spirit of law it got to apply the language of the statute and it is hard to see if you want to focus on the success or vision but it's hard to see how there was a transfer of a new business in the scenario here how


well then is there a reason for this dispute to be resolved until you have had a chance to work out whether the marshal service would grant the waiver not anymore you know i mean they file a lawsuit on the lloyd here and i mean i was saying if you're just representing to us that the only reason


i don't see you pointing to anything in the record that shows they didn't do it and said when i read the records and find a statement by i think it's sovereign and one of the school officials that there again was to go class


certainly rattled the escalator when she read it the officer refused to stop coming towards the officer and then he was forced to bring her down to the ground and make that split second decision of do i get into a further physical confrontation where she just throws


well fitted his crime by not raising it himself


eight and it's noteworthy that section one of one of these actually echoes that same does are section one of one says the purpose of the oversight board is to provide a method for every territory to achieve fiscal


it only applies in into the debtors case we're dealing with which is each ga so you have to look at where is the money there's no money except for the sixty nine million dollars but that's not that's a side issue but there


be clearer on this the automatic stay of bankruptcy code three sixty two is overly broad in chapter nine requiring the delay and expense arising from a request for relief from the automatic stay too complex what many statutes mandate


is a is a secular organization and what i'm what i'm getting at this would be in my mind a different case if the a was if there was a flag if the city had allowed flags to be from that were


extent he is trying to allude to some sort of evidence that is not in the record simply you're there not to gild the lily on this right but i think it's entirely obvious that the record in front of this


i borrow money from you i give you a mortgage on my home my uncle harry also promises you the hill send me a thousand dollars a month so i can make sure i make payments to you and then all of a sudden we start paying here that the more


might my first reaction was to prove prophetic whining of the george orwell's animal farm which states all animals are equal but some animals are born equal than others how convenient would be for the commonwealth


whether it's an injunction but the statue can't resolve the constitutional question of whether a magistrate can have this authority and it seems like a fairly significant power to have a lot of article


changes at the sentencing hearing to the p s r and for that reason you got seven months going by the way if you remove your right to appeal but if you come up with anything that you feel we should appeal you should let me know so that


method and i understand that and we certainly don't mean to minimize that but i think some employers recognize that too on and so that their decision to either use the exemption for example rather


the accommodation is not something they would enter into lately and i would not to so be it at once but just to go back to hobby lobby for a moment i think it is worth considering what the court said in heart in rugby with respect to the accommodation and the court you know did not decide


it would be established


forgot to do the second one the next year we came back to change it and people asked us not to go back to what they wanted and we said no there is one statute of limitations and the legislature has already decided at that time


at the behest of defense counsel asking the judge a judge will you take this guy to the woodshed sure it was a wrestler defense attorney would have been jumping up and down but then why your honor a day or two later defense counsel knew to have


there's no right to effective assistance of the public counsel on discretionary review so there's not even a merits analysis because he doesn't have the federal constitutional right to be in federal court


that against for participating in union activities and what the ninth circuit said in the case is that they were they were talking about the question of standing the union


victim's testimony the most important single thing which we can bring to the jury's attention and which can detract from our credibility is a record or prior instances of making false


district court the question really in the case boils down to whether it was a substantial factor in the universe action that was taken the district courts or there's no evidence and there's a there's causation all right let me address because the nation we know that the defendants


situation in the supreme court to apply and there's justice o'connor setting williams versus taylor there are cases where the state court on reuse notably fails to expand the supreme court holding two


only goes to suitability the plus side not the negative side when you comment on that i will your honor recognizing of course that it's a matter of state law state law cases have found that first of all the guidelines are specific


punitive and i would think and should not be upheld the the hours that were spent were incredibly modest for the level of work that was required for this fee motion on the original motion mr aaron


attorney there was no attorney that lived in california that was representing miss johnson mr aarons lives in seattle mr mr bragg lives in illinois so who does who does she


this person and if the answer is all i've got at that point once they don't bail out of county jail unit number nine where they're initially process is you go into the general custody with all of the other inmates who


specific facts and he went through the whole record he found that he found that they never review committee had substantial basis for what they found and so basically he made his own findings as


that information is significant and there are three points of state like to address today first the state would like to give examples of the types of information that are not preempted under the ninth circuit's definition second mistake would like to address


the plaintiff has presented no evidence whatsoever that a conflict of interest affected standers decision and so if there is a case that after a body can go ahead and be decided on the merits and affirmed


well did this work any time before december of one nine hundred eighty six it's not hast relevant work if it's not passed relevant work the ve never could have said that he could do outside beauty sales or light delivery so it changes the


low form of medication and less severe form of medication is that correct that was one of three reasons and you know let's explore that just for second you can tell me what the others were is not correct the valance way to explain that he could not take a


more requirement on the part of national union to advance criminal defense costs


and prisons so i think that is addressed the date the date of the disciplinary hearing in question was january twenty fourth of two thousand and two and he cites the date of january twenty third of two thousand and two as when


conduct with regard to applying the roe case because we've got the manifest time we have got the comments to the officers we've got in it's officer hedges now i just she was the person who


were accosted in public and additional negative events occurred but it's not accurate to say and i know that mr nolan as made this argument it's not accurate to say that nothing would have happened had there been no publicity


where he got that that's never been way it was mentioned in the briefs it's not appropriate to say it this way but what was really harmful about what mr mr not did was in addition to filing his motion which was inappropriate to choose these two sworn officers


you know i've given that some thought too and certainly an argument it wouldn't be fair to the opposing counsel to bring that up in a reply brief but whether or not you're putting the court on notice of what your argument as perhaps that's a different issue well


that and i recognize it's a different context like for various reasons they decided you get those ninety days whether or not you file your petition i don't know what the united states supreme court will do and once


if we accept your argument that a rule is a rule as a rule and your client gets a windfall because a mistake by the district charge or because of an action by the district and


march twenty four dismissal in which he said if the matter is not resolved within the ninety day period the matter not just you know basically the whole case ok then we'll vacate it and restore it to the calendar within the ninety days


wouldn't the court's orders in the summer of two thousand and four in which she said you know file your motion i'll hear it why isn't that tantamount to an order i knew this was going to come up


because he feels that the jury that's going to be seated well will be fair and impartial and all these people have answered the questions that were put to them by the court and by the attorneys so whether there isn't anything on the record on and then one might


the area of the car i think behave differently than it would have if it was just on straight into the trees down the ravine but the accident itself would have happened regardless and that's because of what mr neavitt was doing that night


exactly i would have a hard time finding things for example when you said mr perry explained this all to the union i couldn't find on either page two twenty seven top number of father number where


wildlife the way by two thousand and two a project on private land had been proposed and as discussed in our briefing is found by the district court the forest service took into account the human of impasse caused by this private project before issuing its fonzie


think red herring this is the requirement that the counsel is talking about has to do with a theory which isn't supported under the law so you'd have to go a number of steps before you got there first of all you have to say


not take those kinds of papers the unclaimed property law gives the controller the discretion not to take property that has no intrinsic value and so we don't go around


equivalent to chronic fatigue syndrome he found simply i can't say if that's current fatigue syndrome or not it is fifty dr wood who did conduct an independent medical examination


banks that's right so that phrase that that it's plies to a national bank no you cannot apply state law to a national bank i will concede that that's where we are in the state of wall but you can arizona's like every other state that's


to one of these loans that is the two million dollar deposit that was made by mortgages limited into cross napoli's bank of the southwest was never made available to the


and here's here's the question that i'm having in terms of sending this back whether even assuming that's an appropriate remedy and that is having looked at this and looked at the my own testimony from jason conceding he might have said the comment


contest that there was any bad faith in the failure to meet the sixty day deadline he finds bad faith in what we did afterward and again i may be


preclusion issue preclusion anything else that he wants to raise and in fact he has raised those if for the immigration judge the immigration judge as of yesterday rejected those claims and issued an order removed


hearing and when he spoke to her she already knew about the warrant and she was concerned that officers wanted to rest her and officers in this case tried to assure her that they just wanted her to appear at trial they did not say that they were interested in


sloping shoulder that she had noticed earlier during the bank robbery and they both recognized his voice they also both positively identified him at the trial and they were unequivocal in their identifications there


reconsider the petition has not even argued that the motion to reconsider was timely and if not the guy is decision to deny an untimely motion to reopen a matter of discretion and


petitioner has shown that it does fall in one of those categories that would make it no longer a conviction he has me ask you this the very last paragraph


requiring a license for people who deal with pigeons but not for people who deal with other pests is positively irrational and in his view endangered the public health and safety where


relates to the issue of how hard was she thrown against a police car if she was strong for that yes except this is not a question for the jury well ordinarily yes but in this case the judge who


how how can you act i guess how can you act as a whistleblower if that's your position when he does have a little bit of both because that's his personal friend who has just died and he talks about that course he does but he keep this letter is the key to the whole thing if we don't have the larry would


we have to have a target so we can attempt to meet that target and then move the case


a point where there's a lack of clarity in it in it recognizes what its usual role is it chooses to defer to the smart guys of the cern in women of the sentencing commission why not your honor


have a fast track program apparently maybe that you today for immigration offenses many jurisdictions do this a lot immigration cases in some places it speeds up the process maybe not there's been some discussion though in our in unpublished decision about what lopez of means what it


and so while i don't think it's required i think it's a really good indicator of probable cause and he says where they have not established the nexus in warrants those warrants have been suppressed


mr cruz's address or where he lived if you look at the supplemental reports which are part of the record on


all the officers did and then they mediately took him to the couch gave him or had their warnings and then he proceeded to consent to further search of the home


officer of trust pass or attempted burglary the car pulls into a driveway there's passed to pout two people in the car two passengers cracked correct yeah and the driver


you elaborate on that and i raise it too because i think i've seen it in another case out of the district of new mexico and i want to make sure that the defenders and the u s attorneys are on the same page on


it was explicitly called for under those rules so you had two things that are different here we're down here at step three it's not a done deal until the judge said it was a done deal in fact at the hearing on that summons motion the judge is still at


get landlord addresses in garden city if that's what the defendants wanted and so the notion that you know dan de is the one who's inducing defendants to commit this crime and and sort of moving


there were actually proof that he lied and then the court separately dealt with this issue of the amount of drugs and had a discussion and said that can be a factor that can relate to the defendant's knowledge about an offense but i don't think that case supports that that can be the only factor i also


it help me out with this reliance on one of the th circuit judges hypothesize it argued that your honor i just pointed out as persuasive argument from the court itself a persuasive acknowledgment from the court rather i don't


the trespass authorization was taken by the chief of police down to dan hicks and said he and it was offered to him and said hey we want to trespass this guy out of your property so i ness and


say at one point when we get to the point that he's asked to search your backpack she says i'm scared right now that indicate that she doesn't want this to this to happen


the health insurance market well st of all the mandate was the right got drug that the market power supporting the mandate came directly from the medicare advantage mark to mandate


money to see our patients as they of course will and presbyterian trying to figure out how can we lose less money on our own college patients and what they did was if they opened their own


manner in which computers were searched as the point but he did preserve the issue of whether the warrant had probable cause to search computers whether there was sufficient probable cause to search because they didn't have it was that there


which is that it has to be described with as much specificity as the government's knowledge and circumstances allow which obviously is a slippery standard right i mean it could be that the government just doesn't have that much information in a particular case about a particular


court's test from procter and gamble said show advertising or promotion must be statements for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy the defendants good or services and what the district court properly


subchapter in a provision addressing judicial review is ambiguous as to the review of agency action and can only be interpreted with reference to context and the strong presumption favoring just your view of agency action before we get to the


arm of the state and so in this case i think that's relevant because what the sheriff was doing it was in acting the law enforcement functions that is in chapter nineteen article eight which derives exclusively from


wish this agency to deal with this because they have jurisdiction to deal with immigration matters writ large so i think trying to in a way fit jurisdiction through these two notices congress is response to that would be if we wanted that


i think it is now within circuit ition that is before the supreme court but it needs to be addressed because it does bear on this directly and that's why we're asking the court to look at these decisions i want to add more one case that i provided to the


are right on point with this and this is a something to due process claim because i mean if we disagreed with you and we said he didn't have a


there's no professional psychological or psychiatric standard for that is the standard that's used to determine and it's nationally in in the case where a person is


assault or sexual abuse the fundamental defense is going to the veracity of the alleged victim in this case who is john doe one and identifying and be the potential


one which same criminal conspiracy was a disregard referring to the overarching wants or the want that this court made clear was the applicable one the smaller conspiracy of elements tate which was a subset of the larger


search to a bentley have occurred if they want to thank you your honor this is a critical point and it goes to credibility and also just brings us back to the issue of the district court using the standard officer crouse


answering your question and if you're ok the other thing as the officers knew he was armed and dangerous from the outset of the stop and they both testified to that effect but the minute they got out of that vehicle and it was important to


on consider cumulative effects as part of the consideration process or the scoping process or the extraordinary circumstances review process because in this case they did not


some of those discussions are recorded in the in the numerous documents in the administrative record and does it support the large volume of projects that the appellant represented to us just now


and as i'm leaving your honor i see that it's the pitch canyon is project is allowed to proceed and it's the hyde park project that's currently under the injunction from the district of


is really a false argument if one looks at the the actual docket filings in the in the federal court case you'll see that the advantageous file the letter three days before the summary


conducted under correct i'm sorry three point one is for sex criminal sexual abuse yes it says convicted under correct


leaving it's showing up for five minutes and then leo is his emergency that so comparable your honor there was no emergency but to be clear there was there is no evidence that the only evidence that supports that there was an actual quote unquote


deposition of marine maher the human resource manager the human resource manager who recommended the terminations catena biggie she stated that when she is looking over whether what punishments to give to the


identifiable emergency and in the corporate deposition when she was representing expedia she stated for the record that mcgee situation was an identifiable emergency or did she call back


at inquiring whether he ran a record check for miss baka to confirm whether she was a felon so that's where it's the insinuation is that he was asking that question and he actually said you you know


it's statement that the materiality looks to the effect on the likely or actual payment behavior you have a damage model that shows how much extra money


this idea that reporting to the f d a is going to lead the public to have more information about the dangers inherent in their products then you can follow through the mice opinion and see exactly the same exactly the opposite


reduced the emphasis a broader common benefit time than judge turning gave she clearly awarded time and compensated people for this notion of a broader common benefit time and because judge long strums order


indicators that this court has looked at to decide whether or when an interaction becomes custodial is one whether the person was informed that they were free to leave and could end the questioning or didn't have to at answer any questions the nd is


not to require the district court to consider anything in particular because section four of four of the st act doesn't if the court were to say something along the lines of it appears that you only


know the longer was in effect if in fact robinson didn't rely on his that was no longer in fact anne robinson felt that the amendment didn't change the stat you i mean is that in fact in a store a leg of the stool that has any


require that they use the c plan the ny confirmation they have used that to abuse the bankruptcy process and that should not be allowed thank your honour's and so can i just ask you to respond to the the


and so forth as to what they can or should do there was no particular need for it but in this case there is a difference and here's where the difference in it plays into two new th circuit cases which i cite in a supplemental brief just recently what happens


the government can regulate professional conduct when it has only an incidental burden on speech but in this case that is just a distinction without a difference because the only conduct at issue in this case is ms


crafted so that while the public is being protected from bad dietary advice by one licensed or unqualified individuals that people who have a license


to do which is bring it before the commission and the commission itself looked into this this request to take a year and a half yes this case being litigated on other issues yes but there's a commission decide


doesn't control of the filing right it does not your honor but it also does not rise to a level of a st or th amendment violation in this case even combined with the petition requirement because georgia actually


whether a foreign conviction is a form of persecution


thousand and seventeen and that she you know that was fourteen weeks from when she was cleared in may that's actually incorrect in february of two thousand and seventeen she was given an unloader knee unloader which is a brace for her knee she then was


city where justice kennedy made clear that the engaged in commerce language is narrower than the than the interstate commerce power of congress and engaged in commerce has to be in the f a a exception has to mean something and that means that


answer about an allegation of collusion on the part of an employer who is not a doctor i would respectfully that would be the burden is on the government prosser tells us


case is rocking along like normal i mean there was nothing abnormal about this if you look at the transcript in the pleadings and then all of a sudden here comes this in the month of september one month before


because you're of a sentence doesn't always erase an initial sentence for all purposes in the words in the memorable words of then judge barrett in her dissent earlier today victor is not a time machine and the


at the motion to intervene in the complaint that mr given or was just talking about if you find that document to twenty and you look at the other motioning intervene and intervention complaint you can find that it documents to thirty six and to thirty seven the


jest of what i understand them to have been saying is not that they were challenging the injunction or they are in challenging the summary judgment decision rather it was just that they were taking issue with the scope of the injunction and in particular they were saying that


see that the sentence includes mental health treatment or drug treatment or something to that effect and here there's nothing like that in the prison sentence there is in the supervised release sentence but there's


requires an individual to have some reasonable expectation to be hauled into a court in a any particular jurisdiction otherwise the government the the fallout of this case is that any government


disputes that came you know that that resulted in the settlement agreement but it's not really any different in that respect from you know an arbitration awards like i said where you would have these disputes that yes they would be the


course taken the position that and it is supported by evidence that mr reynolds did not make any authorised trades he did not engage in any wrongdoing it's certainly part of our defense and as we've come to find out there was misleading statements


the result comparable position that does come from our which is a lower court opinion side of the th circuit so i do apologize that that's not from the circus language but it does discuss the reasonable accommodation issue and


and we're looking forward to hearing your cases for those of you who are not familiar with our traffic like system for the time keeping the countdown on the clock will be in


but mr mason approved determination based on missed loops excessive tardiness following her rd final written warning there's no dispute about the facts the only dispute in this case is about the law


insurance company the walker had to delve into appellate case and protective insurance b johnson the supreme court case from eighty seven all hold that ignorance of the policy or its requirements in a failure to report is not excused unless it's caused by fraud or overreaching


deliver the policy to andy skinner in california so the contract was made in california the question that is whether the english common law is one that supplies the rule of decision in this case turning to motz in that case


were downgraded but i do you know he is still in state custody and so he is still continuing to serve time related to those cases it's not the state didn't take him back and just say ok we will


that's an extraordinarily significant difference your honor in front of this court talked about the fact that implicit within the variable standard is the notion that cruise lines will not be helped the same standard of care that would guide treatment on shore


couldn't do it for factors related to cardio three of a kind of hills too with stress you know if this it happened six months earlier a different carrot we wouldn't be


florida law which is ambiguity is not does not exist merely if the language is complex or if it requires analysis and that's an important difference there is it there is another panel of this court that recently confronted similar


so this is their record that the parties didn't have the opportunity to present information about the purpose or the operation of that terminations rider in the termination provision in the lifetime rider but but


but they never do anything to protect the speakers on the nd day on the nd day and there's a reason for that on a st day the students had been in this situation for the st


convenience and so when we had the hearing we kind of had to explain to the court that this is not jurisdictional this is a venue situation here but


practical rather than technical considerations in interpreting that and the question the task is not whether there might have been an intact an indictment that was drafted with more


you follow me i follow the question but i think that's not good the separation of powers doctored would prevent the court from doing that so we disagree with that premise and then you can wire that therefore since there's been


here with all respect your honor that i think it's a much narrower question that's in front of the court the only question in front of this court right now is whether the district court was correct in deciding that the case had become moot questions that are being raised go to the merits of ms wild claims


says mature sufficiently as a prosecutor i'd find that very challenging to figure out what my case is mature and sufficiently during the course of investigation you could talk to a witness and think one thing you can talk to somebody else the next day and think something else and the case can change a


epstein had basically no defense to any action brought against him and he would concede liability and so that was a part of the the agreement between the government and mr epstein again whether that was a good or a bad idea it was highly


speak for myself i read the government as saying it doesn't apply because there is nothing in article three judge could do consistent with the separation of powers doctrine i think that's one of their arguments we have to agree with them


fairness and the right to receive accurate and timely notice about court hearings your ruling we understand is going to be there ot to use that term again but it's an important one from his wild and dozens of other sexual assault victims of one of the largest sex trafficking


provided courts typically conclude that the causal link is broken and that the plaintiff cannot recover doesn't say rebuttable presumption but essentially means the same thing that of course and porter the court did say there was a


those issues and found that the gun lay was reasonable and that's a factual finding that district court made in light of the entirety of the record below and it's not just to correct correct me if i'm wrong but it's not just that he


properly played and they have the employer bleached some part of the collective bargaining agreement in the union somehow breached the duty of share representation and we believe the district


by others or to give warning to persons entering on or going on to that area for any of any hazardous conditions structures activities so the key words in the section from from our permit from our perspective are the public


of hunting fishing or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation of liability and then goes on provided that the lessee provides a written notice of this provision to the to the person before or at the time ventry on the area or


statute because it in the united still immunizes land owners from the from suit let's say that one hundred people enter the property ninety nine percent of those people are ninety nine of those people


the personal injury then the landowner is completely in and so that's not the case i think it represents a policy choice on the part of the legislature to where the land is that significant like let's say it's like a natural


decision which is after the accident of this is that because you're as a trespasser you you're you haven't gained anything that you wouldn't otherwise you know you stand in the same position that you would have been so that the florida supreme court looked


so these defendants receive this thirty four million dollars fraudulent transfer never given any consideration in return that cause they harmed here in alabama and the creditors would not be able to have their judgments


questions of the crew members genuine statelessness under international law is actually incredibly difficult to prove it puts the government in the position of having to prove a negative and that's why the statute is


sometimes they do but not in this case dr dreier said that he had offhand talked about it with another colleague and that's it page twenty five twenty seven the other friends of piano reviewers were also board certified which is one of the reasons that the


the conclusion that there is no jurisdiction if there's any way around that conclusion and so i would like the opportunity just to look into it briefly in that this is an issue that was never raised and to file a brief letter if we find anything


affirmative statement that mr de barral was competent which he admitted under oath he made at least in part so that his motion to withdraw would be granted and that just infected not only dr marc populaces report which relied on that statement the judge's


recognized that there was a valid strickland claim but then it was objective we deficient when he failed to follow the law and requests to remain for the evidence you're hearing i think you can get


it's not a case of just a little bit it's a lot and again i would go back to the judge's findings that were not accepted to and answer it this way that


its proposals and these were the proposals for the renegotiation of the memphis guess your honor it was for the month a supplemental agreement and so the real question for us is whether the main


also in addition to being a fire chief oh no he was standing next to a citizen who was talking at that time i mean that could be open to interpretation but as i saw it he had a man standing right here who was making to me shoes known and so he


he did an examination of branding gillespie on the evening before the murder about six thirty pm he interviewed mr gillespie about his mental health history he reviewed the medical


increased security grounds and checks by the deputies could also recommended this guy to be put in his own cell it could have he could have but it was a discretionary decision and generally you only house inmates alone if they are assaulted and


and i said judge you and i say to you those arguments are terrific if there were three more people besides you three and we had a jury they're all factual arguments stenson isn't really libel williams isn't really libel what he wanted cameron to doom twenty three hundred


here under the wilson versus i think it's the act which is the last name for it to be free from inmate an inmate violence there's not any doubt the judge had applied farmer versus browning to discuss the object of in the subject the progress of the case


based on him has retired she's no longer involved in the case why is it not moot anymore it's not moot because if she should have recused herself her decision should be no employed i mean it obviously or in any remain and would


others that say that this court on review can independently look at the record there been instances where a judge will look at sanctions under nine hundred twenty seven and reviewing court will say sanctions


what happened in terms of an attorney with a vested interest trying to push a claim that lack merit but we added aggravation to the fact by the multitude of frivolous and fixations filings


same cross reference argument is making here the court in eaglehawk carbon found that to be helpful you know i think really what we're talking about is the most natural reading of


apply to tax exemption the kitten or regulations said that they don't apply to tax exempt so this effort to somehow apply seventy seven zero on the tax exempt contradicts thirty six years of their own regulation it makes no sense to me


to enter in to a customer unusual lot of intent we give them a customer usually or intent they sign it we have a contract we have a contract that we have to comply with so if the question is could g m or chrysler breach that contract i


plan and we know the attorney general doesn't have to prove in order to be right that this is exactly like any other law need to show that it's similar enough to plow to throw it out i believe that's correct but


as long as collinses wealthy enough to to deal with the argument i'm making is that under the law as it exists today that bundling is analyzed one way and


in an open area i don't want to one brief conversation that from from their testimony incur included maybe two or three exchanges there's nothing about the context of that if either of those exchanges that would reasonably suggest


and i mean if you take a step back practically just a sample if someone told me miss collins i really liked what you were wearing on saturday and nothing more and i think it kind


the bonus and that's true except it's in if we feel like it that because it was totally in caterpillar logistics and clinton's hands whether to grant that bonus there was no criteria no minimum threshold required for making the submission


because all you're doing by enforcing the waiver is creating this debate at the twenty to fifty five stage as to whether the counsel's advice was good or not on this and that is going to take you back to the merits


the panel i mean you know there's there's no appearance willing to parrot what the court relied on right and the court this time again made generalizations based on the type of crime and not based on


the district court surprised the government and the defendant in february when it suppressed the second statement and then concluded that without that stuck second statement it is that second statement the one that the judge said to the defense attorney you're not challenging this


essence of interfering with an f m l a law i don't think anybody suggested that he needed to come in i think that the the issue was whether or not he communicated with his supervisor about the the where the


mixed bag which again pays recognizes that sometimes you get in tangled with the merits when doing this and i think that that's ok in pace also recognized and i want to address the point raised


fact she said i didn't get into her to have today right left i would also note that despite counsel's assertion the mother did not sleep there the mother did not live there in fact on page five twenty three of the record the mother stated very clearly that she slept in a different house and


and just because you have a great result i think the overall principle view look over all these cases otherwise we win and allies them have a reduction is work was was the work that was done reasonably expended


before two thousand and eleven and individual came in and the the class of employees that were supposed to be checking these driver's license licenses was pretty wide open the woman that testified from wal mart


true that unfortunately for them those allegations were not sufficient to save their claims as both judge cook and judge come on reconsideration determined the interests they are trying to preserve the age discrimination


after the argument had been made regarding accepting a ratio of one to one for power to crack cocaine and on page seventy two of the sentencing hearing transcript towards the bottom he


not outside of that would be reason we forseeable to the individual and i think it's also important to mention that we do not


conflict that any error here was not plain i'd also note that deciding the deciding which case is not right won't have an impact on cases going forward because as we told the


is is that sixty is a separate violation of forty one so what it says an eight forty b one a is for in fact offenses involving more than two hundred eighty grams of cocaine crack cocaine here for example


the paperwork was done to make sure that everybody else was but her job was not to do any of those things this was paperwork right she was making here she was making sure the


i don't know the court will have to decide that the n r b makes a big point in its brief that there was not it you know we did a detailed investigation as you just point out your honor that you know it seems a little it seems a little quick and it was a little quick but


has something to do with the union that's that's what makes it look you know at least suspicious well with even if even if the wrong decision was made by miss archer as to miss archer that does not mean


the conspiracy outside of the coconspirator statements in this case what it what the independent evidence suggested was that there was more of a buyer seller relationship between mr


i don't understand how you there's nothing conflicting and between the two arguments i mean why don't you get why go back to recent and saying without some sort of an expert because he was


allegation in the complaint and she relied on the fact that the bodyguard kevin jones did not say false there has been no bounty he said yeah it's a rumor i don't know what the amount is that's an allegation in the complaint


all it would have been content neutral that's something they could have done they didn't do that and they allowed the event to start but this is a it's a nonpublic form that says they've got discretion but


if they allow that to start to start they can't stop it no no and that's not what i'm saying i think they did have the authority to stop it as long as it's content neutral is that if you allow an event to start you can't stop


on and saying all this was never an aiding abetting it doesn't matter it's not facts it was after the jury had already been instructed it's after the jury already heard argument and so it's frankly irrelevant and you know bring this into mr


some other reason stated well i think the fact that he said i have no other rational reason and in the context of the conversation they've been talking about striking the jurors based on on race they


inspected the heater he inspected the composites he in his declaration made a statement that i have done all of this and i can find no other cause for this fire no other source of


didn't that would be like spitzer but that didn't happen here you go on i think that you have a minute to go i think that it is the obligation of any attorney to follow through on a case and she had not


job and she she indicated that's the reason why i was in part because of the problem she had with the manager because of her missing work because of the almost her condition also deteriorated over time she actually going to stick treatment while


that's part of the but then i read your complaint it's starkest of course in the monetary claim to say we're not satisfied with what we got through that administrative process we want


my client had five major reconstructive surgeries and she's presently on the down for the pain as i was looking at his last night i was noticing the l j said that he expected that she could not tolerate


a better record they're waiting for one of which they do and that's the commission has not acted because they were has not complied with the commission's requests for supplements to the record my understanding is it's not just snake roberts both parties the


think i know that the record indicates and he says that he's disabled i don't know the details of it i'm sorry you know think it is important i think the fact that he is disabled is very relevant to whether the use the force used


interaction on either side so i think it was relevant for the jury to know that first of all the defendant didn't know that this individual was an officer and that goes to his intact if he knew that the individual was an officer why was he resisting at that point that's an issue for the


minorities who might be able to supplement their diversity statements but to white who might also be able to supplement their diverse state how would that be applied to any of your clients well certainly even under


understand the justification for sending the letter only to people in certain racial groups that invites supplementation to explain diversity characteristics i have the same question it's good why would you need a letter


sort of rationality any anything that you might characterize as narrow tailoring to produce the educational benefits of diversity or anything else to what ethnic groups get pluses


we asked for a jury on that very issue the question of causation we were entitled to a jury and we were denied it we asked for a jury on all issues related to damages incurred you don't need to go past judge billy's own earlier decision


fifteen percent of their assets skin employer securities but that says no the thing about what the fiduciary responsibility was to sell the securities in the event that prudence should require us now you're either going to my first


time period on that whether it was previous to be my being picked up or afterward and given that petitioners argument is that the prejudice in this case resulted primarily from the timing of the rumor that it was spread before


had made in the store at the same time even though with one word to use the word transaction or occurrence as in its broadest possible sense you could argue that well it all happened at the same time and i think that's what's going on here


second two thousand and one now the inference the court should have drawn from this is the documents executed before march twenty second were not intended to have present effect because this task had no no power to transfer


on a wrist warning think about that but you have something that is the foundation for the bespeaks caution doctrine and the p s l are a safe harbor full page of disclosure saying warnings you barter may not work your barter may not work and plenty


claim under the guidance of the best and that is the opportunity i would hope this court we give us is not futile and we should have that opportunity and give the other any further questions the questions


right in the pollution definition focuses on the receiving water's being altered by the substance right and that's what the fifth circuit held in cedar point the eleventh circuit held in mc a second the second circuit held in the catskills case is that well when when you


properties that they reviewed in the of sorkin verities well known as you'll see that they're not similarly situated at all the phrase cannot just mean any in holding and it appears to us that they try to find all the in holdings in the wilderness


concerns however as a comparison of supplemental excerpts of record pages two twenty five and two twenty nine make clear you could have you could use it you could have a large number of helicopter trips and it still would cost significantly less than a


building a twenty foot wide road nine mile road through designated wilderness where one doesn't exist so certainly the forest service has recognized that there are impacts that to be had on the wilderness through other forms of access but


the actual half of the road or the trail so that it is not quite as accurate as depicted in the u s g s your honor not to be less accurate but should be more informative


state courts are trampling on my federal constitutional rights because they are not processing my appeal quickly enough and he comes into this court and he says i'm entitle to your treatment than anybody else because i am prejudiced


difference for two reasons first of all what judge holmes and just subsequent supreme court decided in the blair and chapter cases is that in order to get an order to be able to assign it later that capital gain treatment you have to assign your


be whether or not that statement that officer caressed took from mr cunningham whether that was coerced or not and now look at all the facts and circumstances and they'll make that determination but as to whether officer present title qualified immunity that's a


that is the district court the magistrate actually function more like us as an appellate body so unlike the other cases that have been cited in this matter clearly there was a resolution on the merits and the resolution on the merits was in favor of the district so as the hearing


first you know consider what you did you still find after looking at the five factors that you know you should grant the motion to file an amended again i think it's a matter of considering judicial resources why would you even


rely on the fact that it was not until two thousand and three but the washington supreme court sat and answered the question as to whether or not this rule should be applied and and how it should be applied in washington state that there simply wasn't


defendant's were correct to put him on some kind of my high incidence of confinement the question in this case for the jury and for the court was whether the degree of that modification is consistent with standards of decency in modern society and that was the substance of his


this case the manner in which the parties in the court responded that there was no correction by the court in this case and the strength of the caves and i do think this was of course case i think depends councils emphasis on mr mihos credibility in the closing argument shows that this was


who were approved in their eyepiece to participate in a program and be overseen in this way for example the evidence that the ones who were counted as there and weren't there were being overseen in some independent study program yes


thousand pound one was a threat on july eleventh two thousand where he's found not guilty throughout who was a threat to a federal officer on july twenty first two thousand where there's a hung jury and then the second trial started mabel two thousand and


the state bar of california was not a government entity but they described the government speech concept there but they found that the state bar was more analogous to a union and it didn't operate like a government here


property is said at various times to be almost zero almost zero might be good enough for you to be almost zero is good enough first because because we get all the dollars until we're paid so even if we have a claim of say five hundred dollars against a piece of property


relation i think to the facts and circumstances the case and we wanted the opportunity to present evidence on it and we never got to have to do that now i'd also point out that in one final point as it relates to the damages i think it's critically important


told not to allow any protests in here captain fugit was the head of the demonstration platoon management platoons that i was told no protests in here you can find that all the way down to the the smaller


and people involved with the p t o agreed but then the operations order distributed to the police by the chief of police said and you let in anybody with a reasonable purpose and a reasonable purpose they say


if in this case the release of contamination command after the retroactive date of the policy and in this case the evidence is done contradicted that the release commenced with


brief has ignored it here today but the exclusion airlie i believe covers the exact situations that all of you have raised here and because it because it makes it clear that


i understand what you're trying to say but i look at the statutes and they speak to me about the government's litigation position now is that is and can be abused by a federal agency in lots of ways but being abused by a federal agency doesn't guarantee were route to a claim under the


and they put the fuel into his tank farm well if they do that under the idaho statute it's not taxable and the idaho statute the fines receipt and they


a medical knowledge that he submitted which showed that the doctor was going to recheck his oxygen if you still needs it and his point was that the agent should have known that he was on oxygen at the time that he was in the bank getting the insurance


that after i read plaintiff's reply brethen and my recollection of preparing for this case because i don't have a strong come along back and i went and did some research on the same question that you just pose will i if there is a suspect in there but you're if you're just going in for property


intended the outcome intended the result the court in fox in talking about the issue and how you define accidents are


do with it and i think it's also very important to underscore the fact that the city of new island actually did approve affordable coverage special use permit when they went through the process i think it's important to


allowed to more fully develop in the district court reasonably be the more you know you're on


circumstances where twenty two fifty five is inadequate or ineffective twenty two forty one is not a mechanism for relating claims that he believes that the prisoner believes were incorrectly decided on direct appeal or in twenty to fifty five it's interesting


what was at issue in barrage and that that that section of that language and brush simply does not apply here because barrage does not apply mr camacho cannot meet the other


interviewed it appears mr hopeful at the hospital and a comment was made that the situation would be taken care of on its own it's not clear who exactly made that comment


was intoxicated in the detox occasion process requires some time the cell assignment was made by the nurse and the nurse made a


having been damaged is the product of the insured it's not all their property and i looked through the traditional coverage analysis is whether there was property damage caused by an occurrence and whether there was an


dealer is it is a wholesaler as defined in one twenty five zero two one that's in the law who's granted a right to distribute intoxicating liquor if you go on a one twenty five zero to twenty one you see a


plan books don't have it there a couple of other things and he's also not satisfied with the quality of the of the internet i mean i don't think you have any evidence by the way myself or others in the internet evidence and so that falls


does not that well with this type of case relating to architectural works potentially in others but so you just don't you just have to i don't know the test i'm not sure it's a big task but it has to be adapted to the nature of the material and what's


ineffective assistance of counsel in these police situations you have to show not only through the lawyer didn't do what was necessary but also that there was prejudiced shock in the sense that the person otherwise we're going to try and your


district court had an interesting discussion of this in recognizing that it was required to follow our rule that said the safest way to protect yourself is to file the class certification motion along with the complaint with the just report says you know what a variety of other


explanation why for example the drug testing condition couldn't be lifted yes he had an alcohol problem no one has said he had a problem with any other kind of drug some kind of explanation the probation


county's knowledge with respect to that so so none of the prior f m l a was for the sleep apnea could i just ask you though is what mr peltier of had some kind of file on her in front of him when he made the decision


that's the only claim are you saying forgive me but are you saying that the plaintiffs would be barred from filing a claim for that reason in front of the sri i claim for what we're


know you always want to go to the doctor is byford provider and so you know other people are kind of pros now and if they're not a preferred provider and doctors fight with that and but who gets to be so so we have a lot of people


decides and chooses you there could be less choice that's true in any exclusive contract case but there is choice at the time of choosing the the payer but at down below there was never an


so that is to me that is you know the best answer on that and that brings us to pick which is obviously the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room because justice brennan in the court back


prevent any payment there would be no reason for justice white to spend several pages explaining that and secondly justice white said and we leave for another day another day whether under fourteen b


understanding is a separate requirement taking the fact that mr q rows made inculpatory exculpatory statements winkel tory statements would have to be present in any case where the government was offering evidence against them so that's all that's required for the government to provide


good morning may it please the court my name is abigail potts and represent the state defendants in this appeal as we've already talked about this morning there are two claims here there's a religious interference claim under the first amendment and there is a equal protection


in his possession and giving him several opportunities several different avenues of acquiring those both property items he could get them through the mail from the from his his family members he could you know we talk about this and i don't want to go into too much length


lacking in detail that we don't know if the proper procedures were followed we don't know if if say there were simply more more bibles available for distribution all of the religious materials in the chapel five


donated so there's such a lack of detail here that we don't have any idea if mr garner was actually similes similarly situated to the end other inmates of the other affiance from which he provides evidence so that's really the


supreme court case but ask to overrule the supreme court case that the supreme court itself has twice refused to overrule though it wasn't long ago that the supreme court overruled a hundred year old precedent in every trust sure and that's that's you


provider a beneficiary beneficiary in the representatives that we have right be able providers here but those are just listed within the context of a generalized public process that's one of the components it's not you know


correctly found that under buckley and every other case that is up held every contribution limits for individuals for corporations for pacs that those limitations are in effect


slightly different doctrine and has somewhat more stringent requirements in that you have to actually you fully mitigate the issue in the prior litigation whereas claim preclusion is a broader doctrine and it applies


litigated to a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties here so all of the elements of claims preclude in have been met in this case there's also


you may be entering the prospect for the grammys superficial yeah i think that judges too often i guess i have two responses i think that judges and i may be wrong about this really look at the prison term a little


purchaser without notice but that strikes me as fairly weak here


one of which was actually made by the defendant who wrote a motion saying i need more time to object to the p s r and do an investigation can we continue the sentencing date even after all of that if the defendant still


officers under fact you can't give me no for half suspended officers do receive pay the entire time that they're suspended if if the suspension is greater than you know six days which would mean that sixty to fifty would apply


to have relations with this teenage underage teenager and men paid money to have sex with this went on for about six weeks and then she was sent home


was mistaken or he hadn't reviewed the records or he wasn't aware of them and i think that really rightly so played a big part in the court's credibility determination which you know after all is how much weight should he get one


not yet expired he felt compelled to approach a border inspection point in texas and attempted to make his case to the two officers sitting on duty but then something unusual happened neither of the officers actually questioned him at the


border one just said i'll come home and the other simply allowed him to pass through into the united states without any comment mr mysterious then lived in the united states with his family for another twenty one years then last year in two thousand and sixteen the government attempted to


legal issue i'll spare you elaborate on this we're familiar with the legal issue which is really in some sense do you need to show separate article three standing for each element of the remedy or is it enough once you've got your standing for the damages to


maybe the day they got that the letter but if we know that this is wisconsin law permits it's only for liquidated get right if there's if this is some fuzzy thing that nobody knows what the amount is we're not even talking about this it's


feel that she was free to say no because a reason a person would say no knowing that what was in their bag if they thought that they were free to say no when you mean frida saying no what does that mean


to get a valid consent to a search the police have to explicitly say you're not required to consent to this or so i think that essentially that has been what we look at is the totality of the circumstances whether or not


what he did that's relevant to you usually in sentencing the judge is allowed to look at anything that you know bears rationally on what a proper punishment is and if you know this guy per


out were well behind beyond rule eight analysis were well beyond the rule toby six analysis so when when was the magic motion moment here because your position is july twelfth is too late that


understood just to continue on with the second prong so again he titian or here would lose all contact with his children he did testify during the trial that he is making amends with his children


point and it is a general right that is the general delegation to conduct removal proceedings and with the attorney general's powers with the attorney general's powers there's also a


from what was on the government computer and i think those are both types of property the problem here is what he brought into his government computer was his property independent of him for it independently of his work with the government or even this equipment it wasn't


applied to the access ensure a different ensure that would have to be the result in a situation where the excess insured is only able to exclude punitive damages by reliance on a provision in the primary


i don't think that can ok stands for the proposition you wanted to this case really makes that point because of the extremely limited agency the fact that your parents subsidiary but the fact they have different


trespassing nd the district court failed to consider or apply colorado's broader scope of risk analysis to test whether i think it's intervene team intervening force was truly an intervening cause sufficient to preclude


address it ok let me just ask you one other question about what the stats of property act japanese colorado cases where the act has been considered in assessing for c ability or comparative negligence you


property it's not an abstract question about the scope of the statute instead it's a very practical question about whether on december th two thousand and twelve these three officers should have foreseen that martinez would leave the property


that we go to appraisal in order to have that factual issue determined where you are disputing the determination by the expert that there was no decrease in value of the we are and we


procedural case and we really at the end of the day there


respectfully submit that our reasons not only are our reading is not only reasonable but it's also correct once you get there then the the the purpose of the court or what the court should be trying to do is to interpret it in a way that affects


word companion and look at the phrase that we're looking at and there's a clear intent to differentiate as to domestic workers they're treated differently and our point simply is that there is no there can be if


from you in discovery by i think he did suggest that it did not happen with some of that stuff we've never seen i cited in the record to her deposition where we asked for the stuff from her computer


cases on a federal basis there is no federal common law that would be contradictory to oregon landlord or valises i guess they're going to ask you what why aren't those barretts based arguments why do those pertain directly to stand because the


information involved in many instances actually requires a department of justice to get to a court or to get a order from a magistrate or a district judge to obtain certain information other types of information can be


felonies felony battery against law enforcement officials in experiencing some success could certainly be said to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers in quote i would submit to the court no where in the cited case this


pot have to show a policy that caused the unconstitutional and then you have to show deliberate indifference that they were deliberately indifference and here i don't know if it's clear from to the court but apple received seventy four hours of cleat basic refresher courses two


case there was no immediate threat and i think it's important to point that out because that comes in under graham vs connor there was no immediate threat to reasoning that there was never


said as the configuration of the height of the reservoir never change the evidence at trial from the plaintiff only witness himself no the spillway is never change judge to have the all asked my expert has the


the after david included statements from brandon taylor about his follow up investigation from statements made by mr ray when he made peace he stated that he had blown up a tree


in the truck and so as the events unfold he's both looking for the the pipe specifically but also stopping to complete the inventory search


six are in the in the record i haven't memorized those statistics the key factor in the case is whether or not or at least one of the key issues is whether the course will recognize a claim under title seven for discrimination against


one that talked about this issue at the prime aphasia case stage on summary judgment as involving merely that the position was not remained open following somebody separation the more recent cases


broad the supreme court says we can't determine we can't deny qualified immunity based on vague or broad principles we have to narrow down i think what the let the


enough in the company has knowledge that the company statements are false and misleading that knowledge can be attributed to the company as the circuit i don't think the th circuit has ruled either way and the defense is acknowledge that in their


there's also an important allegation against an individual stewart stock though who is not an individual defendant but did actually make a statement of legal compliance and his say enter can also be attributed to the company because she is alleged


may please the court counsel nicole roman for the government this kind of goes back to some very basic fundamentals about fourth amendment law in the context of search instant arrest so i want to start with the fundamental issue in this case


she was with a friend who had been the victim of a theft they ultimately made contact with the suspect miss naps friend decided not to press charges they allowed this


they have expertise and learned a great expertise and develop in how to find out where coal bed methane is in the wyoming cold to gas scenes they had worked for many years had great expertise and they decided to take


and there's a line through it and then it shows well by p t y there were two parts to their plan there was a part of the plan that was directed towards australia subsidy or there was another part of the plan it was actually directed towards g s t see that


they say they waited to see if it essentially if it would impact them i mean they don't really even have an argument arguably until they know what that settlement is well i think at their argument when they can may intervene are they i don't think so i think they can intervene actually your honor based on the


independent subject matter jurisdiction under the colorado constitution and then was brought on appeal has independent jurisdiction under the class action fairness act and so in examining their st amended complaint and their nd amended complaint you'll see that


would the lobby on the would you say that you could do that and therefore goodbye to the addiction there a piece on i don't know your honor that i am familiar enough with all of the case law regarding the


been a wrongful a tent which has not been substantiated by the pleadings in this case that that should not and cannot transform an otherwise protected activity which was merely seeking direction for a p u d for the interpretation of a


benefited from engaging in this contractual arrangement but with that benefit also comes an assumption of the riff that the state's contractors are going to violate the eighty eight dollars and if that happens then the proper defendant to hold


can say well just i understand so i'm going to answer the third point we have no criticism of the judge but the reason we didn't file with her point is because of the significant resources we spent in preparation for trial and that's a legitimate


correct ok great but in the one of the insurance companies for all the costs of rounds up until the up until the mediation right that's right yes and the duty to defend is is another issue


and consumer and i have the so we have presumably the conspiracy among the sellers and then you have the end user who's buying it and the courts as that one person is not a part of a conspiracy even if there is a conspiracy


interdependence they didn't have the same objective the issue with the buyer seller instructions is as has been observed here and as the government argued below and on appeal that they are inconsistent with this court's


even more impactful in this case particularly if the court thinks that every sensing would have almost no effect if she's only going to get sentenced a ten year mandatory minimum anyway because she now my qualify under a broader safety valve it is it


found was that it is to evade the truth just like a politician when asked a hard question on c n n or fox news or whatever might prevaricate in evading the truth that doesn't mean that they are actually


no showing that he's safe anywhere in the country thank you thank you counsel cases submitted counselor excused


i show plain error because it is to me clear and obvious that going through ease different places where a prior offense might fall


as a drug offense here because it has been used in oklahoma and there are examples in our brief page eight hundred and thirty nine that these are not appellate court cases from oklahoma they are district court cases


million thirty two thousand and seventeen country reports from honduras if you were not a lot of other documentary evidence that shows that there is widespread persecution including perpetrated by law enforcement so what exactly


that's as of the date that this meeting occurred and during the meeting i mean she essentially informed her employer that she had a lot of limitations that were going to make it hard for her to


was clear and unambiguous and was able to be understood without any type of chevron analysis as part of this decision she the court indicated that


still would have found this evidence it still would have come to light then that would be inevitable discovery will tells us yes it does but again that's it then and in this context in this context the only


there are yes and tell me what do they require to do that to the extent you know and again your honor i what i'm telling you is going off of memory from i believe


here so we're all here i we're happy to do that i should make a couple of comments on and that's the presentation one is it is absolutely


one of the issues with the categorical approach that my colleague is espousing is that that would permit any legislature to enact any law of a felony nature that would automatically strip someone of their


needed is a finding from the judge ok the record isn't clear about whether that happened or didn't but it that's right that's the trigger and that's so the nd point is that i don't think so i think he just happened in two thousand and two and they think that this helps


all that a lay person would look at and say clearly we're talking about something mentally ill well we just do we just have assertion i really sick so i think the best i can do for your honor which i think is more than sufficient is page forty nine i am suffering agonizing mental pain


and is judgment he points out you know that that's a pretty good substantial evidence that he said he was coming not for flight of the gangs but for a better opportunity and then in the remainder of the crop orating evidence there's


does not have to go to rule for my clients to the extent of saying any constitutional objection is not subject to exhaustion although i think an argument be made that is not the case here you really have a narrower ground on which


it's clear we know that chevron deference stops there besides that the board of immigration appeals is not your court justices of the rd circuit the court is in the best position to


and then the supreme court ultimately overturned everyone that disagreed with the rd circuit but left the rd circuit secession intact


i'm not suggesting it was forfeited or waived what i'm asking is why shouldn't we get the benefit of that evaluation from a district court leet this district court so we can review it i think rather than creating that


of substance over substance based resulting new relationships are formed as part of the transaction itself does it net is it and i mean why isn't it as your opposing counsel says that it's


of genesis examinations transfers and motions resulting in nearly a decade of imprisonment and civil commitment before a hearing was finally held on his atheism to sion are more than sufficient to state a claim under the a d f a close quote you then say


should prevail slam dunk on the constitutional right to travel in the impairment of bath under the under the standard of evansville and we


money that the commonwealth relied on a trial the commonwealth's suggests that how owning a base jacket is is incriminating but i don't i don't see how simply owning a jacket that many people own is necessarily incriminating especially when


you raise that in a district court we know did it to the district court in a footnote that said we did not believe that there was any significant difference in the standards that would result in a different outcome but did you say dover law applies we did not


unrelated borrowers and in the end what was called an aggressive loan policy by the alleged perpetrators of that scheme that's much more general that's right fifty thousand dollars foot level that's not the same as a much more discrete class of persons who were


on the panel for bell versus just week which is a case my firm was involved in and in that case this court rejected the argument that the claims were displaced by the clean air act and starkly there was no assertion by the defend in that case that the thousands of homeowners


through regulatory or a ministry of oversight without allowing people to come into court and enforce their property rights when someone gets a permit from the state even through it's authority from the federal government that is not a license to overtake the property rights of the people


prior administrate of order of removal and so that he can pursue in judge hornik sperms asylum on a clean slate can't help you with that right well that's that's what to my question mr coke is the judge was bothered by the


what are the tools the traditional tools of statutory analysis such story interpretation and then judge justice thomas said it out and hammered it home and the very st thing you know is the miriam webster


students at all for out of school speech even under the tinker standard if the if the speech is is so harassing that it the school has a compelling interest and punishing the student as narrowly tailored and i would take it out of


would say for the sake of this hypothetical you had a terrible storm that came in and it caused significant damage and you had a vessel that was in good shape for to it it would be established there would be no exclusion take it out of congress and the insurer would pay as required


brought the claim within the coverage of the policy then the insurer would have to show i know there was a storm but it was in such bad shape it doesn't matter if it was a storm it was going down anyway that would be a burden on the insurer it would be actually a tough burden because they have to show that in


exactly what i was asking and it's seems more clear in the face of the letter that we received just today from from the government and they could really the question is


and the issue we're trying to decide is a much narrower one in my opinion it is simply does the new jersey statute is that a categorical match to the federal statute the closest actually that issue and


the board of immigration appeals and to the court of appeals specifically skipping over a district court there is a specific intent in the way that the law is written in this case mr newdow who had a private


i heard him but i was a little bit surprised that he was saying that he was challenging the three o two reference at at all because throughout their papers below and in this court they have made it clear they're


question it is whether that's a crucial fact issue that has to be resolved right it's not that answering that question will resolve the whole case but answering that question is important indeed maybe critical being


created a problem let me be specific as to what i'm talking about page forty one of the appendix cites two section one a paragraph fifteen of the grievance policy and it states any concern disputing initial review


and the way it was designed they're not talking about an active malfunction and that the mill function you're on or something like that and happens a couple times a year in the city you have one of the high rise buildings that has windows and sometimes a certain days they pop out and they come crashing to the ground that could be an act


cases all send it to the panel that was st formed this nd distinct legal issue of course that has to be decided is whether the panel is functus officio because if the st panel were


contract because parties to a contract can afford the contract it says defendants can't enforce the contract therefore they can't be parties so that that picture and they can't get around it by saying well j o m and johnson and johnson the same thing because j o m is a distributor


miley jones four then district attorney now court a common pleas judge nancy vernon and fayette county i appreciate the opportunity to present the case even under less than typical circumstances i hope all on the


minute yes go ahead with your after judge one case you were expressing some concern about inmates gaming the system and i just want to give you two statistics one is and this was


into it despite the nd appearance before this court generally and circuit judge short specifically in this matter it's ultimately a simple court case in which it could best rian was struck and killed by a vehicle


corporations they are separate just perfect instance we at swap cannot take advantage of the workers compensation and unity of growth that was actually found on the st appeal that you know they did there's no intermingling that would only be


offer the following st of all the use of the word malt i was a is a technical or an in artful expression i will grant that ok but when you look at the evidence what they


prepared for something like this but we discussed that side bar with the court the application of smith to this case and the fact that holland was not the individual who was trading the gun for the drugs and we asked for the accomplice liability


all the rights to these trade secrets to bridge into space not only do they sell all the rights but they stated that virginia space was the exclusive owner of all those rights to the moreover did they have the right to possess them and to use them that's


they say that would tell you maybe something but not much because the background merely common law is different than the background as a vehicle while they both have a car as i just read they both take a proper the same property interest in a


use them together and and to suggest that the prosecutors can pick and choose as they wish any of them and charge them with distribution far


constitution off the table because of the supreme court precedent that she alluded to and that because if you look at it started to really a regulator only there is a fundamental right to a fair hearing and


and explicitly on his political expression and activities you said you say solian explicitly are you dropping religion is protected grounds for him getting any relief yes let's fips we're not we're not contesting that he's eligible for


and they kidnapped him and they tortured him and again that was not just condoms brothers in law that was also these other fifty men who got him recognized as who the men because he had been doing work with his uncle who works for the legacy government security service and he


fair job and if it's simply on its worst day viewed from the standpoint of the light most favorable of the prevailing party it doesn't meet any of those requirements that would have a


did do the work the work that i did do was admitted into evidence is the exhibits so again we have from the quest for the two services i did the services in church and at the same rate that i've been charging them all


it does the city say well that's not the use and more so there were you can't use it i guess my question is does he take into consideration what is the harm what is the problem with this with this incidental


or what prostitution could be because there are aren't there times in which it could be dangerous such that it should be regulated of course i think that's why the courts are universally found that searches


a position for judicial review and asking that there's a truck with the reviews whether the a c is upholding its responsibilities of providing adequate care for treatment if it makes a finding that in fact was not that would at least they


not been the forwarded treatment designed to affect his recovery as required under the act that seems to indicate that there is some responsibility to address the


argue the defense during its closing argument so the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim centers on mr mr reef is trial attorneys failure to investigate and challenge karim's testimony


reliability or credibility of any evidence the state offers to corroborate the abuse it's a false dichotomy to conclude that the choice was either to emphasize the lack of evidence or attacker is testimony


assume that the defendant had contacts and he could determine whether in fact things were hanging out and that would be something to want to communicate with him for


distinguished house based on these factors and here we have an individual who is one hundred percent culpable this isn't my dad he stabbed her multiple times over and hit her with a frying pan and


were made but what's important and what the underlying reasoning of miller tells us is that just because the something terrible event occurred that doesn't mean that


discovery i guess no issue of dispute based upon the record before the trial judge you or us there's no need for the scope and you're correct the discovery rules generally a question of fair but it can be a question decided by


ronnie green in case the story but there are problems with each one case the stewart's st identification came three months after the shooting and only after police st asked him about it he did not volunteer it originally ronnie green also identified there but


as i was saying there are a number of bases that were raised at the trial for a level that could have served as the court's bases for the for granting the motion for summary judgment since the court did not articulate we don't know but i'd like to


opus the typing of these letters the adding the labels and mailing them out to the ca association members with their obligation to potentially have their own dissociation members be allowed to inspect records and books per proper purpose i think


in the mercy crystal way case which involves integra hospital huntly that's a s a perfect example of what the courts are doing the the rd just correct in the mercy crystal lake


but i have a question do i have a point is to make a policy argument that the law in essence i think it is that the law should resume damages in a short sale breach of contract case actually to compensate homeowners for the economic


but at this stage and we're good assuming we have this evidence how does it affect the volunteer e or no waiting plea of guilty because those are our


close to the values that judges set there was nothing that prevented her from trying to refinance that was there not that i'm aware of but it's still you hear back you


she went to the hospital in the afternoon but there was really no testimony as to why what she said to the paramedics at the time and i believe it was the court's implication that she could have created the situation in order to delay the trial


at the hearing on the motion to dismiss or for other sections they produce no evidence no didn't and officer i think is in a sneak suit has some responsibility for this transition from squad car to the


a decision of this chord there we rely on the amnesty to say is it correct to say that your argument your position is that if something is not produced


august of two thousand and sixteen even before the mandate was issued we have been negotiating with the account about possibly settling the case because they have only the opinion has already come down i have correspondents here which i didn't include


that sheaf had the authority to file an appeal and that's the same piece here when you have a ministry of review you don't have just to hear perce you have the chief you've got civil service court and you


testimony in the record about how he and other firefighters at different occasions on which coach should we go should go cold recall one and ultimately the paramedic is in charge in that scene who was in the car in the event the ambulance and could have said take


kind of been glossed over it's just it's a very residential street with a school so they're supposed to be going there you know kids are attracted to virgins equipment you know that they've never been out of there in the waving of


gentleman lawyer doesn't have an obligation to present evidence on behalf well i would say this i would say that when they argue in the brief that the there's obviously some confusion about the


argued well you know we have a stipulation and you didn't have to tell and it was in the end but now you're saying they never prove damages he's going to say here we have a stipulation maybe a light would go on and use it all week i never presented


you have to clear a picture of that now and we're also able to look to the international community and know that in the international community this is a controversial and i think it's important to pick up that there hasn't really been a good explanation of why we're going


and he didn't hold any others with regard to the attorneys


appropriate for consideration at a sentencing hearing assuming a basic relevancy certainly the nature of the conduct


quotes as fixated obsessed jilted knowledge spurned angry upset that's him you know all of that had nothing to do with the offense for which he was charged and i think feeling to object to that


not it's unreasonable because again this all fence is not a crime of the tent it is complete upon entry this is also discussed and people versus branch it is complete upon entry into the residence the


was connection counsel need to assert any specific grounds for assault but was ethically bound not to deliberately mislead the court the specter of the facts or the law or consume the time and energies of the court and opposing counsel by advancing frivolous


court to consider at the tiger hadn't ms kosik actually earned income furthermore there is a legal precedence under the prior heir that would have supported the consideration of changes in the income of


provision or the requirements under six or eight the other twelve witnesses were the testimony that they provided made sufficient evidence and the will was admitted council also doesn't address the


were concerned about by just talking to the neighbors what mandated that they must go talk to the neighbors under the circumstances i don't believe they had to go talk to the neighbors i and i don't also believe


over possibly had no idea what happened that previous night therefore anything could have happened in that house and they weren't able to figure that out from the text or from speaking to the defendant so going downstairs where somebody could be maybe there was a


responsible for anything that happens i don't think he was thinking that i was thinking well she wasn't even there so they can get her bond and she can go home and take care of our job and that's that's why i think he would believe it i think the fact also that he talked to the police before had some


plea that it could have been a maximum thirty it could have been forty five to life so yes he was aware of all of that he made an educated decision and now for whatever reason he's trying to


injuries is part of what the state argued showed that he had the was guilty of the most serious crime we have in illinois st degree murder and so i think anything that would have tended to show that there were another source of the least some of these injuries that could


prevailing professional norms this is far below any standard of reasonable reasonableness there was just no conceivable benefit to mr was it with regard to allowing his for his counsel to elicit and then


circling around like indians attacking a wagon train is that your premise is that if things rise or fall the jury is supposed to be able to take that into consideration and


circumstantial evidence and make its counter arguments and i don't understand why that's


states motion to the defense motion to suppress was based on a th amendment violation the fact that he was not placed under arrest was not done incident to arrest and he was not given the opportunity to decline the breath test and so


accurate when the true value was a husband had substantial evidence right there so there's lots of evidence and any amount of this evidence would be substantial evidence to explain why they took two more years the father patent application and there's substantial evidence supplied


showed that despite rising demand in asia japan's excess capacity was expected to increase that it was they would not be serving the rising demand in asia that demand would be served by other


their arguments show that there was an alternative approach that may have been adopted but that fact is legally irrelevant to the fact that an alternative approach would have been possible


about just as mr taylor said in the situation with the in situ separating layer we're talking about what is in the final product it is interesting in judge jones the


whether or not there was or was not clarification about what he was intending to appeal is what he was intending to appeal to was the rating decision and that was clearly expressed in the original notice of this agreement of october fifteenth


kind of i'm going to call it nonsense what would do or even tell you you have to like this is just an absolutely necessary thing for this veteran to delay the procedure he did not delay


user and presumably therefore actually be the second message that doesn't mean it has to get there without a single change of any bits that's a narrower position you have a broader position which i


behavior health care clinic report so not only was he could he have gotten friends or pork before his application he could have gone out after seeing that the navy psychiatry's through viewed his case didn't agree with him and got the forensic


to get patents on chunks of standard that can do it after the standards exist seems to be a computer the mischievous and risky proposition because you end up having a standard that everybody is essentially compelled to comply with and then


meaning from this is my looking at the interpretation that was offered in their published interpretation of what they intended to be covered by this regulation i think another motion


well it certainly would be an independent breach of the exclusive license agreement which provides that xenon did not have the right to assign as undivided interest without consent it's undisputed wife did not consent however to trigger


of the standard of of of damages damages fail because they misapply the standard of review they misapply wisconsin line cases in which there's uncertainty of proof and they overlook the burden shifting


asserted under the patent act and if there is no claim asserted then you go to the question there's a second question of does the rights or the outcome of any claim asserted depend


incisions going to be months before the trial date without really considering the current stage of the litigation at the time of when the motion to stay was filed and also the stage of the litigation at the time that the


the decision which granted was made


kelly and one for her husband before he passed away and both times determined that the determination was correct in order to frame his argument somewhat to leave argument he makes the sort of absolutist position that


key to the entire issue today extent that it is your honor and let's assume that it is it's clear what the meaning of that phrase is given its historical context it grows out of the federal supremacy issue and


you take that i don't think only by going through the analysis in this case you mean we we found that the contractor was not entitled to have the contract declared void of the show in the first i guess in the in bank


so that you're getting the money from the ira can't get the money from another part think it's often say you know you can't go forward you see that case of you terminations for convenience it would probably be a termination could for convenience under those


afternoon your honor with respect to the question of whether the case should be reversed so that the trademark crown of the pill board can review the question of judicial notice i would point out the rule to a one


fifty one fifty three fifty five are extra to the outer diameter of the diffuser tennis that we've been looking at at how to refresh good light can be emitted from a fixture only after being


got it right in his interpretation but then it interpreted muscle meat as muscle from animals but excluding poultry we think if you look at the nine six three patent a column three lines sixty six to column four lines twenty


me and it didn't work so it is not inherent and it wasn't inherent at the time certainly not at the time of the filing of legal labs patents so there is nothing inherent about it but i think that impact it would it were did what they


did in this first step would it would do so microbial population in fact no i mean there's absolutely nothing in lab and a and the experts agree that there was nothing in laminate showing that that first step did


fifteen minutes is undisputed in the record that he was the firefighter who held the hose is undisputed and that would have put him in close proximity to the fire which absolutely establishes that there was a traumatic injury we believe without any evidence to rebut that fact


and as as you were indicating there's a very close relationship between wrote u p i and rode in the l this is not an unwilling plaintiff this is not an unwilling signatory this is a willing signatory this signatory comments than


flurry of these cases in the past two years and i'm sure you're familiar with nystrom and some of our other cases when the when we get a case up here and there is a piece of that case remaining with the district court in the absence of her saying dismissed


able to come to a v a medical center to appear for examination sends a as if what you're saying is it's not discrimination against incarcerate people it's discriminated against skin the nation against people who for one reason or another can't make the trip to the


judge bryson you asked a question of the government as to whether or not distance played any role in determining whether or not via would exercise its discretion but examination on page thirty nine of the joint


computer he said identical or nearly identical reflecting the fact that she's talking about one or two i want to three will miss one the words are only nearly identical correct reflecting the fact that she's no longer talking about identity to happen if they wanted to say well it's still under the under the fitzgerald


interest in preventing the spread of disease but here because the cost was the magnitude of the possible it was viewed as being significant by the trial court that is really that interest on the part of the government it doesn't make any sense


put into the formulation that that became sort of the notion of robust ability i don't really think that that issue is is totally germane to what's going on here but there is a fine fine ever fifty


maybe a theoretical sort of intellectual question but we are on summer judgment for those to know about repeal but as i understand the case law the standard of review for infringement under the reapers doctrine of equivalence is that it's a question of fact not a question of laws that your understanding


sentence by this court because one of the functions of this court with regard to the veterans court is that you review what the veterans courts doing to know about to make sure that


than the amount of partial restitution that he was awarded so that and he said so that that says they're not seeking other damages as a consequence of this divisible reach


allow the thing to become insolvent which makes a bad situation worse so it's two provisions of the contract and the absence of a mechanism for returning the bank inter meeting once


there were there were political islanders but in none of those cases none of those challenges that ultimately got resolved by the courts were the inevitable conduct issues that are the basis for our for our case could we don't know that we didn't result would you say assume for the moment this