankruptcy code at all the end if this was an avoidance action which avoids action would be a preference well no that doesn't work a fraudulent


brief the second thing is it wasn't lost on the sensing commission that this created a circuit split in two thousand and twelve and not only a circuit split but the real meaningful impact in the lives of defendants who are serving different


as a nursing home under their definition even though washington allows nursing care or skilled care to be delegated to sort of hide there is practitioners or others transmit this definition does not include that so they're using a more


benefits triggers those are tied to activities of daily living and again the statute says nothing more restrictive than then tying those triggers the benefits to the activities of daily living and


been referring to it in our pleading this case arises from primarily the actions alleged actions of mark lindquist related to his position as the elected prosecutor of pierce county


the primary fact pattern that is at issue we would submit is the designation of potential impeachment evidence as a result of civil actions that were either in a court of


him gets it exactly backward and is a perverse interpretation of the statute so i don't believe that plane air review applies i think it's simply harmless error however even under planar review we have a


cause standard from our cases is it the same as probable cause or is it a lower standard do you


we have if mr mendoza says i told the officer that i was on my way to my grandmother's the officer may or may not believe that she that he's on his way to his grandmother's she may have the basis for that she may not but if she says he never told me he was going to his


but in your view and you know i think she was citizenship when she was when she was there alongside the road in oregon ok where you just jump to step ahead ok so whether or not she was authorized to make the call and then


good morning can you hear me all right all right very well may it please the court my name is colin stevens i represent the appellant in this matter joseph birkdale uh the district court certified two questions for appeal and i raised a third


what's a few extra years at my age well sensually what did you get what was it two forty three i don't remember he received a sentence of two hundred and it's four hundred sixty four months two hundred sixty four correct versus three six the correct


determination cited on one side of plausibility what how would we reverse that is clear because we're kind of talking in principles at this point but how can that be clear air


e you treat the patient while conducting the additional diagnostic test to determine if she goes in the definitive category or in the rejected category and they attempted to follow the modified two criteria acknowledged i've knowledge that they did so imperfectly


rested on some totally different grounds you're saying exactly the opposite which is why i'm given that you conceded prejudice you can't possibly win on this issue performance on this basis the reason that i'm conceding prejudice is because as well there has been applied in future cases


allies for all of them every year so you know they're spread pretty thin these are documents that are essentially a communication between the forest and the grazers you know they're reiterating


agency holding went out of her way to say by the way justice scalia thinks this in for the record none of us agree with that what would happen if if this is i don't cast any aspersions certainly on these folks here because i


the extraneous information overshadows the consumer report disclosure so we do think that the possible confusion could be inferred from the allegations as is


illegal so it wasn't actually a legal sense i think at the end of the day started on i what conviction there are going later determined to be invalid i think at the end of the


dr turner and it with a with a note that's in the record that said would you please sign this i prepared to r f c and dr turner just simply assigned it adopting to single decision maker so there's no medical opinion at the initial reconsideration so it wasn't


left with this kettle of fish it does seem to me to be tough to know what exactly it scales you're well assuming for the purpose of argument that this court would apply the exclusionary


any person and it describes the production and then says in b the circumstance referred to in paragraph one is that the person transports so it obviously means law same person who did the production that's referred


at the records that mr chef had back surgeries he improved with the time he completed the pain management clinic in two thousand and six after which several doctors upon that he could do work


sole reason for not considering corps evidence a secondary consideration is that it viewed mr hampton's testimony as opinion testimony that had to be corroborated and that was just a fundamental legal error the the testimony that


small mouth you want to not be interactive with anything else you just want to follow the material out and so what these are saying is we're going to inject this fluid and it's going to carry this stuff out and they were going to do a calculation and part of that calculation is knowing


wood the field of endeavor rather than being expansive was confined to the scope explicitly specified in the background of the invention ok for latches onto that language


more than and to be clear it's not that they then refined it in marketing they said specifically that it was a comparison to women not on contraceptives not other not women not comparison to other oral


as there was some discussion as well about the first motion mechanism limitation you know this element is raises a two part issue and again this this independently justifies that summary judgment as to claim fourteen


that once in the institution decision and they found it again in the final written decision and in the final written decision they relied primarily on the references on the ground and then they by the way you know there's other prior


of referring to the type of surgery lateral means from the side interior means from the approach straight from the front posters from the back the specification which should be the first off in any of this


it the there was not affirmative state law claims relating to ownership or obligations to sign other than a breach of contract claim so so those claims either were they were either dismissed because the district court sent


question for me and that's it seems to me that other kids start when you're looking at a practical leave both of practical activity prioritizing results in alphabetical order or mirror to further further


proportional relative relative that is that one is larger than the other it doesn't it doesn't talk about necessarily the specific ratio but that one is larger than the other and the language to express disclaimer language


elements of the claims and in fact the angles reference specifically talks about using cookies with the identifier in order to send information to and from the computer the only argument


sound several times in the same part of the prosecution history that you are reading from right now you say that the database and the pattern itself the athenians for the attic prefer to a pattern database you say


nothing more nothing less when you get to the the arguments they make about the correlation language there i think you have to look at the totality of the amendment and what was happening they had of just gotten


overall prosecution history a poem amendment the definition of what the database is that is now being claimed you got one statement i would suggest that that's an ambiguous statement it is not clear and it does not


completely wrong and i would refer the court to the appendix at page forty eight hundred eighty one this is the explanation of why the applicant for the change the change was in


occur so in that particular case that if language was found to be cause and effect so what the forward thank founder with the board read into the


through over six pages in the board's decision going through all the evidence that class girl submitted and determined as a matter of fact that there were it was not persuasive there was no nexus or it was something that was exclusively disclosed in the prior


are naturally somewhat well they're just illustrative they're not done to and engineers perception typically so you're relying on drawings but there's nothing so far as i can see in that specification


express prohibition against the city practice and the city has to pay fifty percent of all of its revenues from the use of the patents and there is no possible way that the z t could grant a license to practice to san you know


ids themselves being stored in a column and the patent teaches in various places that when you enter text to create a row or to add a call on that you would end up with the


here that the reason for that is based in part on what happened at the hearing there was an extended discussion that took place between between council and the board in which we were discussing column three figure


that becomes clear in the one thousand nine hundred seven amendment at the very end of the prosecution right but in one thousand nine hundred five it doesn't look like that's the distinction you're making it looks like you're making the distinction between between organs


position taken absolutely your honor we accept and understand that we lost is that unfortunately somewhat difficult when you come your in a two eighty five sure you do have to sort of relate back to the merits of why we thought we could have won but yes you're correct


tape that actually exists out there because when you have someone that's doing an engineering drawing what you'll have is a very general depiction of a bend in the ventilation system for example without concern for whether there's actually a park out there that can be


claim three says is that there is a predetermined period so in other words that the person who sets up the controls for the engine sets a period so that period could change the amount of gas from the third


was to listen to whatever's on the radio in your car so the problem that the solution that's described something that you know we're all familiar now see a big what if they say there's an app for that but yeah sort of come out of two thousand and eight status in two thousand


decision because obviously it's there were six other grounds that were in there and everything else was a matter of legal interpretation but here they recast the examiners actual rejection and then overturned it


itself and the claim function itself talks about column like that portions on the sides it talks about a boat like a proportion and an extendable lower portion it talks about specific function that the ring is compressed and when that


required when there are disclosures of the table that do not include tress and if we look at the claims on sixty three of amman they also do not claim trespass but again the presence of trust doesn't matter the claim is


that was a fluid communication that was required so the system claim it requires a chamber requires a fluid communication and i think the district court was reacting to the language in the defendant's reconsideration brief which said there is no evidence that the


as to the a reparable harm if i can go there the defendants admitted repeatedly until their last brief that they've given to this court that this is a two player market and what they've said now is well there's no evidence and you're quite right did


about how they interpreted the lopper reference and the scraggy reference why it supposedly would have been obvious to combine the two the district court largely ignored mr sherbets proffered expert opinion


are still limiting if it is the essence of the invention or the reason the extra of the invention that was the language that this court used here we have one amended exchange trading system in the title of the patent in the


arising in the realm of computer networks it passes muster under section one of one and i want to start out by talking about what the problem is the district court's decision characterize the issue of the six of six published directive two as filtering


this court has pointed out there is some overlap between those two issues and between those far as we know there's no anticipatory section one two reference that teaches locating physically locating the


respect to this limitation about the unique identifier the clause sets wherein the unique identifier uniquely identifies information sent over the network from the computer to said


which seems to clearly require an identifier or at least allow room for the identifier that's tied to the user second of all claim sixteen's use of the exact same phrase to refer to a user as opposed to


say we notice discussed above that siemens further disclosed keeping track in the status of that map of which half cracked have been formatted as well as which have tracks have not been formatted that's their explanation they do have an


meltzer or as to what this precise language that you asked about judge raina means what it means technological on the other hand at page twenty seven sixty six he was the only discussion by


millisecond delay and dedicated resources that those requirements simply don't make sense in the context of this part why do you agree that claim line at least if not claim thirty five does require through separate channels


rates we put in evidence showing that the material out specification sheet and the kashi both of which were part of g m eyes accounting records show that the exact amount of reach work the value of reports coming out of warehouse in december two thousand and nine was the amount


also a legal error figures eight eleven they have those air flow charts and they show that at some point in the flow charts here there's a calculation of the time of each shoe


action so that is limitation in the claim and secondly perhaps another fundamental point is that i didn't see anywhere in the record below where your side was arguing by


hire people who are underpaid to buy all of this and they can demonstrate that they have developed stuff independently were willing to listen and that's exactly what this co founder endorsers and that's perfectly that's perfectly reasonable in light of your response and argument that


and here you had evidence and i can get to that last point ranging from two to twenty five years about the appropriateness of the scope of the exclusion order and the a l j again went to the very end of the law


takes into account a defendant's criminal history and in fact again the white collar area the majority of defendants according to sentencing commission data are in category one and then


house only one of them had a claim for excessive force against it only one of them shot the weapon but the other two deputies still had a burden to contact the welfare check in a reasonable manner two of them


counsel number one they didn't just go into this house they got a call from the plaintiff's daughter saying my mother is she's had she's been drinking and she's suicidal that's why they were in the house it's not like they just walked into the house your


that the federal court would be adjudicating title against the world and that's the way by the way if that's exactly what the court did in in in the in in the


the penalty i do want to address something that judge grant you talked about with the more fun because it was actually something that i thought about also when i was preparing for this last night there's another issue about whether or not there's even


repayment plan agreement was in substance and in fact it was a low it was a loan that was secured by the reverse mortgage it was the borrowers initial failure to pay the principal on that loan that led to the


metro dade because she lives in metro dade and that's a police jurisdiction that should be there an order because she's claiming that this officer is extra exceeding his jurisdiction and exceeding his authority and detaining her falsely


can decide for themselves whether or not that was excessive force that was used correctly your honor assuming there was arguable probable cause then the amount of force that was used was clearly consistent with the case law and and or use the the person's reaction to


johnson was the only basis for his and handsome and and if at the time of the sentencing there i mean the state supreme court was clear that even a residual clause analysis would require an


country well his grandmother says he was threatened he was also moved from one location to his maternal grandparents house and then i got worried about him being there right after his those were the individuals out front with it with the that he was able to


so if we look at this matter starting way back in the beginning this is the fourth court that has actually seen this case if we look at that this matter was before the district court


reasoning it again was someone you know i guess i would say they did fully explain their reason because they said you know this is not immediately available the board's ultimate correct in saying this pending visitation is not likely to change the outcome proceedings because under both you have to prove


himself to potential criminal sanction for making a false report which is a crime in the state of florida and although the call ultimately appears to the officers responding as anonymous there is testimony in the record that the dispatcher if he wanted to could


was an improper amendment or constructive amendment to the indictment and then there's the problem with the jury instruction a step point not say willful and intentional or willful and knowing


and then our last point so our st point was it's not within the scope the nd point which we've discussed here was that the that it does not fall within layton's narrow presumption and then the last point is that it was


apply for a full pardon which would relieve the applicant of all the consequences of the felony conviction or you can apply for example for restoration of civil rights which would still be an application of the pardon power your honor but it's a


with proper comparatives and so that is an important issue that we need to talk about this morning but this case also raises i think a question that's


specs you ought to very specific about you know also that they all have to be subject to the same employment policy guideline a rule is a plaintive well that's the only desk that had to be fully manned additionally there are other distinctions that


way i'm going to plead guilty is if i can have some sentence of ten years then the lawyer needed to take some steps to effectuate that the lawyer was telling him ok that's what it's going to be that's what it's going to be what he didn't go out and get that in writing and


sentence anyway as that's not the standard when you're talking about a defendant who please in lieu of going to trial mr realist says i would not have pled i would have gone to trial and that's how it was supposed to be evaluated not is not what he did there he


reclaim it at any time that is not a session of primary jurisdiction had there been some sort of writing here saying because right now all we have for an agreement is we have a writ out prosequi and i'm authorized by ponzi that says mr moody please give him to us we promise


why hasn't he shown causation because if you look at luzon still company in page seventy two of the us reporter for our company the supreme court denies the calls a connection or describes as a fairly traceable calls all connection and it defines and limits that terms as


about a member of the agency that's tipping off the suspects of a search warrant that's obviously something that's tied to his ordinary duties you would expect a captain of the drug task force to go to the sheriff and


the cold case position and the reorganization and going to your point judge that there was no pretext because that was really never in doubt that it was never disputed so your point yes that the


and the reason that's important is that this was a conspiracy charges and there were no seizures of drugs or cash proceeds of drugs from my client so this is the one time in the five month


even you know it might be as good as it gets you know from a from a criminal defendants standpoint and i respect the argument you're making but the jury heard it and there you rejected it


about imminently but initially it was that she could contract a bowl and then it kind of transformed to would contract the bowl and now it's that she would almost certainly in imminently contract ebola so


there an objection to that and the trial judge has the complete authority to make rulings at trial but he needed to bring it up because there was nothing definitive there was no proffer in the st place even in the pretrial discussion and i think judging the


confusion was unlikely so because of really the exceptional nature of it we do think that there are serious policy implications let's start with the seventh amendment claim yes the


when you get to the three that were decided against the clients it was it was lack a lack of evidence of actual confusion but that the key on that is the court relied on it and said that it was very important


johnson and that decision is turns on whether or not he has three prior convictions that qualify under the act mr excuse me when johnson eliminated the


congress had an opportunity to revisit this particular statute in two thousand and eight through the clarification act and they did and as the ninth circuit pointed out they had a prime opportunity as what they called it to make changes to the statute to the extent they believe that


not the default discussed in the foreclosure complaint and you know the concerning payments i had literally been made ten years before that had been due ten years before that revelation about these misstatements we were unable to refute that ten years later however the


night i've got an interest in a car that i run from davis for the night but that's different from it seems to me the corporations


you and so one point one last point i'd like to make is that if the court finds evidence insufficient for counts one in three under the sentencing package shock doctrine re sentencing would be appropriate to make sure that that since reflects the scope of mr wattles criminal culpability


conceal but is that the argument you're making up here and that's the nd way is that an argument you're making here yes yes it is explain it to me if you would that's the nd way in which the


the allegation is not that this just happened to ms teagan in this case but that it's happening every single day every single week in the mcdonough municipal court and you're telling me that the policymakers whoever they may be in the city of mcdonough


not as an indigent pro se individual who is brought in handcuffs to the jail have the ability to file a writ of habeas corpus which you requires that you bring it to disappear court judge that this a period court judge sanction


instructions right that is the law and all that ok so that being the case the jury was told you must unanimously find the aggravating circumstance that is presented to you before you can


question because it may or may not be distinguishable from which is depending on whether or not the record is complete i understand your honor i think that the record


thousand and the irony is the value of the iraq consisted of assets including some real estate actually some cars was kind of bizarre ira but that was the original value are there other separate issues still pending in the bankruptcy court


that's left yes your honor so here's here's one reason they are going to is not adding up to me the action of the person of your client is maintained he supposed to maintain this account in accordance with the master


was under seal for a very long time and unavailable to crowley but when crowley was able to obtain the document that proves that what crowley said in two thousand and eight and has said all along is correct that in two thousand and eight april two thousand and eight


when he joined the majority in the dewberry opinion and what a delight it is to overrule the supreme court justice on occasion your honor as the court is well aware that is the only circuit court that's weighed in on this issue and we


rebuttal closing and it's not this case is not about violating the u s attorney's policy this case is about a fraud and a cover up based on the way that the case was presented based on the instructions that were given to the jury there's not a substantial likelihood


guidelines and then the lack of a mitigating role were duction in sentencing now rosen says that for aiding and abetting you have to have affirmative knowledge you have to share the intent for the full scope and you have to take an


that was committed by the participant and it's really important that distinction because what did happen here is that the case manager the probation officer this team would meet on a monday and go over who was noncompliant with the program based on their views and


that the that the plaintiff complain about these administrators don't detain anyone they don't sentence anyone they don't sanction anyone what they do are issue recommendations like a probation


that there was reason to believe that jeff covington who ascended to a position of being in charge of of all the confidential informants canine


to his then wife now ex wife and that's why the trial court said at one thousand and ten dollars of the record in light of brown vs bryant county quote there can be no inference of a causal link between the city's


so i think with the record before us by the end of rd grade year the evidence was that his behaviors had improved but in the sense that he would not be in the right placement given his abilities he would be harmed in an educational sense but the


a regular classroom but all the instruction is coming solely from a separate paid and it's not much whatsoever to the regular classroom how does have to fill ideas purposes


quantified their efforts to try and that was a big part of the case yes and to just to go further about the actual affidavit here you know two responses number one when there's the ability to seek clarification from the court if you really don't


was but that can't be done for the tax returns so the tax return numbers are going up and down in ways that b p claims are suspicious but in part that reflects the operations of another facility it reflects and


thousand and six and the mayor said i'm giving you six months the fundamental problem was waste management didn't do it there was a miscommunication again this is months before any campaign contributions and waste management testified that they were


fourteen argument before this court signal when alex and amended amended this exclusion it expanded it from thirty two words to one hundred and eighty nine words one hundred and fifty seven words and what they put in there is


the if you're if you were on a peer instead of down behind the bench how would you write an opinion to get to distinguish the humble case i would have to get think you know what i mean you have the exact same language in the


faithfully as i came st of all what the record reveals is the notice originally was sent to an individual who had left the company when interior followed up with stadol well to determine why the original order to correct had not been


question you would have to have or you have the government would have a burden to prove that the information was knowingly or willfully maintained and there's a regulation here that's also at play like think they took that off the table so that we don't have


the court found below that a pelleas when we look at the three tiers we look at whether these people were paid on a salary basis whether they were whether they engaged in and were tax and financial consultants and


the text and structure of the statute as well as supreme court precedent on the first page of the visual aid i've provided to the court the section twenty two forty two is at the top and i have highlighted the word knowingly to


one hundred and thirty thousand lines of data all condensed into let's say a dozen summary exhibits presented by the case agent and contrary to what the government says in its read cross


write the dividend yes run of the dividend is direct the shareholders a direct interest in the dividend but that doesn't give the shareholders a direct interest in specific as it's a general motors including factories or equipment or plant


capable of obtaining money from this settlement if i did what i needed to do i would be hypervigilant as opposed to what counsel is saying that why would these people go and spend four thousand dollars to preserve their claim as soon as i received the


recover punitive damages and i don't think anyone argues the fact that that meant that any claimant that came to the settlement had to have a compensatory element either proven by a settlement or some resolution of their claim


ever wake up and say gosh we need to file a lawsuit i don't know when they became represented so i don't know when they would have been subject to getting counsel who may have said hey we should follow a lawsuit and try to get this done but


process that we see in the works very nervous all the time and for the life of me i cannot understand where an airman would go to find information regarding that they're supposed to be bound by these the use of this thing called the operating


actually mailed to all creditors making that irrelevant which i think it's but prosperous that's how the bankruptcy court ruled or is it triggered only against creditors to whom the t f r is male and we would


began to work with with barbara harrison and her group that's documented in the record in the form of e mails where she would repeatedly reach out to him to let him know that he made such certain errors and data calculations and he also particularly had to have a


these decision makers didn't even know when his benefits would


even we look at the entire past or present to decide if the conditions have gotten so intolerable so is your position that we should ignore the doctrine that we apply to the circumstance


damages i think to be able to get them to get the funds back into the back into the trust but you know the you know one of the reasons that bo likes just you know surety bonds as a


wrongdoing happened so you argue that but you never say me about the discovery will now be on appeal you stipulate yes it occurred on that date that's two years and one day and one week or however many years and one week since but


the controversy to get before before the court there has to be need to see charges filed we're the ones that did that so we need to i don't i'm not going to concede that word outside i believe we're a catalyst to organise a catalyst to this


that the that it's difficult or time consuming or slow for a customer for other sellers to enter this market and when you look at it is true it is true that they allege a variety of specific costs of


doing business but it's absolutely clear this court made clear in stern's aircraft the third circuit in add those is an excellent case on this point the cost of doing business is not and cannot be barriers to entry if


improper benefits ok for improper benefit again you know the problem here is that and counsel objected and said look there's no evidence that this was the amount of money that went to progressive and so there was an objection to this calculation generally and it's a calculation that


defense that she might not have known that and the jury credited his testimony i would also point the court its case cited on our brief it's from the seventh circuit where the seventh circuit addressed very similar arguments that were being made by the defendant here


enrollment applications and to acknowledge medicare's rules and to agree to comply with them the whole idea is that you know we do not want to situation where a doctor is taking money and then manipulating a patient's care in order to get some kind of


patients to a facility to send a referral to send discharge patients and move them to another facility and so i just kind of want to put point that out and make that very clear i have the government's argument for sufficiency here really boils down


know any written responses so do they i guess what i'm trying to figure out i realize is all these different entities and so on but you know came in beijing swept out the building what else do you need


single item that was missing namely the written responses the bank records the tax returns that transaction records of the counterfeit merchandise that we seize it in essence they were just missing and


they you haven't moved to compel arbitration either we have not but i point you do so first of all in c f thirty two at page five this was the initial status conference the question the plaintiffs counsel there's no disagreement about that people who signed the other


arbitration agreements are to be considered valid or vocal and enforceable what chase left off was the second half of that statement this is in section two of the f a except a poem grounds that exist all are in equity for the revocation of any


and then motion to compel arbitration that burden is initially on chase they must pilot and they must show that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that the issue before the court falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement and if they can do that


you can look at the facts in the record and determine that the the policies themselves failed to meet the necessary constitutional test and reach a conclusion that it is unconstitutional and you can look at the as applied challenge and look at the facts of the record and


overview of the record as well you'll find in the deposition of karen donnelly or she says that the student said something about eighty eight was herself constantly talking about the reason for her accommodations and class so it wasn't anything that had anything to do with


agent's testimony nobody he didn't know them so the argument is that the use immunity was insufficient was sufficient at one point but insufficient when you know i think that in the briefing i was looking at this a little differently than i should have


and they followed very closely after the not only the facebook post but the three instances of overt opposition sex discrimination issues not a case where you could take the facebook post and take it in


three days later on monday december th was when safe waters new jersey counsel filed his motion to appear pro hockey change at that time samrat had already


the strongest opinion on this on this matter and in that case they pointed out that the purpose of the rules is merely to get the individual in the arresting district to the originating district where the ultimate decisions are going to be made about all aspects of their case whether


is that somehow confuse the point of view in terms of assessing who gets the consideration what's important and such true language is that consideration has to be be paid to someone but it doesn't have to come from


point that his own judgment was impaired to perceive that you were that schollers drunk that i think is the argument that he was diminished not at to the point of you know being drunk and falling down or whatever but to the point that his own


was we have a problem we revert back to title non of the u s code rather than because we're not yet in the proceeding we we revert to time line rather than s m s what's your answer to that particular verse specific


faithfully apply to correctly calculate and then consider in making it sentencing determination and so the language of the guideline is what controls here and the language of the guideline here


and again this court thanks to congressional intent of the enhancement as your honor previously reference deals with the public safety threat of criminals who wear body armor and while certainly the


for them and put it in the slip farm and it'll be very very very mar bring your family out here they can and it burns up that night now what if they get what they've got to come in and prove that that this thing was the fact of that in your hand


and all the bugs like run drinks and whatnot so they would hose that down on a regular basis so they would have the powerful spray and that's why we thought kept in place offices just when it was important but the the big issues that we had with the


the principal all has authorized an unsafe work practice the principal will be liable and so that's the general rule that everybody agrees on here from the


how i want to handle this situation i think it would be more professional if i went up to the platform where there's a telephone and talk to mr rocca privately so the basket at this point was


alternatively rely on good faith no because quite frankly i believe we have many other alternative arguments going through the even if the second search goes and probably have you you have to raise good faith in the district court to have this rule and


were wrong and putting a pot of sidewalk a spec great but just looking at a bear ingress or is that the same kind of thing that was being looked at in these other cases seems a little different to me well it's our position that the dish court did not find that gress


points and fernandez didn't have a condition of probation and didn't have probation so the government's wrong i think the court to decide against the government the government has raised any other particular error and so i think the law the case


all that before her in addition there are four objections never argue they're actually argued at the first sentencing hearing and then there is a different spin mr robey gave a different spin on them in the second sentencing hearing district judge heard all of that at twenty five to twenty eight or nine she went


not like some accountant sitting somewhere and he's like hey i'm going to move the meat revenues or the ice cream revenues it just takes you know a period chunk of revenues and then looks at how many days are in january and how many years are in february and then just kind of you know straight lines amount


ha executive or something like that they'll do a sure hand to remind you who this person is and here they didn't do that and so it does i mean the question is can that support a conclusion of malice in the in the context


defamation by implication i e the article implied that he supports labor unions or weights and with respect to actual malice i would submit that if you look at the first passage in the second passage together you will see that at most


ok and you put it into the older cases which use emerson said nine twenty two g one was ok i think you're going to have a situation where you could probably come up with a national association


i believe that this court's opinion and national association change that and this is the only circuit right now that is saying and i believe


c case i think the other thing that that that thirty five day tells us that i think is again might might allow us to not fully answer that i think more complicated question is that what thirty five they shouldn't


not controversial so that's my that's my pitch layer plus whenever plus but i think even on a plane or the way thirty five doesn't give the court discretion to reconsider how it applied the guidelines or reinterpret the guidelines which is what would have happened here had


comment that was made is is what else the city could have done there are plenty of remedies under louisiana lot of the city could have taken as as one example when they got the letter back


there's constant auditing on the part propped part of medicare they actually hire contractors to do this to look for patterns of billing that raise suspicion and in this case that's exactly what happened and how they discover the fraud another question about medicare procedures


good morning my name is john potus i'm here for mr breyer's may it please the court thank you for the issue before the court today is whether or not


describe his complaints of noise as some form of harassment being targeted for from a prior employer he was asked whether or not he wanted to follow a formal charge of discrimination he indicated that he wanted to he was given information to call a chore


of equivalent to related acts but that's not what the case law holds under mack and messer the mere perpetuation of discriminatory of the effects of discriminatory decisions are not related acts so therefore the continued violation


as the court knows the heart of any conspiracy is an agreement and there must be proof in this case that dr gandhi agreed with someone to violate the law here not one witness testified that dr


is did dr gandhi believe she was homebound if they did the was there any evidence about what was wrong when a steward i think there was right absolutely judge there was twenty two hundred hundred page file showing all of her


pittance compared to the millions that are involved in these other schemes and yet you want to you know you've your honor i not go after them in a civil way instead of trying to put her in prison your honor i'd have two responses first the


for some of those those patient two hundred patients i'm sorry with no indication that she has reviewed any of their records mrs coo g s or anyone else's nodes showing that she's the inference being she's unfamiliar


solicitors to to to to do their business time between on and five you have to wait id we reference both your parents just to show there are less restrictive means not to show that they had to do this now what do you do in the


you and i right or wrong on services you're right your honor it doesn't specifically exempt services pacifically though it says that what is banned is this peddling for the purpose of soliciting orders


appeal it's unquestionably been ripped from questionably excuse me your honour's been refined but that was sufficient to alert the district court to what our argument is on appeal and that's why this error was preserved and if your honour's


throwing the bike down behind you when the cops got to jump over the bike i don't have a florida case to point you for on that but the point is that the polish will act here is the appealing the resisting or the


fact is the basis for dissolution is really the district court's concern and we would discourage this court from addressing that the real question is did the district court err in issuing the injunction and our conclusion is it did not and we'd ask you refer


speaks to the rights that our recipients are entitled to it goes into our fair hearings it talks about our notices and what's required of a what actions the agency should out should take within a period of time if there's an error made by the agency then you have


so my question to you is what is the objection legally to greater grace being backed down in a district court and subject to the district court taken into account all the factors including the arguments you


thousand and nine of her failure to follow through on her contractual obligation elision to teach those courses what he's talking about has nothing to do with gender and that's the only gender specific term we could look at he's not talking about gender he's talking about


who is a therapist private in private practice and the evidence was that we called her back and she never called us back again so we made an effort and that's in the record that we made


much more violent much more physical it's hard to point to anything in the last thirty years because i mean it's this i mean i guess you could grab that but basically my hair would essential meet requirement but we don't have anything other than


study of what kind of costs it would face from having to comply having to provide exemptions in these kinds of circumstances there were the hundred seventy eight runs to foreign prisoners that's about one percent of the population of the d o see their chaplain went through that


granted if it was to be a significant issue at trial or in this case at the competency hearing and under eighteen u s c section three zero zero six and way the funding should have been


which did include repeated sexually suggestive comments he was also convicted of obstruction of justice for confronting his a direct subordinate through her immediate supervisor


this immunity is not just from liability but it's from suit if mr west argument were to prevail then what would in turn happen is a delay in terms of making a


government can demonstrate that the error was harmless by demonstrating that good cause existed that is basis was found in the record and the district court in quietly found it that just the government has not and cannot do that in this case good


index the adjuster then sent a blanket authorization to the worker to sign so that she could get records from those thirteen sites and that would include requests from the insurance carriers that reported it and


and that's true only one of them only one kind this kind of the central arizona water conservation conservation district and only one of them this is the only one performs this function it moves the water from the colorado river to the


not finding a language that it was it was essential to the future health well being and safety of the state of arizona and its and its citizens to quickly construct the c a p n there after managing that to


to the eleventh circuit decision in florida wildlife federation it was a case like this one some state agencies came in and challenged the consent decree on the grounds that they didn't like the water quality standards that he set pursuant to that consent decrees deadline and the


acknowledging that prison prisoners do have fundamental right to bali privacy such as using have tours on showers or using some sort of screen that they can shield their enclosed body to members of the opposite sex


that wouldn't necessarily have been a coextensive liability in the court to discuss whether it was or not because it didn't matter but as a matter of general practice and principle the general contractor is going to have different liability and probably greater than a subcontractor


seek equitable indemnity and it has nothing to do with the extinguishing of the obligation it's a different remedy it's a different method and the court embraced that wholeheartedly so it kind of rejected its insanity other as in seventy eight a variance of seventy six


occurs when prison officials hinder an inmate's ability to access the courts night of the supreme court or the courts of appeal require plaintiffs to show that the relevant official acts interfering with their court access or acted in an insurmountable barrier


know with the request or with the grave and the actual opinion by the court that said that he could file a pro se motion to reconsider he says he he gave it to


knocked the officer down again this isn't resisting this is actively using force against the officer so even if that was given that would not have first of all had not have made a difference because the facts are oh so much farther beyond


in buffington and still in harbor all of these cases there was an interjection but the interdiction wasn't the intervening cause for the attempt not to happen and all of those cases how that you know there was a there was nothing


in a slightly closer hypothetical to robbers decide that they're going to go to beverly hills because that's where the rich people are and they're going to wait on a street corner until a mercedes comes by and they go there and they've got the


hundred three lawsuits could not be brought against the commonwealth were it to be granted its sovereign immunity the third point and the point that i believe that absolutely distinguishes flemming is that the the


whether whether they whether the petitioner is true that it's more likely than not that the outcome would have been altered but we need to look to is whether there was a reasonable probability of just one juror declining to convict and


satisfied they can call on stored water to supplement the district also allocated water to what is referred to as new land which is people who have no natural flow rights so the answer is that if


no requirement be limited to a consumptive used to satisfy natural flow rights what the district court seemed to be concerned with was the other parties who have stored water who might not participate


doesn't have the right to that amount of water that did the senior in this case and if with the senior decree holders going to be using more water then they are they don't believe the foundation is going to use three three point one acre feet at the end of the season which is how much


and that the prior appropriators did not take a flat line average every day that varied and the fat will be will result in a sort of a misappropriation on a day to day basis for junior appropriators i don't think


he belongs and i think that's what we have here there's a dispute of fact on why the officers were acting i believe the record shows it was out of retaliatory animists and rational church could certainly find that returning to the motion to


point was that holman only attacked the part of the judgment regarding the third search and that's all we conceded to in our answer in brief not any arguments regarding independent constitutional violations with respect to


i would be happy now to move on to the summary judgment issues so the community says that judge hilberg should have held off deciding the summary judgment issues until after trial but it doesn't


is within the indian community well the judge the judge from the district court judge after visiting the area found that it really wasn't your honor and you can and you can see you can see why and i can describe it a little bit for you


the scope of work that he had missed right isn't a question of what he knew was what the other person gained from that conversation and how you got a managing person says it's a good deal would be reasonable to


well it means that the breach of contract claim could have gone forward because they failed to prove a material element of the claim i lie with under nevada under nevada law substantive law yes it's the right right but in terms of the agreement itself what the parties had


and the officers testimony is that basically he was just he was helping he wasn't basically taking possession of the bag but he was helping because it's now kind of attached to mr contreras and it instead of like swinging freely like


review and contest have again evidence against him and her what happened here and let me let me step back a little bit there's no question


sure well i didn't understand that to be the government's brief that if it is i think we're going to use a lot more of your time frankly well i think this goes to the prejudice issue i think the government argued below it argues here that the defense has not shown any reason to think that these


he's never convicted to a new in a different mr new when is collecting money during that time from the south caf i believe mr levy maybe also collecting money from the south caf that's five right there so that


i think the evidence we think the evidence is crystal clear that particularly if you zero in on the call the way they talk to one another the way it's


counsel what the allegation was what the charge conspiracy was and so the jury convicted understanding that and we think for that reason mr trans


even if it has some appeal is for closed by the so there was an argument to be made before vegas decided that as mr trances don't leave this to implication don't read in


i'm just trying to i mean my worry is that here we are we're trying to save the of the attorney is bad i found weakland significantly impeached anyway and all you're talking


continue to reside in the united states brandenburg requires that there be both an imminent it's a specific intent that someone engages in a certain object advocacy and it's certainly not a problem that brandon berger none of those


government itself cites the henderson case for the proposition that this only touches on nom de minimus acts but the henderson case itself the court described the encouragement as de minimus so this is


as as you're as a c h s as the confidential human source that's what's that's what's got him into this program that's the motivation that's put him in there and there's also an implicit promise and got in the thing that was that there was a desire to have some additional information as


element of dominion or control over the object itself that that is highly disputed ever existed so all i can i know i've gone over my


at this maple address saying he was actually living with another woman ms batalha rest on this evidence alone they tracked down his patella they got a sworn statement from her she gave them a story that was remarkably similar to the story that miss maria


only answered part of your question that i don't want to interrupt you ok so so then i guess the rest of the question is are we assuming that our still exist right now yes ok i am ok ok yesterday it seemed to it seemed to continue to exist


hundred eight so far i don't think they told anybody but when was that first put on line i apologize your honor i do not know i think the internet was not in quite the shape it is today back then but it was a handbook for investigators to take to


district court made a determination it was only about the him out distribute it it wasn't about relevant conduct what do we do about that but it's not about relevant conduct and there simply is no basis the government says if he had


to well your honor the sentencing commission has made clear that when the court is entertaining a motion of this sort it's to apply the guidelines in the same manner that they would have been applied at the time of


it please the court i am brian wolfman and i represent appellant catherine jones i'd like to reserve three minutes for a bottle if i can i want an address three issues today that none of miss jane jones's claims is


and recall at that time she had also asked to amend her complaint there is an allegation there in the opposition to the motion to dismiss well what whether or not there's an allegation the pro se client is now represented


years two through seven continue to use it based on his own experience you're saying that alliance passes out of the major causation problem approximately first problem that's and there's no there's no inkling that what you have you are


as defense counsel got up and said really the only bases are two and they're both stem from boyd's testimony the st one is boy's testimony that what sluice said in confessing to killing who was that


name horrible hood and he helped build a model for the united pilot and pilots that was actually the model used and there's evidence in there of harwood sending e mails saying you know we put the


does the conduct you're specifically referring to there but no i do what actually is happening in the part of that video you're referring to your honor's not masturbation it's not simulated masturbation it is simulated sexual dancing provoke bracy dancing provocative dancing however you want to


there is a bit of disconnect if if if for example on jurisdiction we do say there can be an amendment there can be new evidence then i understand the jurisdiction is its own animal


in point of fact when we move for summary judgment the summary judgment response never mentions consideration never argues that it's present should the court decide to consider this argument the court should also


the supreme court has not created a constitutional loophole here what the supreme court has looked at time and time again is the government intrusion and in this case you certainly had the government intrusion and


one part of the test then you get to the program out of purpose because it is a program at the end of the day that's what this is it is a program to check busses edmon was a program to check busses


had he decided he wanted to leave then i said would you did you lie to me did you lie to the u s attorney i mean you've said destroy it's been in all the stuff and i was i had just broken my hip in a wheelchair and had to actually get out of


rule as to how it applies when you have a prior suit that then says everything in that suit so far how does that apply in a subsequent suit when you've had a dynamic series of events spanning all


the constitutional portion of the guidelines in fact in two thousand and three congress pretty passed the protect act and that had the effect of substantially overhauling the child pornography


of the argument that there was a fiduciary relationship here but i think you have to you can't just say fiduciary relationship that's the end of that's the end of it they don't have to do anything they can sit back and wait till they have actual knowledge no you have to look at the facts


the company before before that date he was the sole shareholder of the company going back


client situation if you're in the parent child situation if you're in the trustee beneficiary situation perhaps a different rule perhaps the actual knowledge rule should apply but when you're sitting here it's apparent knowledge that that's to be it doesn't say actual it says


estate broker mrs marsh marcia clark mr julian entered into some kind of a trust to reman dividing up ownership in the property this was all documented before the trial court but no resolution was made before the the


idea of a chinese wall you know the group credit risk department and a number of other group departments sat above all of these u b s legal entities as it was the one who was managing their resources managing how things would


two promises not true you got the insurance well then a reasonable person would have gone back and looked at the underlying documents and it's drugs rosenthal found the prospectus would put them on notice the annuity would have placed them on notice the application


because that wasn't developed below aside from reliance on cases that are already binding on this panel and the briefing doesn't really address the issues that the court would have to address which is whether there is some sort of congressional finding supporting abrogation


it i was hoping that wasn't what you're about say so it's good to hear but i do think that if you look at the whole sweep of these title seven or jurisdictional cases the answer here is very clear why only the latest supreme court case i mean


an unemployment claim at two to b c unemployment does not get involved as far as i know in discrimination claims those claims go to the civil rights division so we did talk about the terminations that's what


the i believe it sat versus potter you can't do it that way anyway because if you have retaliation you can you can go forward just with a


arrest him so the issue is one issue is packet does the sobriety tests he doesn't fail them then he prolongs the detention a long time till dawn comes we is is your position is a matter of law


which we have paid just touching briefly on the removal of the judge for bias i think i actually for mention that earlier let me turn to the issue of the cross appeal which has to do with the attorney's fees judge hughes awarded


western southern sand yet a third or fourth letter to mr keighley we believe the cause of action accrued in on april twenty second two thousand and nine and the reason for that is on october sixteenth and seventeenth western


not and it was opposed by mr cayley the court i think on the third day of trial then directed us to go ahead and present testimony regarding what we had incurred since the time or an estimate of what time had been incurred since the last


previously determined by the executives of the company if the administration made the decision that simply indorse what they have earlier seen it in a heated discussion line


then you're increasing the salary offer which you calculate over time right right and so that's where you and the fluctuating you may not have done that correctly but that's why i


according to that's if you went back in time but in fact what happened if it were also you're also creating a gigantic differential between what these people were getting and what sable was paying the not


verifying that these people needed home health care because the federal law in a state law allowed the face to face meeting to be done by physicians assistants they are to on the top of a form eighty five they are then to put forth a diagnosis and


it's the terms are somewhat synonymous recommending specific services versus referral i mean i think the difference between the two you know probably would be if you know if a doctor


that's a quote from a certainly a lawyer who is more qualified than i ever thought about being judge rosenthal and that's it that's the edge of that is totally clearly established and what


know qualified immunity is appropriate well i've thought of it but the difference in those cases is does all involve a regime still allows for arrest for failure to comply there's no allegation that


later action is brought about in order to in order to gain something from it so for example in that what you're you're bringing up is if it was an innocent picture taken by an individual who


campbell came forward in june and july of two thousand and six and johnson himself acknowledged in the search warrant affidavits for the father and the son that he believed it was the drop trail in campbell's and consistencies


until the favorable terms of proceedings so we have the intervening case that says that that's not true anymore that if i thought that used to be the law that the new law is that that's not accurate that the claim


the fact that you can carve it out and still get enough on doing a sufficiency analysis doesn't tell you that it wasn't a factor in the conviction but it would say that without it you still would have had the conviction and that's all i'm saying


child was born in two thousand and nine in mecklenburg north carolina where she reside with her mother until october of two thousand and twelve at that time mr sierra was


i mean the circumstances are certainly disputed about what happened in july but she didn't tell him she was coming down for the birthday well she arrived there for the birthday party and saw the condition the child was in became the alarm about to take the child back


the mother comes to mexico at the end of two thousand and twelve stays for i think the mom makes no effort to take the child back the mother visits in mexico june of two thousand and thirteen stays a few days


generally recommended make recommendations to the board in the board acts upon those recommendations really didn't have to do that he cut the middle man up he was hire fire anybody here all he did was call for an


when she was taken out of her her job function everything that happened after that didn't they take all of the other teachers out of their job function during the course of the investigation and they


that i'd like to focus on that in the time that i have first as the record demonstrates the appellee was arrested based upon a probable cause warrant that was issued by an independent magistrate


office based upon significant evidence suggesting probable cause for mister dean's arrest apart from the medical forensic testimony of sort of medical forensic evidence


it record p just seventy seven eighteen and nineteen indeed dr carter could have acknowledged that she could have and chose not to do a side by side


to know what you what is the best example of ethnicity being just too prejudicial that it would rise to plane error not to sever so you say came up multiple times armenians did this he's armenian what's the best example of a witness statement saying


and yes i believe the evidence does show that but the evidence also shows that she didn't look a single sale she didn't get certified by any of the cruise lines and she didn't actually service any bookings at all who worked on the business until


seventy ninth and tenth circuits the united pacific case the universal mortgage case are two of those examples in the portland federal case would be the third example which is in the second section of our brief and all of those courts address the question


thatchers am i right together at twenty six thirty this is the tape yes right and there's no elaboration on the references just a simple


lexicography but clearly the claims are what she's getting at the key point as you say judge rare but she focused on the claims and claim tending dependent and you know that's really to me you know there isn't any substantial


several mean confers they were unable to point to anything that was confidential so certainly all of this behavior and particularly when you view that in light of the low merits of this case we think that that again justifies the district court's


at first and that it's good for all purposes you know for all purpose of language is kind of what i'm playing and i are you think testing that the absence of the for all purposes language take three ten out of the purview of affecting rating


focuses on what the color field of view and if objects that have a heat signature signature or persons go into that field of view then that p r generates the signal but


what would be the damages but then you can't have damages for a position unless you're appointed to that position that's test than and of course you were never


guess i think i think the idea of one as a court previously served the fact that she was receiving worker's compensation because she couldn't currently work as a coastal inspector given her injuries but also the idea that she did come back


money and i paid you the money for rear ending you and then we also had an agreement that well if you come over and qualify to cut my grass you would pay me to to cut your grass too right no and i never qualified it says i


your offer and therefore can't arrive at a conclusion whether we might accept that without more information please submit more information you did submit more information they


entire informational ski the waitresses received in stuart if you look at the specification with pages ten through twelve or break multiple examples of three possibilities one is a complete change of information schemes the configuration information comes down


inside service and look at number five that inside service to get if you're to use it right beneath the electrode and you see it there you know so so remember you said no no inside certain has to come in contact with the dog skin and that's


like to add a person on the road that these this is once again one of those bittersweet moment where we're honoring one of our clerks but coinciding with the sat that that we have to recognize that she's leading


us if we were talking about the circumstances that existed at the time court rules you've got a very high mountain to climb and it's not only abuse of discretion standard but there were very specific findings of fact that the trial for


and the relationship to the common law claims is involved in this issue i guess what struck me is that this is very different for example than the inevitable combat situation and


issue is certainly not what is explicitly shown or stated or expressed in the chopper forty nine reference well then why are we talking about anticipation if there is no express showing of each and


by anybody on the i am is to support that statement mr edwards himself has no documentation of that statement other than his self serving declaration once the case is in litigation moreover the agency cannot just change


iran it was not an argument here waste of cumulative misfired moving in this case and the only we have to go back to the record your honor they moved for summary judgment without the benefit of expert testimony the only evidence in the record on the issue of the closeness of


you can get by with a a much easier inference well it is a there is a sliding scale between the two the court here never reached the balancing because the court in


oral argument today is number zero six dash one zero nine one quick view system versus bellow interacted with a chance to


gear shifting it should be noted that the prior art fails to address explicitly or implicitly the idea of rotating the shift actuator on the handle of a bicycle for taking up a q move last motion in a director system one may argue that it is inherent


with all due respect the court was acting with some good faith in good intentions but it had no jurisdiction and it should have retransfer the matter right back to the seventh circuit they had been ridiculed and we will give your full


if your ruling is well you know there is an exception for attorney's fees well then this is going to come every time every time somebody decides whether or not to


you say this and it's saying well just because somebody gives up on the eve of trial or during trial doesn't mean that the court can award attorneys fees now maybe that's the wrong policy maybe distention should be amended maybe the supreme court is wrong but


and that phrase is different because it doesn't include the pair and the secrecy switch modifiers modifying not the transistors but something else the the risk of what the commission's construction is is it would allow


does not correctly pro trade the prosecution history there was different claim language at issue and the discussion that took place in the prosecution history addressed a different issue the issue is what is the true


chap we have no community probably because they settle for your queue outside of court if you're one is in a dispute and the parties agree one going to pay you one hundred thousand dollars for your interest in the house and then they both check off that issues resolved we have no


been previously denied by use of the narrow exception of i'm maybe i'm just missing something so it you saying them it feel lies because the date of which we determine whether or not there was a service connection


to please the court in this case and as the court knows there were amendments made two claims being prosecuted resulted in them being allowed after having been rejected previously d s u invites


seems nineteen ninety four


p a medical record will be accepted as an informal claim for increased compensation and i'm simply saying to you that if the decision does not indicate that then there is no way for the veteran to know that that happened that


million dollars at the beginning and go into a contract that lets you put in the pipe but if you know you really need it then we'll take we'll take the rest and that's all it is that is that is all the warranty ever is that we understand is a mistake to keep repeating no


is a point i think it is it requires that the attachable and separate because it has to have two and if it's already attached to something it only has one and not the required two and


disqualification is based on violations of florida ethical rules including a breach of the attorney client privilege conflict of interest rules


award organization mr arias the sole owner of exigent to whom which acquired substantially all the assets blackstone has found by the district court was copied on certain e mails that mr black


respect to the supervisory position as soon that all that was in the letter was the last paragraph very seldom if ever do i grant reinstating a request and i decide to decline your request as well i assume that if that was nixed of the


it supported by all the intrinsic evidence specification prosecution history supported by the extrinsic evidence the expert testimony the dictionary definitions prior decisions by this court mr felix allegedly has two


percent of that capacity in a total now even assuming for the sake of argument the room to agree with you on that you that still have to demonstrate that the effect of this lack of adequate funding was


in this court has recognized to prove the fact that congress does not actually conduct a full blown full scale audit examining every single piece of paper connected with the courtroom sponsons in this case


he's challenging the directive is interpreted not substantive because under five fifty three a wait a minute each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance amendment or repeal of a rule that


intrinsic ordinary meaning of the term length


can just enter an injunction of the terms of this breath without addressing the four critical factors as i understand what is a fourth circuit law you're supposed to do that and i'll be candid with you i don't


which aside from


the patent office had a long standing definition a term of art definition that was in the m p now four months ago this court interpret the phrase divisional application in five this court said


evidence what congressional intent was when they do not disturb the importation or in this case the approach undertaken by the administrative agency when they are undertake subsequent modifications to the same have


whether a continuing application is original application that my wife's not a lawyer that will but if you're reading well or her usage is that's about a straightforward if you can get and you were married usage of is this an original application


relations negotiations with employees and confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional eagle services to this council would clearly place a seat at a substantial disadvantage ok any discussion all


here i would be more sensitive to the dog and the cat outside supposed the trash so just so i i voted for this thinking that it was a blanket just that


would equate the same thing to our relationship with you all this is a specialized industry there's not a lot of people you know that specialize in this practice when you get our auditors that come here there are thirty people in our company that we


for for the dogs and while i personally didn't believe that that probably was the best place for a dog park and we've had that happen twice once and patch and road and then at the airport so it's clear that we were looking for that we needed to


and state constraints really cut down that number quite quite a lot so when i say so burlington you know if you look at our look constraints for the habitats you just described the forests the clay plain forests and all


metropolitan area so there's going to have more sites but even there they're charging fifty dollars a pop and what i'd say about that too or thing to keep in mind is part of what eighteen nineteen all the other carriers are trying to do is to keep these


saw those but sometimes it really is opposition against a vote no you see i'm all over the place in burlington so i don't know if we i strongly support regional dispatch and if that means give one hundred bucks to vote yes for regional dispatch i'm all for it i just don't want


rotate every month while the fifty percent partner in the food shelf remains consistent and so when we looked at the last year in two thousand and seventeen we tallied up proximately one hundred thirty one thousand dollars that


pollution they reduce u v light because you're in the shade and the biggest operation in the in the nation every year is for cataracts and u v lights causes those and cancer it


hot on the fourth four pm this other one i'm showing you shows you the trees that initially we figured were going to be removed we found more and also on the bottom is the two thousand and twelve


council meeting and forgot to turn in my check and it's lasted till after midnight and there you go so you know that was human error so things happen things happen but i


two elected officials i would think that penalties that i'm trying to appeal here i'm not i'm not beating my taxes i'm a bating the penalty


track thank you very much ok


they were with the violation of the zoning ordinance they're going to you know it's going to groundhog day and we're going to be in the same situation again where they're going to have to pay another fine which they can't


mean come back with couple of more concrete steps and one of them would be to find the time to speak with the artist about this issue and also try to get his thought i mean clearly and present it to us the


put this art piece of art here there was another piece of art and it's was included on the report would that person received any notification about we're going to take your piece of down


and for first class liquor licenses the the business wrapped and needs to be present so i'm just going to go through the list and confirm who is here we have essex country club


advantage and you can talk about yet so as a student you get to vouchers for doing roman and you get to take two college courses for free and then you also have the our ability to


where do you see what are they going to be the issues that you think this this community is going to have to deal with in five years but i think we see some of the same trends already we've we've been dealing with i


like to leave the citizens and the final staving you'd like to make so before that which i will get to just a quick follow up on martin yes but i talked to david young a couple of days ago one of the ideas that i talked to him about that i was most excited about is this big picture project they have at the high school is the


on that so i'll leave out the details but safe say we're investing in long term infrastructure there with those funds and it's budget neutral and similarly we've reached out with other communities and this is a nother place where i'm proud to say we've played a i think a really leading


the people who live in the community and then there's the local government i would like to see the local government to actually be what it was intended to be which is to represent all the diversity that is a part of the


and with that to be able to get to the vision that we have as a city we need to sometimes we need to move things around i've gone to a couple of the meetings and i'm