doing and then proceeds to say that parrot back exactly what the prosecutor had said and so the point wasn't to try and ensure that mr taylor had a fair trial or to ensure that the court was complying with what this


that that is correct and this court addressed that in the people versus bunny which recognized that the instructions do not always cure the problem you know and in here the instructions probably would say


then be mindful that if you're going to plead intentional conduct and you're going to plead and attempt to harm you're going to plead yourself outside of insurance coverage you have to hope the defendant has the wherewithal to pay but if you're really want to get paid for the injuries you claim you


he never missed any time off of work as a result of that in fact the only time that he missed work was for an unrelated surgery that had nothing to do with this particular cause of the very was the problem at the very least aggravated a big just in conditions which


of stairs causes a lot and he says the same thing in two thousand and six and in the thing the symptoms continue when he sees dr adair two thousand and


and bastion federal court northern district of illinois said the problem is in a products liability suit that we do not know yet which product cause loss here is a component or is the process so you keep in the retailer


at any point in time between the plaintiff's misters as of fieri and crane so that crane if there wasn't fact any particular purpose crane never knew what that particular purpose was


and this court said no you didn't you have a burden of proof these are not precludes at best a liability so what happens is that you know there has to be a presentation of evidence admissible evidence you know for a court to determine whether


nary proceeding for the enforcement of an order ok why the order was necessary to be enforced the final order of dissolution pat somehow magically provided that the not so your parent has to get permission for things that they do


i would like to touch on the argument made by the state which indicates that in this case here we had a mission report of


no misrepresentation but taking your honour's hypothetical there would be a for president action if there was a misrepresentation of a material fact but not this not disclosing the source of the debt that


lam and go out and have her attorney appear in her stead i think judge boss was very generous by even considering these motions on the merits and this court certainly on appeal


ok thank you thank you


the virginia tech shootings occurred here for two thousand and seven and it was at that point there that statewide university of illinois began looking at their security practices


explaining why it wasn't done and the reason for that is this transaction occurred thirty six thirty seven thirty eight years ago if you could have done signatures from the remainder man why are we speculating on theirs


if you look at the commission's decision which is to be able jay's decision because the commission itself in passing if you look at the commission's decision they really offered only three reasons in their actual decision here for why it is that


one twenty seven which was the officer number if i feel all alone or civil matter no reference whatsoever to preach or peace so this was not a fabricated


that this is more slippery when covered with ice than concrete what slippery is the ice for the snow it's covering the surface and so there i found no cases that judge


they are floyd by should be treated the same


independently they have to contact the personnel office and get authority from the person office and i think that most of the heart of a lack of independent judgment to it just so they cannot on their own it just


examination counsel but the first question still should be the first question should be did the witness appear to testify period much less for cross examination and it's the state's burden to bring a witness to testify


physical presence her mannerisms what she looked like how she acted in the courtroom which is not something that we necessarily removed as we are can't determine and that's one of the reasons why courts of review generally in a situation like this they defer


we have criminal convictions which if we were in a criminal court the fact that he was convicted of felony would absolutely would be read to the jury and the jury would be allowed to consider it against somebody screwed ability and then we have a hearing on the other side who the worst thing that you can say about her is that


by the mother either picking the children up early were not taking in the school at all and this was this was under but it was this was not not mentioned at all by kerry in her testimony or in rebuttal


all the problem is that when we sin this definition out to potential class members on notice that's required of the process was what people will see this definition and say yeah i was examined i sat in that chair if


of those that not only had taken and applied the collateral that had been applied to notes but they also that made its social and the determination to sue mark and karen his wife


monitoring their subordinates work their go number three by deduction the executives can only perform supervisory functions simple remedial math twenty five percent of the crime


gets to manifest weight of the evidence both factually and legally let me take the legal aspects first for you and go through a few this briefly go through a few of the


firefighters and knew them they were assigning work in duties assigning tasks they were transferring them when they thought they were there or staffing needs changed however the court of period with the board that it was merely routine in clerical nature because of the nature of the


times out of ten actually is and what i'm saying is that corner legislative history what they're supposed to do is decide on what they think the crime is worth between six and thirty and then they aren't just a pos like the sales tax i mean the dealer isn't considering what the


j which is i know what the court's referring to says that strict compliance with the time requirement of section twenty four a five shall not invalidate


not have had that information so that's the only effort they made until mid july then superintendent sent around an e mail to some of his colleagues in the area to see if they had any suggestion waited a couple more weeks


it's why those offenses are eligible for terry transfer because under some circumstances transfer might be appropriate but before courts make that decision the court has to have all of the information that it needs to make


yes i mean it because there's a lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission now if there's no for threat or force or threat of force but again the complainants in action is important it's case because there


a perfect example of a situation where overlapping contemporaneous representation creates a conflict now i don't know but you actually have to have that because the per se conflict rule is this court when found at length and


this airstrip could have been placed some place today we would not interfere with your point of property well first airstrip is on the farm the farm is basically one unit there's also evidence that


yours them they should have been objecting to the foundation which is objecting to the admissibility of this testimony in the first place they didn't it's in i pointed out while he's far more qualified than the appraiser they have


license to perform on the work in the state of illinois they're not licensed to oversee the second tier subcontractor that would actually be illegal for them to act as in a capacity of having the


difficult is because in order to determine the maintenance award you're supposed to look at the the property division first at the trial level and then then you decide maintenance based upon the profit after you look at the property division


pulled up by one number and she did observe that but what i'm saying i'm sorry hold up by whom i don't know i don't know the answer to that question was a little personal yes it would


was forty one hundred acres that mr armstrong and mr armstrong alone no children ever mentioned in these insurance documents he was insuring thirty one hundred acres so if you look at forty one hundred as your starting point the judge you know the judge


this matter took place and scamper of two thousand and six at the time of that trial it wasn't disputed by respondent that as a result of the heat stroke richard had developed a huge intolerance that was also related to his work and undisputed


that's the common language and on computers these days and i believe that's what the fish court was getting there was that if you're going to use the language for any cause you have to have some cause


you have to have some cause whatsoever to even bring it up why why that would that would permit anyone who signs this agreement to just walk away


as we have a voluntary resignation for you that means one doesn't have to return the equipment or chemicals or supplies etc and the employer is liberated from having to make a final payment and that's completely nonsensical so we just can't


you can have more than one residence although you can only have one down they have a residence in illinois they have a residence in florida the accident happened while they were staying at the residence and floor is that a factor you have


deny that something that a denial even if there was a cross appeal which there wasn't would be reviewed an abuse of discretion but that is really although her body could meet its initial


that's correct your honor i think that the copies were tender to merrill because as part of the process the parties did agree to o c r the documents and that was just right and pointed out an extreme convenience for rico but they were able to


more angles against isaacson which that's exactly what the supreme court said and read again for us which is exactly what the supreme court said so if you've read those cases and you think you can distinguish them then tell me but otherwise that i think is a fair statement but the principle law that


interpreted not just by the medical experts and let me point out that dr shane is not a medical expert on child development he was there as a as a half hour just make up with regard to the government's claim that this was a carry one mel formation that with was


told the parties in this review we're relying on your certification pattern right now we we have to give you the benefit of doubt because you serve others we ask questions and we will look at that to determine whether or not this was not your for shipment and


claim construction issue is very very close and very hard and other silly it is very hard then how do i balance what i think would be a very reasonable to the claim construction with less reasonable defenses on the other side


signed a lot of documents and i've completely lost trust and confidence in this caesar because if somebody asked me a year from now is this a document you signed and this is somebody had substituted page without him knowing it it completely


it was between july two thousand and ten decision from judge packard and april nineteenth two thousand and eleven so at that time the board demanded o p m get their file together and get it to the board so that they could have a complete record so we're


teresa he does nothing in two thousand and two myron opie and the o p m are under the impression that teresa is the beneficiary myron's of nothing to change that and continues to receive reduced benefits he does


for the entire like the aircraft six years except one hundred seventy days so if there was a problem with the aircraft more likely than not it's the coast guard's problem if the coast guard thinks it's a t k c a problem they have to provide no


recovery would be unconscionable in my understanding i can't put my finger on it now and the stuff that he got everybody who gets the first check or whatever gets a notice that you know this is tentative and we don't know we can recover your overpaid so he has


excel for isn't planing a unified start combining a particular unified search through one interface to search locally and through the network so just to that point i mean the just report one of the two sentences that i read that kind of being


get back to the district court for and do all that we say to for lack of clarity and i think i don't think there's a lot of clarity around what the judge did the judge simply said he was going to review it and he was going to review under normal basis that was wrong so the sanction is a supportable


or amendment does put certain constraints on government action and if the government is going to come in and are certain the defense is saying that it's actually for necessary they have to prove it with some facts rather than just saying that any


was something that was discovered in by east inventors or was was known previously nothing in the record reveals anything was rejected that question


steps knowing that that was one of the issue really made a very strategic decision not to make any argument based on the notion that the user performed the selecting that did you know before aka


roadway rule that doesn't sound partially embedded anymore tell if you're on something if i say you're sitting on the chair you're not inside the chair you're on top of the chair and then as you keep moving from there to the next one you actually take all out


that is in line with what we say in the summary of the invention from that point on where we say we're above pavement surface mounted and partially and that it and again in a reexamination examiner look at our pan


orientation information that is captured at the time of capturing now we gotta remember that the time of capturing has not been disputed that n period is at the end of the output of the raw image data out of the image sensor


relating back to the original diagnosis but how can you how can be a doing that how can it award disability for compensations and did not exist for complications that did not exist during that time period if they didn't exist v


those are two different things rock and process are you saying it's don't call that and still call that but they are two different things but raw data falls within in our opinion falls within the


preference is for disposition are you saying that you think we should affirm based on a ruling as to the overarching the constitutional question or that we should dismiss because of lack of


some different constants to distribute the numbers so so in our view the claim construction with the air here in terms of the direct comparison you know they they say well encoding


accomplish the handover and the undisputed testimony is that we do not we do not because we don't need to because all the frequencies of all the base stations these days are very close and they're close enough of gathering the data from the surrounding stations if you don't


go back and then to look at the public information that remain on the record and then make a determination they cannot just say there is no record evidence when there is record evidence when with when a foodie withdrew from the case we also


here if i could just say i realize my time's if i could say one more thing about this whole benefit question the money that is raised above the toll can be spent on anything in the dulles corridor the dulles corridor or very much


optimal i think he uses that word quite frequently is it your view that that's the appropriate test for teaching the way that it was here because it's clear what they meant by out of the alec


generate a seven point eight because there's no evidence in the record that any information to this court date gave any information to the district court about what how those components what their x r p t characteristics


cock cross testimony in a sense just proves itself in myself and it shows that it's not


it's a dependent claim so by definition something more correct there is something more there i haven't seen anything that suggests that there's anything more in three to make it patentable as compared to one or two to get can i ask on


confusion maybe i'm confused because i have stood your arguments in the that that's the prior art didn't disclose interactions between the blades where the blades don't actually touch there's no interaction between the


i would say that it was not a major by any stretch of the imagination an argument being made and certainly it's dispensed with no analysis you know kind of in passing which you know that to take that


if you was a page from the presentation that apple made in an effort to prevent the foot again from ever occurring and if you look at that page you will see that there is no specific reference to these design to the traitorous tony


government argues that the claim was impending it was never added to the case but that case said jurisdiction and that was more of a case then a case that has no jurisdiction because a case has no jurisdiction all the court can do is dismiss it's not


akin to the district court judgment that closes the case and then you pose a hypothetical well is the case not still pending when the time for sir is running after our mandate issues but if it is the case we're just still tending then nobody


out am covers four point four nine and you go to four point five one s right i mean either mathematical principles that's what you're telling us to interpolate the difference between spam and yours the difference


reconsider if you will what it means have a more fulsome record determining what the terms of the contract mean and of course it would be remanded works this remanded for some fact finding but that injunction that preliminary injunction in our view the the


i mean isn't there a lesser public interest at least a lesser public interesting that in those disclosures as opposed to the ones that are relevant to the disc well in each case i think it's a factual determination that asked to be made by the judge you know going back to them versus warner


flamer in the record but let me skip over that just for now brilliant product and designing configuration of the lens products is conventional in that one measurement circuit per channel is the way t i a s have been designed and built for decades


temporary point now maybe the best reading of that is at the end of the one year point you extend it for another year but i'm not sure the language is that precise that it would not allow just because you may extend


to determine objectional miss you then turn to the by vibes specifications and determine are you going to categorize it answer yes special master went on but in til you look at it and determine this is going to be objectionable content you have not


model and following the end of the war he came to the it ited states where he lives now became a citizen and now currently


r seeing instead of looking at everything that's a minute they look at their own database understanding that that database is flawed and then say if you're not in our database we're not going to even consider all these other things that you gave us if that's


the question is are these fish in the radio a guessing product that everything should be retried together i think the issue that you've raised which is the narrowness of the specification the specificity of the claims is


sixty to eighty five is designed to address to say well we're going to cut your fees off at the trial but then after you have an adjudication of an equitable conduct say no we're not going to give you those fees it infected every phase of this case


on his authority to third reference the law if the law requires he's going to have to go get a search warrant well that's exactly and mr mercer apparently testified that he understood that but judge barrett was


so coming back to continue to address the article three issues with the last minute here there we do believe that in the record there is a clear causal connection between the injury in the complaint of conduct that is that the


cincinnati where there is an innocent girl insured case in we're in michigan i am in michigan and yeah in barron's versus state farm which was a michigan case mr barron nd wife lisa burns was not a named insured


examination under oath i have no idea i do not know why they didn't testify but i represent the plaintiff's interest named insureds and the plaintiff named insurance appeared for their examinations under oath in under michigan law the


about financial status they did produce other documentation but nothing that relate to finances nothing no bank statements no tax records that's right and those are issues that we discussed of them specifically the examinations and what they did they produced no documentation


any further questions thank you


not that the that the map one of the four gum prongs have been met and therefore there is no federal question jurisdiction we should love the courts i mean do the dischord has stated


at the time they made the for us there was absolutely the only way that we can correct these officers actions in this case is to suppress the evidence and get it published decision that says we cannot do this as officers i see my time is up


there is not so much that it was a high crime area and that they were hanging out should be reasonable suspicion occurred just because somebody was hanging out seems like the key would be going in and out of this car


in some of the cases will concede that but there is an intervening event and it just doesn't cut that strong by other question and i think i know the answer already but i just want to confirm this the fact that he is a police officer doesn't play into this analysis at all not


police practice to disarm people even if they're there for a voluntary interview i would think so it's up that he was brought there not for an interview with this with many of the cases they say well the suspect came voluntarily i


on the location of the interview i think it's significant i mean it's on the record the f b i agents aren't there between him and the door that's a factor that's been considered before my client was not familiar with this location the government says what was the d p headquarters the testimony was he had


off the property line they probably wouldn't have relied on the search warrant to stop him that the facts and circumstances would be different than a reasonable outcome of the reasonable suspicion analysis may well be different in that circumstance


it's not relevant with respect to post tracks because protract says it was a knife but whether it goes like this or like this let's just say the record reflects that he pointed the dark was a black object it may have had a silver glass toward


upon race and that's just a museum it's a whole volume of information about a whole bunch of the demographics of background about these jurors that we just don't know about well your honor i don't think and i hope we haven't said that obviously these decisions were


think the waiver question which is argued more under our fair cross section claim i think it's going to implicate the strickland batson claim as well even if we get every man to have a hearing in a finding that these were race based exclusions and


context and it has to be viewed in the context of of what was going on at the time to determine whether a union was acting totally irrationally which is a standard of the big i think


a district judge when presented with somebody that's a ridiculous example defendant who has committed one hundred crimes before he or she is before the sentencing judge and only you know five of them got points


employment the board treated that is twenty hours here and twenty hours here ok and then what they did is they said well we could see by the pay records that mr hershey would have worked based


and sixty two d requirement number one and whether or not there was sufficient evidence so you're correct to the extent that they didn't address the actual question of jury instructions but what we do


jury findings but then we would also point out that with respect to the sentencing guidelines the court failed to make a appropriate relevant conduct finding as to drug amounts


rico conspiracy in this case and the jury was told that they could not consider guilty pleas in themselves and we know that as evidence of the existence as judge griffin had asked judge donald i asked a question about the


we believe these are judicial submissions we don't need to get there regarded is one way you can be disabled the only evidence on record is a statement from the attorney that says quote unquote plaintiff is handicapped says she's not going to count because of breast cancer she's not


are you all asserting now based on the pleading yeah well it does and we in the brief actually don't even splits specify it because we never really got firm information on it but your honour's if i


power and prejudicial impact even when properly instructed to consider the evidence only for some legitimate purpose as the jury was instructed here the danger is obvious that the jury will treat it as propensity evidence instead in that case is this court's


yeah the way is it a definition even it says it's a definition by the heading there see definitions and i think in fairness you have to read it in conjunction with the preceding page of that


you know one question of the what's the purpose of this forum is this purpose is the purpose to alert just to state just to state supreme court is that that there's a case and here's the issues is it also to put the the government i noticed that you have this case here


a speeding was or some come a lot of violations while i don't i had to go back and look at that case to do that seems relevant there's no evidence he done anything wrong but the key thing though that in terms of the court's legal analysis where they said that we have not held that


distinct from what you and i would normatively think of as retirement income because you are first of all i believe the practical effect of allowing the payments to be made


don't believe so your honor because especially under the terms that we are you know faced with a plan such as this it's not about your argument is broader than just what this one has you brought your argument that you've just stated is


the company and give them a bonus and it had nothing to do with retirement it had to do with deferring taxes and avoiding the tax points of taking the money right away but just the part there are really were two plans involved here


he didn't say sexual harassment but based on all the circumstances the court said that was sufficient for him to have engaged in protective conduct so there is a law that supports very firmly our


owners rental car companies taxi companies etc the formula for this goal is the chatters that the parties are the parties agreed on those sorts of design documents those have been sealed judged a lot sealed sealed those


that's easy to compare the rate of interest i mean that's rather confusing as to the extent that there's confusion there as judge berra pointed out that's strictly a tingle issue for the contract claim which is all that's before this


claims i can't speak to their your honor i think their plainest in my experience they tend to take extraordinarily broad discovery on every claim and i don't think either of these would be any exception to that i don't think i think it would be you say it's the


viable cause supported the warrant sort of kicked it to that leon good faith exception that's kind of really what this case comes down to is to whether it meets the young good faith exception or not but probable cause is a part of that analysis as well but i don't


today but here we have a gun as well we have mr go by carrying the gun on her or using the gun or using the gun because that shows the drugs they're using the gun because you could have plain view of the drugs if you have probable cause there was a gun in the


well involved in this drug trafficking organization he is president for most of one hundred deals with this one c i now i mean generally you don't bring your friend with you on one hundred times to do illegal drug trafficking again we have


comply with the laws like the u s foreign corrupt practices act or does it require union to comply with the law so it like the discussion we had with eight dollars it imposes a mandatory duty upon


is widespread in angola from the heritage foundation from the secretary of state and that this is exactly the type of thing that is commonplace so it's simply untrue that we've made conclusory allegations we've given detail out the actions that to answer your question judge cook


conspiracy claim had were based been based on something other then that's the case that said makes your point because it's use you have a lot of conviction saying it i have a lot of conviction in my head that it's wrong what's the race that the case that illustrates what you're saying is right that


by the by the trial court it's our position to make sure we're on the same page are our policy caps at roughly three million are probably as a per currency limit of one million and a three million dollar aggregate i got it our policy also has


and all of you agree to do this so it's definitely a plan with intent because but you also believe mistakenly because in looking at the determinations on some of the


garnish the government yes and i have and chase that position the reason i say this is because this is what the district court held this is what we're up for an appeal said that those assets those distributions belong to the trust and the trustee not to mr


thing about that is there anything in the record about the size of the size of this dog the weight of the dog what is an off the ball but they come in lots of different ranges only ground


resulted in a five hundred dollar fine and a conditional discharge under new york law that governing jurisdiction a conditional discharge is used when quote either the public interest or the ends of justice will be served by sentence of imprisonment


in other cases in terms of visibility needed to make this type of challenge so that really boils down to the central question in this case your honor and that is whether this is punishment because as you reference the cases back from eight hundred ninety three and that time


people act on it you can say i've changed my mind without some reason for changing your mind that would justify imposing those costs on the public who act on what for excess right but in this


new entry offers below that cost from the very beginning and that's what's always been in this market and so there was a motor from the very beginning for said in approving them over as part of the two thousand and six last summer that it was designed to prevent self


was it was he was offered primarily to show that the and asked the jury was instructed to show that it was continuing into the limitations period your statue of station


appendix appendix pages six o two and six o three deputy chief lynch provides testimony pages forty four work through forty eight where he specifically indicates that


a very serious crime i don't think he just simply you can i would concede that you can read it to indicate that but i think you can also read it to indicate that after having heard the arguments from counsel on this very issue and then not being presented with any evidence by mr


i also know that you have supreme court decision insights which actually has clarified began to some extent you know sykes is a is a case where it dealt with playing alluding statute i believe in indiana and talked about the gaze purposeful analysis indicating


process we have them basically saying that being there twenty four hour or seven days a week for five days a week is the essential function the job but the jury heard that heard her


but your complaint itself uses the word coincidentally paragraph thirty nine to your complaints as coincidentally mr rude because you know if it's if it's happenstance that he's where


proximity is enough to supplant knowledge but i think you lose right it seems to be saying it's not enough discipline or for example person complains to


let me just say on and and strictly living myself to the to the cross to which is the scope of the mandate question that even in the pepper case in the supreme court last year where the court talked about the importance of discretion on a


had finished its cross examination and then resumed on redirect examination so when when the when the court asked whether the governor would have asked the questions one could read the transcript and see the questions that the government asked and then the judge mark he came


partisan if you consider those factors which i gathered from the case law in each one judge martini's involvement in this case else his questioning was extensive and pervasive it emphasized the government's proof and impeach the defense credibility was directed at the


is the right to is the is the right the core right is to control the presentation of your case in front of the jury and so i think any counsel when a pro se is involved in court in front of the jurors jury has to be very careful about doing


petition to charge what are called intrastate originating access charges for eyes to traffic and this ruling arguably conflicted with the remainder in two ways first the state commission ordered the terminating party to compensate


two competitive carriers to enter into a contract with each other and it decided what the rate should be just as if it were arbitrating a contract between an incumbent and a competitive carrier so so in that sense the p c s orders really did violate section two


and early twenty fifteen i would suggest not your honor for this reason the f c c is two thousand and eleven connect america fund order world that there is going to be a transition to a bill and keep arrangement what that means is no more reciprocal compensation for


the report's eft up to me and i believe based on the evidence the only interpretation of that is this report contains lone ice it is an accusation that figaro is doing something


can help us talk to each other that's ok what what he's trying to say to you i think what george jordan's point is you might not even have to make the determination of all not that it will be informed by cunningham or anything else that the state court does but that it might move out the need for this panel to decide


that's true but i think this goes back to the historical context i think it's one spent just a few moments on that historically it's important to note that this case occurred in one nine hundred fifteen it's three years after the supreme court for the very first time in one


commentary that appears to be correct we would the district court is wrong or in error for following that guideline you've just the right to another place an argument if i agree with your honor that


and at least that's what we postulate i think it's implicit in their letter that they were afraid it would stop the scene because it weaker wanted to keep it small understanded it was reduced then he was smart enough to


scheme and what the judges were critical of in the second circuit in particular or in the southern district was that that this amount of money would really control the sentencing guidelines in when all these other factors sort of how deep


last muss you were an attorney who did this for seventeen years thirty times over you didn't care what the loss was you just care that you were going to distance yourself as much as possible from this and continue your scene as long as possible


the experts on the other side the a c c and the future claims representatives were in the seven billion dollar range so there was a lot of room in between to make a settlement grace could afford to pay a lot of that


would not cover a motion under thirty five able to sue and i did think about that and i then something cases i saw indicated that that would not that's not an argument that would fly at least i didn't think she was in the change in law because


as what's ironic about this case is judge gomez had zero problem understanding that originally but we went off into a kind of a rabbit hole when he overruled the jury whether he should have or not


so how again what rejoinder do you have to my challenge that your arguments about your client being able to deliver clear marketable title cannot be squared


notes including notes about cars notes about mr benjamin's cell phone job and it was undisputed that he were paired current and that he had a legitimate job selling cell phone service plans


we can only guess what the jury had then set up we don't believe the mercado was there were they instead of said no way this guy's a fine when this we believe everything he just said and we don't think very well of the defense for attacking him on only part of his


the central issue in here is whether the railroad has a duty to provide an adequate site distance or protect public we believe that the


or something belongs to the u s government and then they are taken wrongfully or the u s government pays out money to somebody based upon a fraudulent skeen that's a that's a proper fact that something that could be prosecuted under each of us you're


fact right in the bank of the in the bankruptcy case the creditors or our people are who are big it's whether or not some amount of unpaid taxes undetermined or are the property of the us before


certainly concluded from that evidence could it or that there was a high probability that he knew what was in the suitcase i don't believe so your honor here's a reason why we don't even know in this case the government didn't even put in evidence that the guy had flown to the united states before not


leo just legal cases consistent with wexler the other cases which are cited a couple of them i believe the eighth or ninth circuit are cases in which the court found that the defendant didn't participate at all he was standing there but he did nothing you're not dealing with the knowledge


if someone is more terrorizing if someone else here has locked themselves in a place of safety and is forcibly removed and so i think that's basically the standard i'm not sure we can state it more precisely than that and then leave it to our district judges


actually had weapons and the judge just sitting there going ok what do i do i could say that they were stopped because it's logical that all three of them are drinking from the from the liquor in the in the paper bag


is almost a universal rule that a health plan will not cover vitamins ok they're good there they're actually approved by the f d a but they're just not covered if you are a doctor who


action is relevant well the the clip the complaint alleges that the plaintiff and presumably the class was misled by the disclosures made by hollywood tans about the


operating in their state and i think it's difficult to say that the new jersey interest is necessarily the interests that prevails everywhere i would respectfully disagree and for one reason your honor every one of those franchises in each of the


apply with with equal logic the appeal may not be ripe to the extent that that conflict of law analysis need to be set forth fully in his decision again i would submit that need not be set forth given that it was


class members understanding and awareness but i think there's a similarly commonly held pervasive understanding as our survey evidence revealed the customers would change their behavior they would alter their consumption


the hammer that's what the district judge called it was the offer over reducing prices if you purchased a certain percentage of your needs from the


the is is this pennsylvania that you did is a bill an overbroad in the language of the i believe it is the visible in the sense that you can divide the misdemeanor violation from the felony


who'd had no previous relationship with the lp thank you so there's there is not identical ownership of the two entities contrary to what i think was found by the district court


argument as to who the owner is they've always up argued in fact you'll recognize judge accounting that mr getty who is the attorney for all of these entities


going to get into the law under underpinning both of those claims just a moment but i'd like to point out two porton facts just two that i think are very important to keep in the front of your minds first the court found that mr frost conduct had no effect whatsoever on the


contempt and then there was a second criminal contempt with regard to the deposition that's exactly right judge that's right and there is an attempt for second civil contempt and the judge refused to grant that second civil contempt the double jeopardy


well doesn't apply to that section that is what i'm saying judge i would say that even if the word knowingly applies to that section because the way knowingly was interpreted or interpreted for the jury by the judge as just means voluntary it would


charge and was properly given that the district court i guess i'm curious about the intent element with regard to mr for in the sense that when he refused to testify for


if that's your position opposed these that were clearly established by supreme court precedent and that's one of the test of qualify the beauty has to be clearly established and secondly she did it deliberately


needed to respond to sever a judgment she responded to some rejection it still didn't provide the affidavits that she only provided after her time was up and the report recommendation came down it was only then that she came up with this new evidence where she was alleging constant


what matters is whether they had an honest belief at the time and a reasonable basis for that belief when making the time a nation decision however however the the could be a huge issue of fact as to whether the invocation


court's resolution of this case first on june fifteenth two thousand and seven plaintiff initiated a case in the u s district court for the eastern district of tennessee against the villages of


it would have been a different result is it fair there was a statement somewhere in there that that anybody who was removed who never got the treatment is considered as an automatic failure under i


i represent the plaintiffs and with permission i would like to reserve five minutes for this is a employment case involving eighty five memphis police officers there are


said that they feel that the district court felt like the in the lieutenant's should not receive back pay because they had not served two years as a sergeant well the


paine about that danger side effect which led to miss payne taking the drugs which then led to ms pain developing the injury that's what did happen here's what should have happened no borders should have given a warning


thousand and seven what happened in two thousand and five was that the patient need a dental extraction and a visitation because he was aware of the back that there was this association and it went on the label your honor in two thousand and three


a part and when you read that point you rested only on the fact that she didn't have the pills on her she had to go further back yes you are see she didn't have the pills on her she was not going to go to a doctor or


and actually see what she stands in her affidavit that was filed in connection with her motion to remain and she did not use the language of any of the cases that i have shared with the court in fact her affidavit is


the grab a minute our claim is still sex discrimination in pay and promotions at wal mart that's the claim that was the crux of the national case which obviously included the claims pending in tennessee


whether anyone believes the trip down whether anyone believes that higgins had any however anyone wants to interview those cases the divergence comes on the trip down in the trip down goes like


find that the government met the three central elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt and the district court in denying the post trial motions said that the evidence as to the witness tampering counts was strong it denied the rule thirty three motion for a new


that was the time at which the defendant should have objected and said hey don't talk about this stuff and then the judge the prosecutor could have proceeded appropriately so the question here is given that failure to object did this result in in


lawsuit was filed there was no arbitration agreement which required mr russell to arbitrate within a month and a half of when mr russell signed the arbitration agreement that requires them


including lawsuits between the company and former or present ploys that's i would i would say it i would say it more broadly i would say that the clear intent of the arbitration agreement


also that you will waiving existing rights and as my colleague here has pointed out in his brief repeatedly the law says that a waiver of an arbitration provision should not be lightly inferred but what the law really says is the way we're going to watch should not be lightly


after the decision but i'm asking whether they put the proper date for i believe that they thought so i mean it's a different thing to manufacture evidence than to write for


if there was phases of productions i mean the the one that mr pearson was as mr mubarak said on the leading edge of this initiative may be part of the quandary here is was there a formal


my boss told me to do that and that was what was at issue that's why it seemed that the this people were talking about their own jobs were and they were your honor but they weren't they did not underwrite these loans at the time though


instruction that was that was given on opinion testimony that that that certainly made it clear that the jury was to consider the witnesses qualifications and how they reached those conclusions and to balance those against other instructions regarding credibility of the


eleven of the district court's brief memorandum the magistrate's memorandum it says that write ups or probationary period can constitute an adverse employment action


it looked at the scope of the first amendment right when the retaliatory motives lead to an arrest that is independently justified by probable cause and your own as we do not have that in this case the reason there is there was probable cause to believe that he committed the


build and not probable cause on anything else which leaves the malicious prosecution the elements for malicious


seatbelt violation where does that take us on the malicious prosecution claim our position is is that because there was probable cause is the district court found for the seatbelt violation in the both of those


to the arrest under the fourth amendment as long as there's probable cause for any offense even if it's a not i wrestled i simply the significance of that concession you keep saying that but i don't know if there's probable cause for the seatbelt offense he can't win on a fourth amendment claim for france


to sustain a finding of a reasonable possibility of access and moved clearly into the area of bare possibility of access in this court as well as by as far as i know every other court has held that bare


excludes from the estate the property and the income that's generated during the plan period ok so it excludes from the state property post petition earnings but otherwise in your reading


twenty nine that you bring in all eleven fifteen property which includes a five forty one property and that's what the debtor is allowed to keep as marriage and we have the same kind of reference there are i mean i could be mistaken in the thirteen case


debtors post petition on the application of eleven twenty nine b to the two aren't you very well thank you both for your arguments very interesting case the case of the submitted clerk may call the next case


present today as to why they're entitled to a jury trial and why the court below erred in granting summary judgment i have three matters that i'd like to focus our attention on today the first is the patient bill


is protected that the horse gets sold now and the sale isn't delayed because of the established by crestwood because he's trying to get out of the business he wants to liquidate these horses i think that's exactly what he was doing i wasn't mind i mean i don't know why he did everything he


contract he said you take it with all my other horses you board them you pay for it you run it through the sale and you get this commission but isn't this lease to question whether


yes ever get done yes and they're the ones that have to continue to board them and pay all those expenses why is that the case your honor we own upwards of five million dollars worth of horses and probably more valuable than that that's just the


refers to the final judgment entered on a plea or verdict of guilt and what we have here in the record what we have that was submitted to the jury as governments exhibit one is in fact the judgment that presents


have to be parties to the lawsuit because they can't order the bank to give them money the bank is transferring they've got the money you can order the bank to give the money back to one tractor and hand to see an age if


good morning thank you mike stengel of the memphis tennessee bar and it's my privilege to be here on behalf of calhoun rate this morning there are a couple of reasons two reasons to vacate the


record of this i mean saying you know in charge of the next person comes on is x i'm prejudiced because of i mean we're the closest were we get any facts


i believe that they have reasonable suspicion to believe that he's in there and he himself in that sense is the contraband so yes whole question is can they enter with an arrest warrant without permission to come in the house if somebody


conversation that hey you know this is really at a line with the law it's not forcible there's an easy way and a hard way to change this twelve cents per whatever price and they chose the


what did you allege regarding sort of the history briefly of this lease i mean i presume you allege that there was that original agreement and then what do you allege as pacifically as you can recall


cases so i think it goes without saying that he was in fact as testimony showed a peed in for he was a snitch that doesn't even implicate the petitioner much less incriminate him in terms of the


arm so suppose they come back with the information typed it into their thing and then as long as i don't go back to a card i'm talking of us individual for forty five minutes but i haven't checked yet so i don't know that it has a comeback so the purposes of the stop what


cop and is hesitant to produce his pretend girl and says i how do i know you're not a cop it's over and over says well


good afternoon may it please the court case the while and on behalf of the united states in this case the district court properly applied a five level sentencing enhancement for distribution of child pornography in exchange for valuable consideration


removed arguably that's the problem so the rule for future cases if we were to adopt your theory would be any time someone has a gun in their vicinity and there's a any movement after they've been shot they will there


forty three issue was presented to the district court it was presented it is so the whole idea of plainer in my view is does does the district court deserve to have this argument presented so the district court can have a clean


and i see my time is up but i'll just try to address this question the documents themselves themselves that appellant's claim are the arbitration agreements were produced in discovery that's it we have that d and we have corporate declarations that say these are them they're


of discovery was class discovery but also merit based discovery so to the extent there were some issues that went to whether or not this was a proper


themselves would that also be true that he didn't ask for them in israel fifty six d affidavit when he was then unhappy with what you had turned up in your spreadsheet i


provisions say that if you have a smaller county you know you're allowed to do certain things it's when you read the statute in its totality it's very clear that they're talking about also issuing arrest warrants but they've just specified some of the more severe things like a search warrant or


and the way i interpret the supreme court precedent on i mean it is in one thousand nine hundred three it's a functional analysis it depends on what type of act you're performing so since both parties agree this is this is a judicial after i would think your only


and we can get damages and liquidated damages in theory if the company actually has assets in and we can collect them through that way but as far as the injunction goes we really already gotten that relief in the first case it's that gets us as


county powers versus hamilton county public defender commission which talks about the fact that if there's no judge you know making a bad basically a judge's bad ruling and judges illegal ruling the


town says that you're only entitle to damages relating to that invasion of privacy and not any damages arising from any arrest


this case will take the case under advisement you may call the next case


that one the statute themselves talk about administration by the secretary by the state agency what is on that silo under the stap act is dead under that silo it's the department of human services alone with her county offices an


months the case law uniformly has interpreted that word in a very broad and expansive manner the test that we have set forth as to what that means is that the conviction should relate to or connect with the


if this statute were applied in the federal context that it would naturally on automatically be deemed a serious drug offense under the arm creeping like we substantially disagree on that point and i think that the government


were more remote than those other cases it's a situation where the statute provides that you could be held criminally liable if you deliver controlled substances but the reality is that the district court held that that's that you


not so the facility made the judgment apparently that it was easier to include this arbitration agreement in a it's a preprinted balland perforated edge kind of book that is presented to each resident there's not one book


even when you follow that route under application five you still come back to language in the invulnerable victim adjustment to says that you can't apply it so it doesn't result in a greater offense level so that no doesn't change mr


six i believe it is her counsel don't get and she says ok and then she says yeah i don't feel comfortable with the estimated length


want to get into that yes ma'am


done very briefly change the standard of discretion i mean why is the motion matter does it think it should have been done it should not have should not have been done exactly right


all been a problem throughout this argument i understand understanding my question irrelevant no i'm not ok absolutely no and if so if wouldn't there be at least a question as to which is more reliable


different way they post in infowars article that doesn't mean that they are accepting that is true but this is steve winwood dot com steve winwood dot com decides to put articles about steve winwood and they are self


honor yes the quick summary there really wasn't too much if any room for interpretation that that money was going to be placed in an escrow account and all of the investors said that that was their understanding or else they would have given him money at


making a section between reckless offenses that can be committed by driving vs other reckless offenses makes no sense in light of subsequent developments in the law so we would ask this court not to adopt the strange jurisprudence


not be the ones where i think the government said definitely should be career fender's so given the entire context of the of the proceedings and given the due process rights that mr groom has to to know to have the perception that he's been sentenced fairly


growing trend in district courts is that over the years district courts have been sensing below the guideline range in an increasing number of cases and that is correct or are you saying that every job a court doesn't do that then it's an error


prove it had enough time etc in a report with recommendations was filed without objection at sentencing jackson raised no objections to the trial court and her judgment in more than six months later jackson found a pro


question in this case because those cases only dealt with whether you could apply this an instrument for coconspirator liability in other words the only issue that was that was raised by either appellant in that case was


mother and forced a wheelchair upon her that she didn't need and she didn't want we had testimony from miss christine thorpe who testified that she went to some defunct office building and met dr bailey


told me to call brian and he said my knee was in bad shape so he if i call if i catch up with brian he'll come out here dr person will sign the papers saying i need one her statements are very clear that it is for her


issues as to liability but that's the basis of the liability claim and in fact everest is not within its rights and owes crestwood a two hundred and nineteen thousand dollars commission on a sale that didn't happen


policy and see there's no coverage but you say because i claim something that is just totally unreasonable and totally frivolous that puts them on a duty to act in a certain way to me just because i made a frivolous claim to them is that


absence of proof as the district court showed as to what attorneys fees resulting from the loss of the underlying crestwood case arose because of any action or advice that mr ramsey


contract would you then say yes we need that proof yes judge and i think that's what the district court also indicated in and you can't give you one how can you so you have to go through all the bills at that point otherwise


deposited into a qualified escrow fund and then you also have civil penalties and then you have there is a small amount of attorney's fees and then you have a post judgment interest on the civil penalties in the charges fees and that continues to


removed from tennessee's directory in two thousand and thirteen again this is not this is not a collection effort we are removing a tobacco product manufacturer from the directory the allows the cigarette


government concedes that there can be and more likely looks like more than one conspiracy and with that we've asked the court reversed the conviction in some of the conspiracy counts and the substandard distribution


would be required under any circumstances for this reason the court will recognize who went to trial on on three issues and what were the pre all the claims we did not go for that so that's all paid the the all that claims the proof shall be fully


schedule appointments so is there a catholic well that's not completely accurate what happened was is that he when he went to these appointments he did only missed one and he claims he did not get a letter from mr minaj for that appointment and what


fact that he was still treating for his teeth despite the fact that he had a restriction of no crane operator he showed up that day that day well let's say the day before he went on vacation he was performing all the duties that was work that were required of


so nothing prevents the sale of any piece of property under this agreement twenty one of the twenty six partners so eighty three percent of the shareholders but we did seal it public option is the


out of the sling that's not a definitive statement saying i had shoulder problems prior to but it got worse and so if you use i think the commission focused in on the testimony of dr mitchell folks records and dr garth records or guards of the fire problems


in treatment we had no change and and new sometimes we had we already had a recommendation for surgical intervention and we are asking that you reverse the decision of the circuit court and find and enter an


seen that but there are some problems with videotape even in this day and age and one is that it is not as comprehensive as we might normally believe that and what the one particular scene the only scene


down about halfway and we're talking about an area that is bordered by eighteenth street on the west nineteenth street on the east on the north by second avenue on the bottom by thursday of this section is divided down the middle from north to


issues raised in the attorney's presentation first of all the case law has stated that the mental state of the deceit it is relevant for two years prior to the execution of the will


hearing on an amended application does not require no notice and therefore work the issue of whether the odd variance if any in volume ott is is


in if you don't have an ownership in section one seventy they said you get it if you don't have an ownership interest in section one seventy five which is the issue in this appeal they don't


that that point she wants them and i'm getting a scenario where he's having an overcorrection with his mother ok and so when was he


insufficient accountings and not confined to counties or one bases the ended up being a almost a four year stay in the house without paying any right to the trust and while the trust is paying all of well


the cation you got there's been no admission right so you can the police willingly only get on the stand and start testifying about all the questions they ask


talks about the date that the salary attached to running will be used by the board to establish the disability so will the scansion itself there is


stipulated bench but in but it is in this case it's a little different because if mr taylor had been seeking only to appeal his motion to suppress issue he could have proceeded based on those court's


and so now there is an exception where if there is a single course of conduct in which there is no substantial change in the fund it's a criminal objective and extended term can be imposed on the lower class thought but that's no we have here here all the


his the center of that trust she's a trustee of the trust and she's also an eighty five percent beneficiary of his lang's father mr simpson intervener in this case has a discretionary income interest in this


trust and the law wouldn't offer any protection for that essentially we would be taking somebody else's money to satisfy the


he couldn't work because he getting in and out of the or truck and he was having pain with that and i think with i was there the deposition but in the deposition they were talking about it as if somehow him getting in and out


included the issues and the choice of law over a job because they were negotiated over a long period of time including our first appeal but there was very issues i don't think that maybe the department wanted to go down or deal with or do additionally


the only thing he could have done so he should have known that it was actually a constructive possession but a smart defense counsel is not really going to go into that station because he just doesn't want the jury to think about it


the court to enter an order per temporary maintenance that's


only applies to merchandise and when it details what merchandise is its pacifically defines real estate not located in illinois and basic statutory construction vive that if it says something specifically real estate not located


actually term that we applied the evidence it's either you know the clear and convincing it to be under the pondering to reasonable doubt but in any rate he suggested something more than just some evidence it has


this court does have jurisdiction under the administrative review are now you know our position is that the trial court didn't do this the right way and that the accounting committee did do it the right way and that this court should up all the county


is that it had probable cause to charge all of the defenses in question at the same time so the thing that i would ask your honour's to remember is move forward is that the state's position at that hearing


substance he agreed that it could have been the only thought it was at the time alternately the trial court credited this testimony making findings of fact that the officer did not recognize and could not identify the


change


and december of two thousand and eight that the role he's proposed to purchase excuse me yes the bradleys proposed to purchase the property for two hundred thirty five thousand dollars using


was looking for a specific thing he was looking for where there's heavy overhead work and the petitioner prime and mr stevens did not testify that there was frequent heavy overhead work the only real overhead work he


and revisited the people events and matter and addressed some of the confusion that was created by the supreme court decision in that case and clarified that vincent refers represents only a specific mission


brief by the plaintiff if they wanted to court to take judicial notice of recorded documents and for the purposes of this fifty no known motion that document was never it's not in the record it was never it that this


himself well that is that the public defender that is that been representing yourself so all he could i mean how is that any different than then he chose well i guess


we'll take some of this on money this is sign and get this is turning but isn't there a chilling effect are you thinking you know this is my parents money and where i'm not going to i don't don't hire an


did not or his ruling i should say did not go far enough to show that they would have there was a would have created a duty on themselves to anticipate that mr deford would have been electrocuted by these overhead power lines that connected to the building


in their decision to modify and supplement the hearing officer spines and that in this case here is the reason why i say that is this even though the hearing officer report is forty nine pages long it is not complete it


brief that was presented on a ship with it doesn't make sense to ed in child's court to alicia's when that's not income and it doesn't make sense to say that he


are there no unfitness proceedings you know he's not that we go back through trying to restore to fitness if he can't be restored if innocent discharge here in those sorts of proceedings that's what i've asked for i mean the alternative


evidence is being i mean it was a game of the prior one case in illinois and it went through basically the same analysis that i just described in terms of


because he was unduly influence on top of that i think it's clear from the record if you read judy vols testimony in who's the therapist who goes after the trust


these people and there was a lot of contradictory testimony and i think the court needs to say his finding of fact that there was undue influence has to be given some deference i do


the intersection of fourth and seminary streets intersection there is much more brightly lit area on the video we had the officers while following closely behind the defendant at this point in video shows that the defendant did not


conclusion is supported by the tape authority of the people saying on pages eleven through twelve for a brief shows that an officer does not have to inform the defendant of the reason for the stop it and that this is not relevant to whether the


was the painting of the nurse and the daughter that if she has to sit in the dentist chair it's going to be extremely traumatic for this woman so no i don't know on the record i understand the doctor forfeiture


regarding the conclusion nature of the new evidence one of the most critical pieces of evidence against miss rich was the argument made by mr carro in his closing argument to the jury that misprision fact need the first phone call on


of disputes that could be arbitrated as an example of how we have to read this you know how an objective person would read this contract and understand it i would say those are all good points with respect to the scope of the agreements to be arbitrated


that the evidence support that yes the evidence even pictures now support that and that is the evidence we proffered before the injunction here and both by affidavit


impacted will be compensated for that there is a remedy but for those sixty five other tracks that are not before this court and were not before the district court there remedy if they have if they need one these damages are


a case in which house parents were sixty hours in a week and it was made up of twenty hours of overtime they were paying a time and a half for those twenty hours that's right they got them up


court determined that coach had admitted and stated repeatedly that they had no claim they could not have a claim and they had never asserted a claim on the sole and the court found the sole


the mistake of concluding that if the discriminatory remarks that not come directly from the board in this case that that wasn't good enough i don't necessarily disagree with that but on the other hand the mere fact that others may have said


one here they tried to meet their four requirements for a variance they were unable to meet the third requirement and they didn't get the relief they sued this court said when they entered into that lease


page one twenty is where the decision starts the it i've got actual background they list the two of course we're five years jail but they didn't review the site discussed where one your honor in the need to scuff where to of course but they didn't review where to they gave the historical background


court held that recognized that in and on that property could be used as a community facility only where four conditions are satisfied if the zoning regulations here stated a church can locate in the in this is owning


seated welcome everyone to the or circuit court of appeals this morning we have two very interesting cases and not first of all the voice of personal privilege on behalf of


case the acting secretary relied on determination that the program was the legal not that she was exercising her discretion that i hear you say that we could consider secretary nielsen subsequent rationale is part of this record i do think you could


weren't challenging the enforcements question the design of the waiver they were happy about that's not the waiver i just think that judge breaches misread how crowley operate this is the underlying substantive rule here the attorney general's decision that the statute is unlawful right


and that they might be able to make an argument that they're not subject to monitoring what's what's your view about that well your are a couple responses first off point this in the what the department has done it's true that there is this west virginia guidance but it


brief also says that there's a maximum allowable head works loading you're letting e p a recapture to rise this case to one small part of the permit the copper affects multiple parts of the permit and all i have to show you is that i


the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case rather than allowing for the substitution of the estate of canada house as the or the personal representative of the estate of can house as the


design was unsure about a liability insurance policy with illinois a union insurance company there was a claim made against them by my client the owner of the property in august design flaws in the generators called the catch all


standard which comes from the supreme court's wilkinson case there the supreme court held that a detention condition gives rise to a liberty interest if it imposes a fifth atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidence of prison life and even


communication is extremely essential in this case and i would even argue that the threat of cyber security is a physical threat but it's not borne out in the


gang wouldn't have access to them we know from record as it in that news all grados mother still lives in the same home and there is nothing in the record that indicates that they became friends with a gang member and exacting member would have pleaded their case so


that state that it's likely that once the once again has continued to do what has started it sorting a family they will continue that sort of family additionally we have significant documentarian evidence that shows


well if there are i believe if there is a finding of this core that there is a violation of their due process rights no never mind where i'm not


dismissed in may of two thousand and eighty correct but juror in that entire time the only window of discovery was during those couple of months that we talked about earlier and during that


earlier about getting a part time job working in a different line of work but second of all that the district not straight judge is allowed to make his own conclusions regardless of whether we make a specific objection we're not the ones appealing here it's it's


earlier that that wasn't no it's not the law arms and there are number of factors all of which together allowed to strike or be one of the factors whether or not you're salaried employee well i think your think that the congress in acted


correct but strangely what's happened is that in the i i p which has even broader restrictive covenants the court simply moved onto the ip without any kind of analysis and allowed them to go through and what


on him not asking him just common sense would assume that if one looked and looked as he told them that they had a guaranteed value and you look at these statements they have a separate number that has a guaranteed death benefit out of it the question is why do they have that


identify the specific identity of the drug in the charging documents in the conviction documents and in the sentencing documents in order for there to be a conviction under that


but they're all talking about i mean it at every stage they're all talking about the type of drug nobody in any of this point has said schedule one or schedule two we haven't seen any description of being the


misclassify their employees that that they do not have to report employer contributions but the trustees have one maximum authority to correct that and that's on the i the wage agreement authorizing


show every single family member being persecuted i think is something that just qualcomm addressed also even if one family member is threatened or harassed for the sake of the family i believe that's enough referring to


done that upon receipt of that accurate information well done since back a confirmation to exactness saying we are sending the medications you told us to send to your customer is in california


for the controlled substance piece but then the b s a says yeah i mean in essence the implication is modified categorical for drug but categorical for the act that is the distribution that's correct


an exhaustive list of controlled substances you know i know that divisibility wasn't the main issue but they looked him a little early which had similar jury instructions kansas had to fill in the blank jury instructions that we have and the virginia case and they found that because the list


states district courts that state statute sort of adopting the jones act the venue provision was limited to state courts and the ninth circuit held that that was enough to limit the waiver of sovereign immunity to state court only


section we have a provisions that says a civil action under the section shall be filed in the circuit court for the county where the alleged unlawful practice occurred they will this can mean


forth in a task of barrow and ruling without any guidance from the state courts as to whether the state had waived its eleventh amendment munity or not every single case i believe that's in the brief follows that exact pattern the only one that's


right count or whatever and sent it back and it's still a litigation orders up for grabs the removal or i understand what you're saying your honor and so you can go ahead i ask


decide the sides could they have wanted to get into they want to get in and they act like they want to get in the question of how they can get and my response to that is it's not as easy as you can just go down to the courthouse and some willing


exactly often you bring a suit in which you think you're going to win usually you do but the suit that is not going to decide the issue of cooperation the d j is not going to make these doctors do something different the d j is not going to prevent a default judgment the


intent they specifically find him not credible and they use the s r c uses that word so having had a full fair opportunity to present his own testimony as to his intent the s r c simply did not believe


a conspired that they would not intervene right and so they reach an agreement to not act which i guess you would call a conspiracy to not act would that make any difference i


acknowledging the fact that that the courts go through all sorts of equitable considerations in the term in whether or not ultimately around it is you on the other not that happened in this case do you want us to do that in the first instance wouldn't be more sensible to send


is known to the defendants from from attorneys and they didn't bear the burden even though they had wanted to bear the burden on this it's hard to see how there was any prejudicial error here the next thing that jumps out about their advice of counsel defense is that they want to charge it as a complete


way but the result of it is you seem to got pretty good in result here what more do you want out of this case you know at some point you would have had to make it a lesson on these these remedies i mean


crime or a family relationship to mr president announces his brother and actual or feared persecution second there is no compelling evidence demonstrating past


rd and this took place when i believe december november th is the day should we have four days my recollection when i check the calendar as we also have a weekend in there but in order to continue to provide


page something that says package policy because they cover auto property and general liability the access policies have different policy numbers different premium different


there's a uncertified class doesn't change the rules doesn't change the power of the court so you can counsel may ask you that the original for you mentioned what happened to several of them but wasn't there one remaining who


further for the record page to thirty eight this was the evidence we put before the district judge as to what the plaintiffs told us about the the plaintiffs so it was a voice mail from counsel that said that one plaintiff was interested


review statute however somewhere in the whole process of reimbursement there has to be how much issue


i mean if they if the matter is remanded to the district court i mean there may be issues involving the how much issue on the other hand how they could get past your analysis of the statute on the other hand when when the v a opposed this law i mean one of the reasons they opposed to debate is because it


too high a level of generality simply stating that a corrections officer violates the th amendment when he sends another employee into harms way just restates the state create a danger doctrine a legal principle is clearly established only if it


according to the allegations no that was defendants courtesan smith who overrode the classification the allegation that's remorse the allegation is that fits or morris refused to reclassify now there isn't this is what the district court relied on a subsequent


self defense well you know i don't believe that that is analogous to what occurred here the the evidence a trial was my counsel shot a gun he maintained that in his conversations with counsel at all times and


and offering the self defense instruction correct so the attorney offered destruction i guess why isn't that related back to the instruction why was that wrong either i don't know


you can't possibly right now opinion saying that the government has taken the position in front of you today that it is not a question of whether they could prosecute at that time it is only a question of whether there's been a negation of the evidence that was this i think she was saying maybe i thought


as a matter of being affective anymore it isn't and the reason that is that is not because it was wrongly decided it was the cited based on the briefs that were submitted to the court which totally omitted any reference to brian


regarding piano wise damages i asked him what are the damages what's the computation of damages and he couldn't answer and in fact in the opening brief b m y says that page fourteen


your honest question is an appropriate one there is no prejudice but he just restated here the same thing he told the jury no sand of documents and no witnesses were produced


point because it's ten years or eight nine years old now but we were hoping in two thousand and three to send a subpoena to yahoo for the contents of her e mail we would have been able to prove conclusively if in fact it existed that


bone of a girl in texas the individual in texas had made she had made reference that she met match she met with ridley on match and we would be able to explore that but now these people really are too happy about


rate information and they digest the data and they go a step further than just throwing up profiles actually match people in this particular case they sent an email to my client mary kay backman and they said to mary kate these are your


mistake it got me amended to include these other people and then what steps did you take to make sure you were part of the attorney's package well we had several different roles in the in the case we


notional amount that bloke's waggon would pay if every single class member participated in the settlement and chose the most expensive of the myriad of options available to them but


rosenblum gives you the authority to tell us that our review should be did no you're right your honor there is no specific a sense of your this is private language on your part right directly you have said so well reviewed would it make a difference i mean there's certainly


yes aside from not but you haven't really arc in about that you know your honor we believe that her primary arguments about the fact that this entire this entire program


the question that the court had to address i believe that the court should have addressed was the question as to whether or not it would have a chilling effect to charge someone like carolyn ritchie with costs we believe that


trying it in her neighborhood school she went her parents went to a series of i p s december january and february december twenty fourth teen january and february of two thousand and fifteen as of the first day they were there the the assessments


if that declaration was signed in two thousand and sixteen and if you read it very carefully never once does it refer to the state of the dialing system or its configuration in two thousand and thirteen when the calls took place


excerpts of record there we can start the court and let me just say the trial court could have gotten to that decision in multiple ways the first and most obvious ways to look at the ordinance to create created the position that mr held


out you know these budgetary concerns associated with the public works project are important so how could the board have gotten this investigation done in a way that mr levy would not consider


mr levy the benefit of the doubt or at least looking at the evidence in the light more favorably to the plaintiff than on the party than the county this idea that if i may the


good contrast because in circle of congress separated out landowners as potential but a separate class but in regular congress didn't do that it made owners liable only to the extent they have some active involvement in the


they're saying the forest service needs to do something to stop violating rick because and the way they should do that is do something about got piles or carcasses with lead in them now whether we said the problem is the letter of the carcass it seems like i mean maybe you can tell me


warn is that correct correct they had a partial recovery because of the defenses the claridge had to the case it was a compromise settlement and plaintiffs are seeking to obtain additional


finding doesn't animate the agreement and the meeting of the minds of the parties dr heinz is the one who said we need key man life insurance on each other because if you are one of us dies the operation is likely to be able to to


is there anything in the record that shows what the value of the proper policy is now no because dr heinz ever produced a policy and judge and gave him a pass on you never produce the policy it's not part of the record so it shouldn't be that my client has to pay the


reasons why were that he determine that this person was not tired and therefore there was no causation of the standards to negligence and that your honor should be left up to the jury to decide was there actually any additional evidence that you needed to put in isn't it just a question that you


of money that was owed or to add a party who wasn't a party of the original lawsuit then we would be changing a substantive right and there would be a due process issue when all we're doing is increasing the number of


money in washington register and go get it but it also says and the weight of the afore that every single case deals with personal jurisdiction you register the judgment in a new district


reversal was appropriate because the court had not considered the facial challenged so while it did not express fully enunciate that rule i think that's the only way to look at one ballot because again wells fargo did have actual notice in that case so then let's move on to the nevada supreme


actually in that as a far three case it was that collections cost morning clue did their work collection cost on the ledger that was sent to the bank in that case and they did the same thing they did in this case calculated what the nine month right i think you're right what the argument was though in that case was that it


court i'm sorry my time is we're not going to keep talking what i'm trying to draw the distinction is the supreme court of nevada did not analyze what we're arguing here is that the tender itself was still invalid under nevada law because it conditions the


conceptually how is it that the second part of that instruction doesn't capture all of those cases just forget about the facts of this case just help me understand conceptually what did it what was it that you guys were trying to accomplish because as we attempted to explain in our brave if


the reality is we had a growth incentive program and we needed to use prior year sales because otherwise it's not a growth incentive program and we needed a way to bring fremont into the program we didn't just give them zeroes for prior year sales and automatically give them the incentives


rigid mechanical and yielding that it does violate due process so we're making both of those arguments and i think you know the jurisdictional question is i think there is jurisdiction i mean certainly judge


which both call for the agency to act in a way that is not required by law first the decision to issue a request for evidence is within us c i s is discretion per the regulation a


analysis of whether a defendant has raised whether donnelly specifically raised a johnson claim validly and whether he can can see has proven and met his burden to succeed on the merits and what further complicates the government's


firm was retained to represent these people i didn't understand that but he said one to have specifically these two people indicate that they favor the suit


case on that in none of the equal protection cases on of any kind that we found is including washoe involved a timely filed application by a citizen parent and none of those


is right after all this is his first vaccination and it wasn't his idea to enter a strange country


that now we're starting to gain a new respect for for what trees do for the environment because we're losing so many of them you know it's only when you start lacking something i think that you really grow to appreciate it and


nelson gave each class several potential suspects which they cross referenced with the fingerprints they lifted from the s u v if they collected the right evidence they would identify who the suspect was and figure out


deadly summer storms and the family of a nineteenth century apache indian warrior geronimo his father lawsuit seeking to recover his remains to suit names the u s government yale university and the yale student society of the skull and bones according to


for the world's largest online library google has partnered with some of the world's most famous research libraries to scan more than seven million books two thousand and five there also was killed in association american publishers for a lawsuit against google challenging the company's right to


months old when infant inside the vehicle was an injured but a six year old child was taken to sierra nevada more a hospital with minor injuries minnick also was taken to the hospital with moderate injuries


the vehicle while it was moving twelve thirty seven p m he called from three hundred block of pleasant street reported a domestic dispute the caller reported hearing a woman scream things being broken and doors slamming


seeing a major rise in number of domestic right wing extremist groups according to southern poverty law center and i government patriot groups grew to five hundred twelve in two thousand and nine an increase of two hundred forty four percent right wing militia tripled over the same period to one twenty seven


west coast crab crab harvest was released last monday by the associated press that two thousand and eight harvest was poor due to a low point in the natural cycle of crab populations this phenomenon has been particularly devastating to fishermen because


s coordinates of the school was of all our facilities in gaza all of our facilities are very clearly marked as un our debbie a facilities if there have been a violation of international humanitarian law and our response is rooted


refused calls to broaden hearings to examine right wing militias or any non muslim groups on sunday five hundred people demonstrating times square in new york city against a hearing tim curley representative keith ellison of minnesota is scheduled to


east drive reported his brother hit him in the face then left the house the brother then returned with three other people the bouncer said that she would handle the issue the brothers were told his friends were not walk home and would be charged with trespassing if they returned


a city police department on thursday at eight forty nine a m a caller from seven hills middle school reported a man came to this girl at about seven thirty am and kept insisting he needed to see teachers that were he had more than twenty years ago


accuse informant of


home an injured and were being provided temporary shelter by western nevada county chapter of the american red cross the fire spread quickly to the homes attic which eventually led to the heart of the roof collapsing said grass valley police


investigation into seven current or former israeli officials ordered two thousand to bomb in gaza it killed a top hamas leader so last ship and fourteen other people including nine children israeli foreign ministry zippy livny praised spain's


disclose boston globe study earlier this month found the eighty percent of retired three and four star officers went to work on as consultants or defense executives from two thousand and forty two thousand and at least fifteen people were killed wednesday in a separate


eleven we are looking to install what treatment systems using plants move the medal while saudi you also out of the state department has not paid penalty for the first comply or conduct of your office or put the matter


project money on the hill it would provide eight million in direct stimulus to the construction and building supply industry that would translate to more money for the grocery stores gas stations barber shops and restaurants is eight million


four seventy p m caller from nevada county courthouse reported the woman had been arrested on suspicion of out of county warrant when she was searched numerous jewelry items with tags found in her purse she said she stole them from a store in town fifty five year old woman was arrested on suspicion of petty


dump water from military helicopters in an attempt to cool the reactors although they've started doing that again now more workers are expected returned to the plant after their radiation levels forced their evacuation more damaged revelations about the nuclear reactor


mary b miller suffering panic attacks and she allegedly attempted to overdose on prescription drugs prior to the october incident and historic by angela dia's of the union rain or


possibly on a skateboard the youth was found cited for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and released to parents and that twelve twenty two p m youth from seven hundred block west main street smashed a chair over another use head let's just say it was cited for battery


forever told the students they were going to be an elite group when they finished the program you'll be leaders in your community he said one of the side benefits of the program is that the two officers become familiar faces


we couldn't concentrate we receive patients from outside who are to bring the patients from inside when we came we found this body already dead and two other ladies with very serious injuries were transferred them to tripoli immediately


which will be analyzed at a board meeting set for march third while the board is in the early stage of evaluating budget cuts one major in particularly was time sensitive to trustees choose to lay off teachers they are legally required to send out notices by mid


could be ratified later this week or this year on once did the un said it had received twenty nine the twenty ninth and thirty signatories from the book keening faso and moldavia cluster bombs are packed with violence that spread out over


of health among financial companies and on monday those signs seemed further away than ever reach is so vast that the government warns letting it fail would cripple the


gaza is coming under threat from a new congressional major in the united states a congress members have co sponsored house congressional resolution twenty nine which threatens to pull funding for the united nations relief workers agency


the marijuana trade interviews conducted by the search at a press with law enforcement officials across the country show that mexican gangs are a lot of play responsible for a spike in large scale marijuana farms over the last several years local and state and


crops closer to local markets distribute it also becomes less west risky once marijuana is harvested and drive on the hidden farms drug gangs can drive it to major cities where it's just riveted to street dealers so long with pot that was grown in


to a foreign country will protect tax cheats from the department of justice well i rest is sort of illegal but we won't get into that event a county supervisor today accepted concessions were three hundred seventy four thousand


forces were responsible for nearly forty percent of the deaths killing eight hundred twenty eight people out of a reported twenty one hundred casualties president obama meanwhile is set to unveil his fifty billion dollars foreclosure prevention plan later today


half million dollars million jobs over the next two years including sixty thousand plus here in colorado that is we're putting americans to work during the doing the work that america needs done in critical


sentence smith and smith comply figaro was ordered to have no contact with the victim if you supported him he reenters the country he must port to a probation smith also agreed to read to consider reducing the felony charge to


emerald island was hit by a coal barge on the st lawrence river and sunk killing six hundred people house and family moved to long beach california where he spent many years working forty working forty one of


vibrant broad street b and b until it was converted to a private residence in two thousand and four owners allowed the business permits to lapse and the house went into foreclosure in two thousand and nine one thousand nine hundred for a city ordinance allows being bees in residential areas while a


said neither i'm an independent and have been for the last eight years what does past twelve months been like difficult but exciting new spinning credible to find millions of people who feel and think like i do about the country and the proper role of government


and the reason why it stays in there is because there's very little oxygen in the water but once that water discharges along the shoreline oxygen becomes available and the iron falls on the solution and so you'll see these iron seeps you can also see that


depend across the current of the length of the system so yes they do


directed to stealing credit card numbers the person was founded no longer be living at that address and i want to four p m a call from thirteen thousand block of north bloomfield graniteville reported the foster child took two thousand dollars worth of jewelry and watches and was trying to blackmail the


encounter with riot on sunday night my wife and i drove through the b and c parking lot so almost man holding a sign that said help burns wrote an email to the union we parked next to the roll down the window and introduced ourselves and asked how we


nearly thirteen billion to goldman sachs and tens of billions more to other perms including bank of america merrill lynch j p morgan chase morgan stanley and several foreign banks on thursday twenty six house democrats signed a letter by congress member larger cummings asking the


newly disclosed figures show wastewater products produced from natural gas drilling practice of hydro fracking has contained radioactivity and other contaminants at levels far exceeding federal limits according to the new york times internal government


receive an extra five percent on their base salary the fiscal impact would be between four and five thousand dollars