a third letter from iraq for the first time they use some language they don't use it just like trying to strike that uses of the words he can't be a guy's so now we're talking about four years after he entered into the contract


and so it's it's notable to that opposing counsel in both his opening brief and his reply brief does not ask this court to review the three coconspirators statements under plane air review in other


erroneous they admitted under the coconspirator rule all that must be shown by the prosecution is that there was a conspiracy that the statements were made during the course of the


there was no evidence brought in on it there was no pretrial motion and basically what the state was trying to do is get him to admit to something so they could charge him with something this is not a situation like that this is not a sit an ambush by the state this is a defendant


i want to answer to that if if our g hadn't testified we absolutely have to fend it would have testified to a consent defense with b p we could have put our geonim or our bottle case which happens all the


do that association and that's when it becomes most clear that you can look at claim twenty and see that the data does not line up using the one point three multiplier but you still got moloney


and dr yeomans never rebuts that he never says anything different he never says well if you used enough modoc pump instead of this polymer matrix i would expect it to act the same they never make that showing so i think i think the board showing it's a reasonable


that mr millington had any motive or that anybody else had any motive to retaliate the other types of evidence you know what did the agency act towards petitioner in a


file the form i think sometimes a form can be filed after the fact depending on the circumstances there is discretion there but basically petitioner and the agency entered into this flex a place agreement so he could work at home while he


specification would be impossible his is there anything in this record that sheds any light on whether this impossible performance especially cation has been waived or


because everything had been addressed the barman and there were various problems with the parts the reason this portion is still outstanding is due to the nature of these contracts and what they're for their for humvees and the various


seems to me that you're saying well they've got a point no you are they do have the arena to contend that is presently is the southern district of ohio with their contesting but that's the department right which is the basis of this assertion


extends beyond simply governmental relations in government employment and it's typical employment case what would happen is it employer would generally prepare him pitted from disclosing informations in the form of a reference without the permission approval of the individual


following statement had mr armstrong been advised that there were any contacts between the agency and the department of agriculture other than those disclosed by miss cresswell he would have certainly sought to


random figure that they decided to put in i mean i'm trying to figure out that they seem to say you're entitled to the regular cat meds and all of the evidence of sales that you produced in two thousand and seven which i looked at showed you know the


appropriate evidence we submit that this was appropriate evidence it must be accepted as ordinary necessary unless a person readable prudence would see it as a luxury and extravagance repairing your car so you can get to work is not a luxury or extravagance there


check out so why isn't the board yes the question is does the board have anything to corroborate at that point the board in this case previously


he didn't have any expertise that means we're not going to consider ones that it's not that we're going to put it in the mix and that's why i think we're struggling with that what that something is the sentence has to be read in the context of the entire


answer i wouldn't want to concede that it was inventive to be able to combine these sorts of filtering and communicative systems with what was a brick and mortar system we think that was obvious but yes your honor that is the motivation everyone was doing it that more so


not lifting directly into what are the the rigid members there is the steel interface between them but i think what is that's not going to make any difference as for the complaint structure at all as it is going to have the same there the fact that there's a deal


as this court found it for example in old stone applying section three fifty one of the restatement of contracts the loss that actually occurred must be foreseeable here the notion that the bridge would require


this court and so that if we'd had this additional capital we would have lurched into some bucket of investments like the type we already have but what i don't believe any of those cases said here is the asset that we own that we would have continued


to someone of ordinary skill we are he said i have a real time example that an examiner he looked at this and said there is no disclosure of that so the purpose is that we did was you know i wasn't playing


possibly be president to the contrary well i think that i can't i can't substitute it's different argument for a different rationale for no one that worries the border found found that it was


on a summary judgment record at the district court and fundamentally the error that we propose is that this court should have conducted a trial on the question of off the ems declaratory judgment counterclaim seeking a declaration


passed therefore at that time the only limitations period that could have governed the filing of an action was twenty eight u s c section twenty four over a twenty plus years then pass and this court


digitally let me try to to two kinds of responses that one is to say that i don't think that even though that we're talking about statutory liability here that that renders the common law irrelevant because the statute surely refers to


liable for indirect infringement indirect infringement is not part of this appeal it's soley about how are the actions of providers and patients should they be combined and let's not forget here that the facts on the record here undisputed that this is an optional


attempted to do that in the court denied that request the court further found that there was no invalid counter claim with respect to the title claims in the case so there was never an assertion of a mistake of some kind there was


or anything else i think that's probably right yes and the difficulty i'm having with your position on enablement is that everything that judge fighting did here seems highly fact specific and there are factual findings arguably


but when they describe it in current terms in the present tense in the i d s then aren't they being selective in leaving out the most pertinent then which is the billing integration well i didn't understand the district judge


cover and not go into what judge ward specifically found to be the crux of the inventive concept of the patent with the hindsight knowledge of what this patent was about that then knowing that it


brochure and everything else is on the front is disclosed but not this crux issue what explanation could you give for that what credible plausible explanation could


lot of the cases where the ins are very much at the margins here what happened was the preferred embodiment of two patents was not disclosed the material that was not disclosed was expressly claimed the material that wasn't disclosed was important


correct there's still be no final decision i'm not sure the language i'm not i'd have to look at that specific line of language but but you're right there if there was a provision because we were concerned we didn't know how long it would take to find out whether a court would


to the underlying buckland the question is is there substantial evidence in the record that's the question and i think not only is there are the things you have to question if the jury if you terminations only jury determinations the


so that's a good thing and that's absolutely not the case the statute is quite clear that there are two events that have to happen first congress is directed by the us to issue a new determination it may or may not be if it is directed


policy essentially says if you have one company that showed zero profit in the in the period of review that that financial statement is unusable if you had another company that for all of the reasons was very similar but showed one dollar of profit


review the core a different judge in the trial court remitted with respect to a different issue and i believe that ad hoc dismissed its claims concerning the knack of the use of surrogate financial statements was


was i know in the in the brief there's lots of discussion about well there are all kinds of genuine issues to material that what if people indeed there are no genuine issues have been


same token any protrusion whether it's a spike a peg a keel rod whatever certainly can be slid into a group of some sort but there are all manner of grooves that will


clearly a reasonable defense and we have to set aside the


two against private individuals and if it did say that it i think the judge would be right but i don't believe it does say that it says that an attorney induced through mrs


professors have asked can we set up we will do the work within the university laboratories but will would like to have the pattern the signing of the university of share it's difficult for me to understand


relevant facts relate to what the university policy provides and the university is stating its own interest in the patent the professors being employed and required by their employment to do scientific and creative


ramifications in the invalidity portion of this case it is a significant claim it's difference in the claim scope you're saying that isolated in this context means something very different from derived it does yes it could


respect to the appendix yes later time but the so to make sure we know what we're dealing with here is that document one of the documents that woods was


court's predecessor in the pack decision that's forty one court of claims more fourteen in one thousand know six expressly recognize that this is the change to the statute was to remedy the problem that had resulted from


dual composition issue that you are free to or at least address my understanding is that the time in attendance is


data not in the control of us which the company cannot see the attorneys cannot see until after it's been submitted you are using data from a totally unrelated supplier to calculate the information in the calculations


agreement for that trip the district court lost sight of that question when it focused its entire analysis on whether the arbitrator considered the phrase in the employ of the employer that language defines the bargaining unit but


court held in to ok of that the risk of real harm and satisfy the requirements of concrete most that why don't you say this is a spokeo case well i thought you said that there's an injury


well then why is that a spokeo case i'm just well only in the sense that spokeo articulate the general article three standards to be applied in every case we're not saying that he said a minute ago it's a spokeo case because there wasn't a cause of


blair sent to mr terry supervisor the warden there is a number of instances and it sounds like about half well yeah i think that's i think that's probably fair about half and


it maybe this case needs to start over and i'm wondering if you could if you could talk to me about that and i'll have a conversation with opposing counsel about it as well yes your honor and the pereira the prayer is she was not relevant necessarily on the motion to


render the rest of the action in error well i think the bower's case addresses that directly where you had a situation where there was a disqualification of the law firm and the district court went ahead and granted a summary judgment


matter of fact into the second day so she was well aware of the facts of this it was just a simple this statement on her part we assume that that even if she intended only to count the


yours yes i mean i guess my problem is this really all that probable cause requires is that there's a belief that there's contraband or something illegal in a particular place and you have that here i mean


particular affidavit that affidavit is making assumptions that actually never occurred at law for some actually followed the affidavit had done what i was told specter farmer represented to the judge was going to happen then we would be dealing with the issue that


the testimony of blank of the and when you were mere is just for the sake of clarity because i did proffer to the court this information and not until the time of appeal that i actually have a physical transcript with which to work so i did provide that out of


novo review it would actually be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and with respect to the evidence at trial these were hotly contested issues at the trial of this case for a couple of different reasons number one the jury actually acquitted mr


create any reasonable doubt as to the existence of a connection between the defendants conduct an iris proceeding we also cite never even instance where mr breckon submitted to the i r s auditor a false letter under the signature of greg sommer hoffa indicating that


testimony the jury on the special verdict form check to one box check one one of the twelve options and that was involving the alleged delivery of a day planner that mr horsman himself admitted under cross


fraudulent activity can you give me just just briefly what's the nature of when you say fraudulent billing which you mean that there was evidence of that your honor that we learned about in the case but it wasn't part of the record presented to the trial court but i will tell the court


officer know it is relevant what he believes is unusual so along with all of the peculiarities up to that point now we have a gentleman who in detective clark's experience would normally not be leaving


flag this issue a few years ago but didn't decide it that was the front your own case you know we said that so it had been decided but i think it has what i might be wrong ok yeah and we just found other unpublished things that we didn't think were appropriate to cite


entertain that that thought because if it was that he still had to make a record and present evidence they had the opportunity to cross examine judge erickson extensively and i can tell you very capable consulate sitting at that other table and they did have an


whether that is reasonable compensation for putting the money up or if instead it in fact is compensation given to them as creditors and which they're not sharing equally and to


creditors and to emerge from bankruptcy with want to have billion dollars in new equity investments as well as a nearly two but two billion dollars in exit debt financing the terms of the plan that the ad hoc committee challenges achieved all of this in a necessarily limited


in the brief the bright case where i believe the middle district of florida said we're not going to accept we have co equal jurisdiction with you can't order us to be sent somebody and so we're not going to do that and in that case it would fall back to the twenty to forty one


it can be implicit you heard our discussion yes your honor i think moreover i think that the there's actually more than implicit here because not only did the district court the way this played out detective seem to came up he gave


cartels and the court's opinion bears out in one thousand nine hundred one he was dealing upwards of one hundred kilograms of cocaine a month over a five year period and he was also in the district court specifically noted his employment and corruption of young


eighty at the beginning some of the coconspirators that i'm not dealing with them at all they had various different responses but it was deemed to be parallel conduct when they all terminated if you look below in the district court where in the precision our x case and the and the h m


d please the court my name is jordan tinsley i represent to the appellant the wayne jones mr jones comes before this court arguing that the lower court erred by denying his motion to suppress in this matter the principle


maintain their composure where they exercise restraint we don't ask them to go into those situations and act a fool and do things willy nilly i mean it's not asking too much and it's not second guessing these officers to


resource network t r in a mist mahler was employed as both vice president and then promoted to regional vice president of the apple e community title working in the sioux city iowa geographic area we're here today because miss


upon having it female in that position and they asked him they said did the fact that she was female impact your decision and ultimately the answer was yes so here we have an admission


something they did nothing any decision by your honour's that if it has a price that's all i need to do you're just saying that every fiduciary should just turn into a filing cabinet and that's not the law thank


of the case for me is oh let's assume they can they can plead failure to monitor and it's an imprudent investment and so on so


invest in you know u s stocks or you know low risk you know very low risk stable asset value type things and then they went and invested in you know the mutual fund that started investing in russian timber futures or something like that and they


prior to finally age and set action again unprecedented not under the a p a again and president except for that little bit of pendant jurisdiction language in that line house case and also by the way based on a


exists to justify the probable cause for the vehicle pullover statute issue names a number of times or situations in which somebody needs to stop when there's a when there's a stop sign


to dorsey in witney which is controlling and the but for test produces a result which conflicts with the tribal governance of gaming


the states otherwise because that would get in the way of the steak and collecting of a large sales tax in addition to pocketing the casino profit so i'm going to read to the parts of the committee report that address this issue of taxation cited i knew we were short


the tribe the niland is a very helpful case in this respect because there are the courts said look you can impose an alcohol tax that's used the revenues used to regulate alcohol but we're not sure if this was an alcohol tax if you could impose


statute what they were referring to is just this initial threshold question of whether or not it was an assembler of the product that injured the plaintiff which is it's a question that you haven't any products liability case whatever product injured the point if you need to be talking about the manufacture of that product


put a car dealership case out of texas but i think boyce is the one that we were we were relied upon the post i think the most ruben is a is a case out of texas i think that's the right case that talks about providing all kinds of


in two point three under the disabled vehicles it says that the owner could obtain a tow of their choice he's not the owner he's not and he's not licensed to drive it so he can't


a case to make it up on appeal where we would have a decision like that because two thousand five hundred and seventeen would clearly apply to a joyriding case on just the fact that we don't have an appellate opinion on something that's not even a close call in my mind does not mean


know in another state or in a different county something like that that would not apply to the restoration the restoration is an affirmative step to bring it back into the possession of the owner the act required is disposal and


deprive use because they're just going to ride around town for an hour or two and then abandon the car but they're also intending to return it to the owner would that qualify first i would say he hasn't again cited a case for


standing and limited he him to mr walker said in jury work there's no basis in the record for predicting whether the l j would have credited this statement had he considered it now i don't know whether he ignored it or whether he does


national union didn't have the burden of showing ten percent was reasonable or unreasonable it was the appellant who had the burden of doing that and so in that sense opponents are trying to shift that burden when you know otherwise the court found that the reasoning


represent himself he was having difficulties with his attorneys i understand the judge's frustration with mr williams however of the the court's reason for denying him the ability to defend him so was was simply not accurate he was


didn't have the right to do once greenlee fails it terminates by its own misconduct the sub contract between itself and their national electorate you didn't pay him for their work you weren't managing it you left the job they left the job which is


good morning your honor smith please the court deputy attorney general christopher beasley on behalf of the respondent with respect to the availability of these witnesses bell in boulder the court of appeal actually ruled


well the lawyer was this is the lawyer was the employer's agent told him use not play trickle and there's nothing in the record out from the board meeting whether he was fired for cause or not and i understand that you're on is saying yes


compensation and i agree with my opposing counsel description of what the deferred compensation was but by a matter of ordinary usage and then also as a matter just of the contractual taxed salary as distinguished from deferred compensation only


deferred compensation that he was owed under the contract so our point is that the statute doesn't really take a factor because they haven't gone over the cap that they had gone over the calf then we'd have to reduce it down to where the captives


in the context of homestead exemption claims so i think it's clear california does so that as a matter of substantive law california does allow it will stop all the stand as a defense and what concerned


in two thousand and five and i would say that this whole issue what we're really talking about and i hate to go back with what you've already said but it seems to me that i got a panel of this court has already


she was hurt and her her family was targeted by the year that she's talking about why did the utica target you so it does it is an alternative holding but i do agree that i mean it's confusing let me ask you another question so every now


is at supplemental excerpts of record twenty three as well as pages sixty two sixty three and seventy seven of opponents excerpts of record that it was his unilateral decision to determine how much money he would personally put into g


as you well know the street court has taken i think virtually all of the courts of appeal to task or looking at these actions of too high a level of generality they're saying and the officers


dreadful happens for an officer to act i don't think that a civilian would have to do that i don't think in this case it was on his knees surrounded by officers if i understand it correctly they had been


fed on exactly what you've pled but i think the biggest problems are what would are moody and mom's on tell me and what would three k of the wage order nine how would that deal with that sure your


about that that policy factors evaluated in these affiliate cases by looking at the expectation of upside in the corporate affiliate where the stock is and if you have equity then of course you're looking at the upside of having equity versus having a clay


unto itself should not support the adverse credibility finding and there was other evidence to support you know his his his testimony as well he did submit like this the fine or the bail receipt piece admitted to the fact that he was expelled from


and the bankruptcy court with then have to determine there's no no facts it could determine because that reminded hearing would just be if we look at the declaration


a kid's shape on the other side and an extended his shape at the head so they used for brackets or kiss shapes in those four brackets you can see the buddha when i look at


moroccan style teardrop shape bearing on the google image sure search you're going to find thousands and thousands of wildly different expressions of that idea not of a tear of the teardrop itself absolutely


we would know that there were other central american immigrants or migrants at the hotel i don't know that that was developed in that record what the testimony was was that they


torture that's found at the regulations and in this court's decision in qana beholder no nothing in the record here compels a contrary result on the issue of past torture it's so could the agency have looked at this record and found there was a likelihood


apparently related to his activities but he traveled on his own passport a lot was allowed out of the country so he would travel seem to travel freely and in china there's some question as to whether he was really whether


back the i j a you know we have to sort of surmise that she was on notice of that and i think at the time the briefs are written and ran would


come to deep work yes they do they do take them and as we know if you would the judge you could take judicial notice of the fact that the wife of the chinese democracy party leader was recently


orders or are we need picking the record i honestly think if you look at comparing that to the record it's a very interesting question but the judge actually starts his credibility terminations on lack of cooperation


and testimony you know saying that he was for that he was a literate meanwhile and then was holding up a book that was that had english handwriting on it he said that his father had written written on it he tied he was wearing an affluent clothes


this is what ren requires and so that is sort of the most recent case law that directly governs right but we still get back to the question and i think you want to make sure you can do your best answer to it


given an opportunity after the judge resolved that those issues that would be proper notice and that's the real case in your advanced notice so if those issues are raised he should be least given an opportunity to get those documents and the same thing with the church witness


you your honor i believe that if we went back and actually had a trier of fact look at the issue of whether a contract was formed we would be getting into other issues such as ratification which is something


yes a warning that this heater should not have been used while sleeping that also would have prevented the accident that would have been a also an adequate warning but i guess the trouble i'm having is that you used to you keep talking about in retrospect but before the


yes or no matter what the c p s he said as a matter of law as long as they had though that tag on the cord and the label there could be never liability for the scenario here period in this case that is correct


set of guidelines or policies that jails decided to create this is mandated by state law and therefore does not fall within the exception of section six six nine


cannot be the basis for a negligence perceval instruction additionally as we pointed out to the court under evidence code section six six nine plaintiffs have the burden to prove


or their testimony that they were tell us a good thing you left don't come back they're going to kill you and repeated attempts culminating in shooting at their


it was just the general country condition evidence and this court has held that evidence with a motion to reopen has to have individual eyes relevancy to the case for asylum and how it was that the evidence for the regard to the sonne in law doesn't have individual relevancy it might


big jump it will he's a look at a lawyer there remember he's represented by a lawyer we're not attacking the conviction you're on a word tacking the fact that in the minute order there's a annotation that says he will be in jail for ten days or for whatever time it


the record of conviction surrounding the petition is february two thousand hartcher provides insight and background two to his voluntary departure do not


accept voluntary departure and also as the other judge indicated that the final authority for this would be somebody in immigration proceedings integration judge or an ice officer and not a state court just to make the court should be clear on


whether i mean if somebody actually came in and said when i went to police academy they tell me no matter what's in a piece of paper don't put in you know i mean you sense a bad idea to put in small amounts of time or if that was they were they


i'll reserve the rest of my time ok thank you


simple direct question if there is one aspect of the record here i gaze decision up hill by the the just really demonstrates this guy is not credible what would it be my impersonally first impression was that he


that decision are you talking about the interlocutory order yes it said for a long period of time and it put some other factual circumstances into it it didn't say you can't change somebody under those circumstances you just mentioned well your honor it at the


that's in all of the cases that has been have been cited in in the in the briefs the only case the only difference is a dissent and that dissent is the one that the plaintiffs rely on heavily but it is a dissent it is one dissent and we have


one has to speak right you just have to get in a line that's right although i also think that the record doesn't say that all the people who are citizens got into line and all the people who are not citizens are not lawfully present didn't and it doesn't say that you


something that the agency has pointed out as as a factor in this case and the record supports that the notion of relocation it seems to me may be infected


medical records that the social security department had with regard to a mr cruise barkha and not one of those records is in the administrative record so they didn't have they knew of these records existed


that adopted or affirmed that i understand i guess i'm just trying to determine whether or not this is this is an exercise in futility if we send it back and it's likely to end up in the same place well i don't i don't think we can speculate as to what's likely if it goes


doctor at the clinic and that there were other people who assisted her who were male i mean so that the with the question is you know you've been to a lot of doctors offices that the question is who treated you it could be


of tattoo shops they they're only allowed in a very small percentage of the commercial districts in long beach they have to be a thousand feet from each other they have to be a thousand feet from fortune telling the stablish mints and they have to be a thousand feet from


denied this court its proper appellate jurisdiction can i ask you a question i'm very concerned about a terrorist action here and i have two questions one of if i'm reading your brace correctly you're characterizing the appeal


police video because people might be upset by it that people might write in the streets is that they will therefore commit violence is not supported by any evidence in the record and with respect to the over the knowledge that this court has as counsel has but there


section forty nine just doesn't apply in which case the only thing this court would have to look at is section five forty four well i don't know whether i can write five forty nine out and i don't


with all due respect to mr shoulder who is a friend of mine i believe made an error in discussing section one thousand of the california civil code this is a race notice jurisdiction the one who records first is the winner


with a shift in the mental health mental state nothing action but the mental state that deals with what the law can you know what if any of the cases you're talking about deal with that kind of a change in law


transporting officials failure to communicate to the jail personnel that that khan had you know wrapped the seatbelt around her neck during the transportation i didn't read it the way you're reading it and perhaps i'm i


bush residence there i had a co operative apartment in lower manhattan until two zero zero nine from about nine hundred seventy eight


just i want to take of these two things and then make it the same way otherwise and then it was made that way so to list government on its own may arguably not be strikingly similar but after seeing wesley resign there was exactly the same and then that


under rule twelve b six it certainly wasn't amenable to judicial notice so how else do you get there and those documents which didn't even exist until may of two thousand and fifteen certainly weren't attached to the counter claim so if


i believe it was one of the first and it's certainly one of the first cases where the district court having expressed grave concerns about manufactured federal jurisdiction and then later went on to determine


seeing how that has to do with the collection or assessment of a tax as distinct from trying to keep the process from being fraudulent which is somewhat of a different now


it says that he clicked on the coupon and what he saw was a direction to enter his email address not the terms and conditions of a coupon offer and it says he entered his email address on the roman page so that he could receive the coupon


because the court specifically indicated that it did not intend to take judicial notice of these and yet it relied upon them and the court also indicated that they were are subject to reasonable questions


and maybe wasn't prejudice was prejudicial correct prejudice and that is a key point here your honor is that the state court made this ruling on the i a c claimed strictly on prejudice grounds so this court actually can review the deficient performance problem


good morning paul more with david's column both on behalf of intervener appellee unite here local eleven i'll be using ten minutes of our fifteen minutes time and i'd like to reserve two minutes of that using ten minutes in cities time our collective


rationale for the opt out other then other than favoring union organization has legislatures have reasonably concluded that in unionized settings workers are able through their collective bargaining representative to negotiate packages of


prevailing wage that is that is that mr rection by the union i must say in bragdon there was a state a county ordinance that told private sector employers that


all it seems to me that's sufficient for article three standing under the case law is it not well it may well be given that i have to accept her allegations as true for article three standing well i'm not going to stand here


that one there was deficient performance and two there was prejudice and dr stewart's declaration doesn't come anywhere close to that one he opined that the cause of death was overdose of amphetamines even though everybody agrees that to this day there's


of beer it's a margarita flavored beer and i just get a headache thinking about it so let's just focus on but it says bud light line and his bud light lime and ingredient to bud light lima rita is it it's a


work the shift and in paragraph forty six of the complaint they say that employees called to determine if he or she needs to report to work for the hours encompassed by the call and shift


one doesn't even have to one can simply say you are applying the federal law and the federal law is someone that


that eight potentially covers express warranties under the u c c or other than song beverly then why doesn't see apply what i've tried to explain and i'd like to get to that again is under the


officer now knows that it's not the hospital they care centers here mattress the person who's called and doesn't have any ownership interest they are not a party to the cut to the lease and these guys have a piece of paper that percent says that they have some


amendment on remand because there are allegations that are no longer viable in light of the plea but none of those allegations are necessary to the claims that mr bloomberg now pursues procedural the process quite so it will say that there were


second floor it was locked off it had two operating rooms it had a recovery room it had a what was when you say it had a recovery room what was in the recovery room that's


for the fact that i'm an outspoken advocate of affirmative action and there's some evidence that at least the process began for that reason so why isn't that enough to get into a jury well in this case any arguments that effect has been


alleged that the punishment doesn't match the crime you know what he's alleged that he was only punished because of retaliatory animists correct that's that's his


sure your honor it was it was somehow related and i and i apologize i can't direct you to that specific facts but the it was related in some way to administration and there is an allegation at least in this case for purposes of summary judgment


to his account on which his wife was also the ethic natori yes it's well it's i would submit to the court that while income and more extra says legal title strongly


so when you consider that consider that they were acting in good faith receiving this money providing value and that there was a two step transaction here it wasn't like video which was just a cashier's check it


from all future benefits do that participant in anyone claiming under the participant basically a dependent it is the only way that the plan can maintain its financial integrity and there is nothing that violates it this


circumstances and those circumstances are that you agreed to or in person and if you don't it's considered an overpayment and then the plans over cross referenced overpayment procedures kick him that allows the plan which would have no other opportunity let's


addressed during the due process hearing it was not even river rose on appeal and in fact in students reply brief in this appeal she acknowledges the fact that that was not raised here was my concern about that it


of ambivalent equivocal admissions that were made in the statements it's entirely reasonable conclusion to say that the statements didn't influence or warhammer harmless beyond a reasonable doubt thank


allow the lawyers to put on the record things that should have been argued before the jury did you at that point so your honor we want to make clear for the record that you've requested one do you or you denied it we think that this person cannot be allowed to testify


grief he was genuinely feeling powerful grief and what the trial judge did here is exactly the same thing the trial judge did a disappointed in reedy which was imposed a value judgement on how a person should react to a


a common fund and defendants paid the fee separately the district court took the lodestar approach but a lodestar still has to be adjusted up or down depending on a host of reasonable this factors like the benefits actually obtain for the class


restrict it to the loans and practices within the two year time frame they didn't show with respect to prior practices absolutely zero you're not just saying that it was


hypothetically in general that if a lending institution in gauges in practices that create a high rate of foreclosure and a lot of houses become


to where we would have been had you been able to comply with your plan thank you we're doing that because you had it coming from the burbank airport and you should think you should have taken an earlier flight


offense itself was not one of child molestation or sex offense because the child that would be different that would be the type of predicate legal question for example that the circuit was trying to get at why wouldn't we have jurisdiction over


with a first amended complaint that in the district court's own words was virtually identical to the original complaint and in fact it had no other allegations other than instead of just


language that went on to define what it automatic telephone dialing system is and i'm paraphrasing here but a system that has the capacity to store produced numbers randomly or sequentially which again is merely a statement of what


type of proceeding you invision younger for and stanch and that's precisely the argument we made in the district court it was incumbent upon judge doty to analyze the case to determine whether it was the type of judicial proceeding that qualified


one hundred eighty three the supreme court's decision in cell or the supreme court discussions discusses the relation between a harper based motivation for involuntary medication versus a cell based motivation they are different things but the


that case about possession of a firearm also a knife hunting knife here he's found with a firearm again a handgun and a large knife about seventeen or fifteen years later thirteen and fifteen years later to use


backgrounds like this and other backgrounds most of those people are found competent especially especially about half of those people are going off to buettner springfield and starting to take medication or paan recommendations


have the benefit of that opinion so so what is your view on how if any the district court erred without having the benefit of the freelander case so


would be that the only thing the prosecutor would be laying out for the juror there was a threat what was the threat to a person or piece of property but it was any one thing if you had that very odd case in which more than one of the subsections may


primarily about the missouri supreme court hendrick's decision but i want to put it in in context the missouri court of appeals in first hendrix case said the question before us is whether you acknowledge the novelty


wallace will hear from you in rebuttal may please the court just because mr stanton can perform a couple of the requirements of reason a level three doesn't mean there is no conflict the


and it has nothing to do with the specifics of the wire product even closing in on the investment money would like to reserve the last couple of minutes


american into one and the panel awarded one so it it doesn't make it nonsensical because there are these kind of layers and what happens is is


her for persistent neck and back pain with steroids injections he was also pushed driving strong narcotic medications all within the purview of his of the treaty mohd allergies that a primary care


talk about you know you've got to tie forbearance to some timeframe if it's an unlimited forbearance and it's not tied or limited in any respect it doesn't become a release at that point doesn't it's the functional equivalent of


claims about what the facts were but the evidence in this case showed that the facts were indeed straightforward and uncontroverted in relevant part this is a case about a tax but this could you quickly address because the one i think the main point


seems that the precedents determining what reasonable cause is or create a pretty strong standard for reasonable cause of that seems to belie the simplicity of the language so if you would explain to us why under the controlling


books his is representational be that the books the book show that taxes were paid it was argued to the district court that that was that was a basis for reasonable grounds and he put that fails under thirty


well you have your eye cleaning negligence and that no no your honor that you can't the supreme court has said you can't just make conclusions of fact and conclusions of law and state the missed fact you can't just say someone is guilty of negligence


defendant's motion for a new trial was any of the statements made in cross examination brought up for a reason for a new trial of package the same way on how is it unique so i mean with so


as close to the settlement agreement as possible what did the parties actually believe the department would direct the court to the district court in july two thousand and twelve ordered the first i believe the first order to speak to this question of the jurisdiction


before us or is that beyond the scope of this appeal so let me acknowledge first of all that the district court denied the cross motions as moot so this court could absolutely reverse and remand from the district court's consideration of those motions it could absolutely do that


do and in both of their claims revolving on is totally disregarding what occurred in administrative process this was this part of this dispute was brought before the determinations review board which made a


the state court trial court gets to start over as if the initial proceeding never happened what do you make of that statute is not relevant here i think that it is a different situation than we have here the situation we have


that after the october sixth meeting he had a conversation with a d c employee who is not a party to the action that on october fourteenth he made some complaints to security members who were not party to this action he alleged on the


two years of being released some from in prison on a prior conviction so it's i would call it an inadvertent error that nobody caught just because so much time had passed and they were so focused on the johnson argument


to affirm the district court's decision it needs to go one step further than what the f c c has said it actually needs to decide on these facts not across the world not forever but on these facts at this time what is the whether this is a


process and one party is participate in that and get a final binding award there are only certain avenues by which we want to open up the courts to a flood of post award but again questioning the result that was reached


we made payments for any reason did we unequivocally say we were not bound by this agreement yes we did and if you look at the certification letters you want to speak to those the certification letters are the testimony is should be read of there were


position judge our position throughout this legend this litigation has been if someone is spending money to influence legislation they can be fairly captured as a lobbyist and the state here is conceded that mr kells own doesn't do anything like that well i thought a lot of your argument was about whether


interest that satisfies exactly scrutiny and overcomes that nature of an interest in anonymous speech from mcintire in those cases that's true but doesn't don't the disclosure precedence just run to exchanges of money at least the ones that the


legislative lobbying law about being selected by someone to lobby for them and we've explained why we read the statute differently but they have not attempted to enforce on the other basis they just finally we think the burdens here are indistinguishable from swanson and thank


cases i do not believe so your honor


had sketchy details on the details were not they did not tell the attorneys in my recollection that i saw her drinking while she was three months pregnant they said that she was drinking around the time and that's what was the case here with this memo that around the time of pregnancy


as i have a few minutes left but if if there are no further questions then i'll just close by emphasizing that wasn't argument when you boil that when you boil it down is that the judge should have decided things differently should have credited different


price controls for transport throughout the country so if the competitors in this case had wished to reimpose price controls the burden was really on them to raise that now there i now want to turn not just to


to take the to cut the photocopies of the two checks they have the same information that a enterprise bank statement would have an account holder statement that would require them saying ok one an enterprise account holder statement can now


determination that she has made if the purpose of sentencing is to ensure that the judge to impose a sentence has the most information available why on earth would the case be


strategically there's about twenty one of them at this particular workplace and they're strategically located on shifts they have shift work and things like that so there may be one or two at the side at any given time now


because and she also had an understanding that drug deals would be the type of thing high traffic area to and from the house would indicate potential drug activity she knew that brief visits would indicate potential drug


don't if you follow blasi you follow chambers and you follow ehlers and others that cases that we've cited the extent of the injury is is is not determinative thank you


grip on your right wrist area i believe it was yanked out of his hand it was yanked out of his hand by one action officer stores twisting and pulling up further behind my back and slamming me on to the steps


my reply a sentencing brief filed before sentencing i indicated that there would be a third party restitution to another county and that full amount there was never any objection to that nor was there ever a request for restitution hearing


competition and what extent it lowers the cost we don't known because anyway well there were a columnist in that case and there was discussion about exactly what the impact is of that cost the court ultimately said that that's not appropriate analysis under the idea


made light of the fact or pointed out the fact that there were two sections of the court's ruling one finding of fact in conclusions of law and that some of the facts were interspersed with the court said it was going to do that on page three of the decision does it


and nothing that that was just really doesn't make any difference what was fired at the trial court is what was provided to american family right i mean if there's something up there that that should have put american family on notice but for some reason it wasn't sent to you that's not your fault


that was conducted that showed that he had scarring tissue and he had a compressed portion of his brain the result of which after looking at his medical records show that he had a history of seizures and as for


are several types of masks and the oklahoma report talks about the very real dangers in using a mask you know the oklahoma report talks about how one to two breaths might be enough but that's pure


there was the government's not happy with that inquiry unfortunately i was there and didn't speak up at the time i was pretty new but we should be that as it may we're not happy with that now the question more importantly though is was that


it's also important to note that it's not just simply false statements that trigger disparagement has to be false statements about apollos product it has to be that you know something false about the product just because western made false statement


the package was going to go after it left louisville and that's it you are seventy one and seventy eight he said he couldn't speak for you piastres because he did not know how they load their planes and that's it you are seventy six


instruction on thirteen twenty six now includes a paragraph that there has to be official string when there is evidence and here he appellant is seen crossing into the united states seems it's not been one hundred


approach all the government needs to do is to submit adequate documentation which really is not that burden some of something quite agree that's correct thank


this one i believe that's important because in this case the trustee filed the preference action to recover the twenty thousand dollars that was paid within ninety days of


type of widespread practice evidence that the defendant cited its absence of its absence that justified granting summary judgment did you get copies of the department's policies on internal investigations or did you have the


tracking system yes or their access to force tracking system so the district court said fine in lieu of going back through every arrest report for five years by one hundred twenty officers start with the tort claims and you didn't do that we asked for give us


wealthy and sophisticated in certain things or certainly not in the construction sense i think that's probably self evident by anybody who builds a house on a cost plus basis it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense but that's what happened in this case and the arbitrator did find


we'll wait till after the hearing on the motion to dismiss they had a motion to dismiss and there was no result the judge held his ruling in advance and you have to track and my point here is that the record


you know expert testimony or something to that effect in the record well that if you just your statement we know that this is the case but when i said we know it's the case i'm talking about we the people in the courtroom were heard the evidence in this case


found that he knew the person was in the car and he intensely failed to present him for inspection then there's no way he could have been funky algy of the misdemeanor and not the and not be found notes in situations like that for behooves


enter ground and that is why the disclosure to the entire marketplace is dispositive not just for the twelve b six route but for the nine be ground and that is because it simply makes no sense to


motion to dismiss under the heightened pleading standards of the p s l r a the plaintiff's complaint must specify and it goes on then we have the passage that we just heard read at the court and then this court went on to say thus in order to survive a motion to dismiss under the


sentence in the application note that says if you follow the multi factor test and it leads to consolidation well the judge thinks that that under represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history in the danger of presents to the public and


the question of what the california supreme court has stated is really not the issue rather it's whether the united states supreme court has has set a certain standard it is true that the state courts have required a certain showing in the california


that she believed he was going to commit perjury and that the trial court understood that the reason she was not questioning him was for this reason granted she did not laying a firm factual basis is some courts are required to show why she


a notification suddenly the issue we're able to to demand when when he gets the money and in this particular case it ends up doing another highly unusual circumstances this is not in the record but normally in a n s a transaction when you're dealing with employees are you give them options


indicates that the district court went through a lodestar analysis at all so it didn't explicitly say that i believe that the court had no problems with the initial billing


upon his not being able to testify he was not able to testify that his declaration exists says exactly what you know that suggests what you just raised is an interesting and serious issue but it's different from ineffective assistance by caressa goes lawyer it's


that he could have been found guilty as an aider and abettor if his witnesses had held up yet officer barnhart whose testimony they had tested at the preliminary hearing the case is that that is what happened to be having evolved


supplemental excerpts of record have not there's a cleaning that was filed walking after what after the big wells had assigned their claim to katz what's being argued about here today as i understand is the proceeds from a foreclosure sale correct of


that the fact that the conduct originally controlled by her means that any any ripple effect from it is necessarily preempted i mean is that the heart of this party or that is probably certainly part of the logic


that if you try our hand on this case that you can prove title we believe in monica and the other point is this we don't have a document that says you know a bill sale but most of these cases don't have bills of sale and look at the historical circumstances why would this is not


actually first arrested first confronted in jail a week or two after this after the murder happened the relief you see remained for an additional hearing on the issue well certainly that would


matter however petitioner has the burden to prove that acquittal equitable toland is necessary or is permitted in this case there is no indication in the record whether petitioner created this extraordinary circumstance


waving a right it's a state law right but still to waive that right for it to be knowing involuntary and intelligent your slogan apply federal constitutional law as to whether or not there was a waiver of


that would be an explanation of the state of the law but to say to the court it will be one count of just one prior conviction for all purposes and then to ask if if knowing that the defendant is willing to plead guilty on that


in the complaint and i do not have that praise reference from the excerpted record here in front of me it would be located within the copy of the i have been very struck


there was a workers there was a very lengthy worker's comp proceeding yes


was that during his late duty period he spent calloused in little dishes and he never told anyone at mobile that he was doing and then only after he filed his talks toward actually did he reveal that he had


can be served as a personal mount this is something that was based on the experts personal opinion and based on his his experience that on the basis of the fact that methamphetamine is normally sold


possible that it could have been possessed for personal use i don't know if anyone asked him that question but he certainly is the testimony i recall in that which is i've read the transcript in the clothing that his final line on direct was this was definitely


but when you use our theory and instruction to that you to the jury the thinking victim a person accused it of second degree murder based on conspiracy theory i


who fires his counsel because of delusional beliefs has really made a voluntary waiver of the right to counsel and in this case we would submit that mr


criteria or option that prohibits the city from making a ruling to location place and design i don't think they're mutually exclusive at this the bottom line here i think


unusual punishment which i don't think there was there was nothing dr reed testified in his declaration that he provided psychiatric counseling to the plaintiff there was no nobody refuted that there was no claim


the problem is that the judge never said that and so we don't really know on the one hand it could very well be a tactical move on the part of the defense to keep rural people who may not be quite as empathetic to


below the government for the burden of proving don't last beyond well what the government is we're still reserving the right to say that it's just preponderance but under the law as it is now clear and convincing what


eleven million dollars that's only if you start eighteen million the paragraph that you've shown us is about lampard lampard did not have any other way of getting rid of the stock so he's happy to sell it at a dollar but lampard


then eliminate ok well for one thing mr cole is known for his letter writing is what his letter writing in other words


that in this case looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to all the figure wrote us that there's no prejudice or one thing we don't know is we don't know if the


before the school starts to act i would submit to the court that the cases say no and i think i will leave the rest of that discussion to counsel for the school unless you all would rather have me at the time well you're the ones who are enforcing the laws


maximum range of the last lethal shotgun officer wealthy testified that he believed that he had missed so they could have tried it again it was available it was there that certainly better than shooting him a times what is


conclude that there was no contract no agreement to arbitrate now if judge haas referred to the arbitrator the question of whether there was a contract that was error as it was a question for her to decide if she decided it herself


mean first ask you about what i think was called the red flag incident and that's where he left one of the patients up at the hospital when that patient needed here why why


there was a perceived disability i thought the evidence seemed fairly clear that he was terminated because he didn't comply with the referral would seem pretty reasonable there's cause for concern the


referral the standard for that has already been articulated which is an employer's entitled to send an employee for an evaluation when it is job related and business necessity in this case there could be nothing that's more job related or


whether or not you are paying employees good faith and paying employees actually believe you're paying the correct amount should be determined by the the judge and that's in the statute and the courts have reached


served as the assistant principal and part time in an alternative school for two school years and it was at the end of the second school year that he was then transferred to a certificate position


was notified that he had the right to that he was going to be transferred to the classroom he had the right to both discuss with the superintendent his concerns and also appear and did appear before the school board


will give to you the citation to those cases and provide a copy to your opponent and he will be given an opportunity to respond to those cases i'll tell you that's what you want to do do it i'll do that your honor but i


through saratoga pass and then through deception pass yes and let me does claim that area is there una and him but also if there admiralty inlet is and we're bound


the route one would get from seattle to the north if you're going to follow the argument of making a continuous route the shortest possible route sixty eight miles brings one twenty i would say that it's much more likely that they took the inside passage in


or can this evidence alone establish a una for your tribe you are we believe that the muckleshoot analysis has us looking into the intent of judge bold what did he intend and if we understand that the


say that the judge also said in his in his written or oral decision that there i don't i don't put any stake in circumstantial evidence under this circumstance because if the vis victim can't positively identify the assailant there's no possible


mansfield reported unlawful public health hazards to the unit to the us veterans affairs i r b co chair stevens burns m d and his veterans affairs public members and did so as a


leaves open fifty percent say so back up if that's not what he said he said if they're just the two of them are in the room right the allegation the door is locked is that contested the door is locked but people have access there are limited access keys to a lot of people


anneke is not an acceptable medical source and then they're going to give us more weight to a doctor who was an acceptable medical source dr gosnell that under the commissioner's social security


so decided that he was going to take the safest route that that's what i'm reading into it ok i think one of the problems is the instruction you asked for basically said if you did if if the company didn't engage in the


got to be some money advantage to the state because what set talking to say in your spain all this money let it getting at they could have just applied it to new or renewed ten year contracts the well the i think the


dealing claim and we still have the claim that what's going on here is collusion among the colleges as purchasers of services from providers like college


if the competitive system were injured output would not be increasing councilman you just want to quote from paragraph one fifty three of the complaint that's the the time allegation and this is a description


doctrine to overlay a subjective metric on these traditional object of indications price and output and we also say it is presumptuous to override and market outcomes


and of the three water factors in this case not the most compelling we do believe there is an argument that in the middle of a strike when you have the teachers on the public sidewalk surrounding these campuses


the school district put in paid a lot more money to bring in a lot more gravel so whatever gravel settlement there was it was paid for by the school district is now becomes a legal question


petty come back from the leave in terminated that day he would have qualified for the early retirement benefit so if i could just quickly address two points on the definition of retirement in the plan that's a defined term is a different term than


we read oregon law provision could be in there and i thought that this is record disregarded our mandate and didn't drive it in forces vision


understanding is that this cook was compiling this report daily and at the end of the day turned out it should should have been done monthly that's correct could compiling it monthly


fraud she did not understand who what where when all she did is she said this is concerning we can't add up the books she went she found something saying do this the wrong way on affect revenue pressing affect revenue and she believed that she could be causing the government to be mis milled and that she could be doing it


was adopted i do not recall the specific number it was a we've perhaps four hundred several hundred yes so does the record show what the wolf population was let's say by two thousand and ten


decline as well as wolf mortality and the forest service addressed both of those topics in the final yes as well as in response to comments so in the force or so your view is that


reporting this they had no reason to to judge whether it was true or not they were simply investigating because it was a report there was no but they did hear they did acknowledge that they had heard over the radio


regards his credibility so many of these cases are like this he's he's a funny guy but i believe in the in the hearing he comes through a sincere and some things he says are dramatic


of disability this alleged closed period of disability that are not consistent with his allegation that he can't open of can a pop for example in march two thousand and eleven he reported to one provider that he was shoveling snow that's


and if you look at it in the first case the cover judgment resulted as a result of the actions of the insurance and the insurance other defendants the second case this one that was in federal court was suing the current search company saying


to include that amount of pre judgment interest on that cover judgment within the definition of loss as he pointed out if celtic who purchased a policy from national


but it but he's got a house right he's got a house that he claimed an exemption on so the house can't be used under five twenty two k to pay administrative expenses because he's claimed and he's claimed a homestead on that


exam when that was found out he had enough money in the equity in his house to pay all these debtors he could have gotten those buckets of gold and silver back and gone on with his life and that was the plan


says the discretion really rests with the debtor not with anyone else involved with the case and he already expressed his discretion as just because then he says in the stipulation he also said that he didn't understand the stipulation


system it is obvious that placing prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary confinement exposes those prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm it's time to acknowledge this reality in this issue is squarely


default if we instead say there's no merits ruling that just a court decided that having decided that surely it's not the state's fault but but he'll should have an opportunity to demonstrate why he should be excused then then isn't it your position that


than nine minutes and forty seconds talking about horizontal test in the vertical test and this test and that test i think they're well briefed by everybody we briefed him they briefed him on horner then why argue for that pardon then


transfers of investment properties within two years of filing the case that of course equates to one per year there's nothing ordinary customary or usual about these transfers for many reasons but one is because of the timing of them it's like this is a monthly sort of thing for instance


that are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer occur here the practice is changing the law going to far worse home prior to foreclosure which reasonably leads them to believe they have no longer have the right to possess the property of a question


a condition of the sale that it would be free and clear of leases there was rebuttal testimony from the trustee in the case actually saying that he didn't believe that to be the case that is essentially the whole of my testimony my


articulately as maybe it should have been but that was what that's why it's there because everyone agreed that we're not deciding this lease issue today we're saving it for another day well that's what confused me because you just told me before that that issue was resolved


remulla knew that this was not going to be a one off there were going to be multiple claims against it it was never going to agree to pay all of its available insurance to one party news can be sued by the parties and sure enough it was right it got sued by other parties


sanctionable but at the point in time where they didn't do that and they had the letters and they had the motions and they had the evidence and they had all these things then they had the evidence is there your honor and they they


times and the trial court rejected our position each time with respect to our potential opposition to sportsman's motion for summary judgment the m t a itself


immigrants they ask them for thousands of dollars they get them to sign a document they don't really explain what it is they promised them a work authorization or is that a user document turned out in the record where is the evidence of that in the


the consular official and let me also take issue with something that the counsel for the petitioner said she said very i think very sharply that there's no evidence that he was admitted through fraud or there's no actually no evidence with


under the rug of the regulations implementing the convention against torture were properly denied using this court standard of review which takes fifteen seconds to do that ok well they're just to remind the court of the standard of review here is that a reasonable adjudicator would have to compel a contrary conclusion


supreme court's ruling was an reasonable because it's fact finding process wasn't reasonable it wholeheartedly deferred to the state court decision which was unreasonable for the same reason it's fact finding


judge whether the district attorney would in fact


similarly situated such a child missing some of the benefits i understand that could be i seem to think there was an election made that the son decided to go with the father too bad you're asking us to undo that to send it back to see if somehow you can reattach


smell and it wasn't a splash she pushed her and she was struck in the face and her lip split open and again the police took no action with regards to the synagogue there were multiple it wasn't just the one incident by the skinheads that there had been previous


what what separates sergeant barr from mr lambert in the washington case is that he had a great deal more information than did officer lambert in the washington case and secondly he did not


answer to the questions and i don't see it i don't really see a contradiction between an affidavit of an uncle who says that a certain individual had been there a certain period of time which doesn't


correct it's not the petitioners burden however in this case the government did rely on the volumes of evidence that the petitioner did proffer to make its own argument that country that conditions in romania have changed since the time


board then would be able to reopen for all purposes and in fact we've also asked for early man so that the the board could reconsider its findings with regard to asylum status making more considering


daniels claim is based when we had our hearing in front of the immigration court here in los angeles in two thousand and two i believe that was the question was why did mr daniels to returning to just today and as of that time


someone claiming asylum from darfur the fact that you're a resident of dar forest fleeing massive violations directed at most of the inhabitants of dark or because of their race does not turn that into a general conditions


could you want to save a little time for about my understanding is that i have twenty minutes you have twenty minutes you can use it anyway you know i was a little bit more like a couple more points than this hearing officers decision is not entitled to any difference


that the appeal is putting them on notice that we are appealing the decision or my clients appealing the decision of the i j and will provide further arguments at the briefing scott card but for the moment he


any opportunity to prepare for them well i'm i know that you i know that you're relying on site although diaz but there's a difference in the posture of the case and that's why i'm not sure


to get back into the country or the contest his treatment at that time instead of pursuing any of those legal remedies he took it upon himself to illegally enter the u s on repeated occasions finally


events that mr got to this family to that he committed were committed precisely because the government expelled him illegally having not expelled them this young man would never have been in mexico would never have attempted to


point and this really is the reason why we're here because title was in the name of the cinderella trust on october twenty eighth the bankruptcy court didn't allow us to proceed with the sale we had to then get the property title


away the key was a loan for a million three which was paid back in six weeks where is that i don't see that how about one of the loans was to him for eight hundred thousand it was paid back and it was secured by over one million dollars in real


mentioned slung yes your honor and you know order for this case to turn out in your favor we would have to refuse to follow sloan am i right no your


difficult you know when somebody asked to leave the country when the illegal alien has to leave the country i feel for them because my parents were immigrants or my grandparents were immigrants but they are illegal


quickly find it and actually as i look for that the immigration judge himself noted how ironic it was that the only evidence of a criminal conviction in the record was introduced by this


there was another basis for his motion to reopen which is pretty clear it was in his handwritten motion group and he refused to grant you that certain ground does not is not even mentioned in the v i i order well your honor it could be argued that


sixty to thirty in a streamlined order that the issue has been argued previously in the ninth circuit there and there may be other cases that for decision purposes have priority but nonetheless would like you


is not to say you don't know whether they've made a dollar for morgan stanley ten dollars twenty fifth my client was just short by three thousand what it was not considered in the plan was passed


at the entire record of the evidence that was actually presented and whether the evidence that was properly admitted was sufficient to uphold the conviction even if


disagree i mean i mean all of it together not only what exactly happened to her whether she was beaten unconsciously all of that the the the timing of it what exactly happened to all those is is critical and


negative connotation she should never have gone into a negative connotation because she's admitted she didn't know what the term meant but if you get any dictionary you know as i mentioned the d s m or this the commissioner's


honor i mean the government has no objection to placing the case back in mediation but you don't show any flexibility


persecution because as i say it's i said earlier that not only the petition is of non modern ethnicity she's a jewish descent and the persecution by the government or by people that the government cannot control


first and foremost that petitioner was entourage she never got a fair chance to tell her story from the very beginning the immigration judge asked her confusing and leading questions and when he received an answer that he thought contradicted another statement she


there was a notice to appear in the file there was a certificate of service of a certified return receipt mailing which was a week apparently a week after the notice to appear document was


before the immigration judge he was never allowed to present his claims of his adjustment of status application and his waiver because the judge unilaterally terminated proceedings without considering the evidence before what


and i think it's important that you take into you know consideration the fact that at this point everybody agrees that the marriage is bonafide u s c s itself has approved the petition and if they if she could be her burn in two thousand and six it's certainly plausible


ask why do you consider her your wife isn't the answer was because my mother and father agree that's what he said or maybe under chinese culture there's nothing wrong with that but it's interesting that he


honor because what the immigration judge is saying is that if again because the organization's activities in other areas were repugnant and that's the language used by the immigration judge that he was going i saw him as a matter of discretion because of the


in and out he did not say to the immigration judge and i can give you the transcript if you wish he did not say i'm not prepared he said and he had been in the case for months he said


were in fact prorated to his income tax and so there turned out not to be a credit for ninety two and ninety four in fact were deficiencies for thirty years or so but in the end when the eye rest looks


under the terms of the agreement and i understand the judge left and point about the he seems to feel that the merits hearing has to have been continued but but that's now


claim that he was detained following the one nine hundred eighty nine participation and that would be for five months then they say there is no indication that he had any further problems well or that he was persecuted in the p r c in light of his political views during


facts i had such a duty under the federal law which again goes back to preemption you know i can't consider all that would in fact if i read the moros opinion and i'm hearing you what you do is you go down and what's been done is to analyze what is the california


to the that's true to the question in this case and i think it's the courts down the issue in this case was this a pretextual situation in this case he was arrested for demonstrating without a permit he was detained for


the discrepancy about when he was in hiding you still have the petitioners failure to provide anything approaching a complete coherent persuasive account of what happened in connection with the june twentieth event and not only is it fair


order was intentionally drafted to avoid these other requirements that you talk about we have mr graves letter to capital two letters to captain


wide range of professional conduct here dr arnie had to prove that his trial counsel not only engaged efficient conduct which means that it was not only below average but it


month paid two hundred dollars to get their medication so they knew that if there was a positive aspect to her testifying that she was giving these dosages they they they knew that was going to come in and they had taken the videotape deposition


what she said and how she said it and to the extent that judge the party has a ringside seat and he's able to evaluate credibility of witnesses and how they would fit in with the evidence a trial there's nothing in munoz or the other cases


toxic dosages dosages to people who came to trial and said that they had met with her print they had these patients had gone to see her before and she had given them medications and they were they were pill seekers and addicts in


one thirty four on the bankruptcy court docket


whether the use of that slogan was in a trademark way or a non trademark way whether it was descriptive geographically nature or not geographically descriptive and i'm hearing off of the


we filed it at a twelve b six motion to dismiss the facts that we've alleged to show that they've used it unfairly that they've used it in a non trade in a trademark way rather by by using it as a source identifier as opposed


face of using it in good faith mr castle and of course the court doesn't notice the lower court because we never had a chance to do anything past filing of the complaint it was a twelve b six motion the first responsibility didn't know that mr cost us media company had reached out to the visitors


he could enforce it real real practically speaking in a trademark way but if somebody is using it as a greeting i don't know how else you use it i suppose if it gained secondary meaning for something that was unrelated


diplomatic status that you would say well the case is getting postponed and it's still pending i think the best way to answer that is to remind the court the child cannot leave turkey and mr play ago does not want to leave turkey


this case is that the rose of sharon is a rehab facility that's on a campus if you will that has mr rose's church and a dormitory type building for people who are residents of


so you can have somebody come on the curtilage and you know search something or gain information there that they would be able to just see if they need a search warrant to go on your curtilage but the i mean the courts


could add some possible ambiguity but i still think that a reasonable officer looking at that statement as a whole particularly the force in the first part of the statement does in fact suggest an unambiguous indication i think it's also important to go


conduct in the fourth degree as to another relative of the victim in this case so he was not this was not a first offender situation and this was the most serious kind of criminal out on a surprise that there wasn't some kind of plane to go here it would have


understand the concern and the concern that the contents have not been funded which has gone on all across america but the question before us is not dying that's the underlying problem the question before us is whether there is an


especially when they must stop and they want the alien to pay the price for a council just what was that you said about the type of conversation you application whatever you had made my notes and see the


decision by this court several years ago wherein it stated that american pipe tolling does not apply when an individual files their own lawsuit effectively a parent can pipe is there to protect individuals


council that this is the problem at least for me that i'm having i think personally i think it was material and i think it was a cult but tori but as i understand and i accept that your client says that they


there was no article three stand you know injury in fact to the third party and the court went a step further there and said even if there was an injury in fact of the third party there was no hindrance because there was no


create standing in this case no i mean the standard is independent because of the injury in fact would it have been a more interesting case or could i have pled a familial relationship case


submit it you make


made him when it existed but the proof we ses uncontested that roberts produced this statement hammered it out in his own hand the same day that pierce asked him to do it this statement he reviewed piers


case they're using some kind of factors and then we could get into what are they using factors that are scripted for them but does that basic differentiation become an important one i don't think so and


environment the way the office is run the hierarchy of the office what interaction each position is having with different departments within the client as you know that she is exercising discretion as opposed to that she just needs to know what the client's


wouldn't have the and if if the fact that they look like i kind of liken this to they look like a duck they quack like a duck they walk like a duck so they must be a duck yes these look like bank records but the roles don't have a


between phase one phase two and phase three we've shown that we think this rumor was involved in phase one number one but number two we allowed to show a scheme to defraud we're allowed to show how it started but


passer so you should not get pre judgment interest on top of that thank you for your time for a


terms and conditions of the point and you must still look at the terms and conditions of how the language is used and so it's the same analysis that we are that we say this court should apply the gun steak ability analysis that the cola


the verses brennan up held the provision and didn't address the no fault act and so to apply the mandatory limits here if the if the matter if the provision going to be invalidated would be the


i asked her explained to me how you believe you were treated differently in of offensive environment was created on the basis of your race she pointed to a number of facts the first fact was she


wrong that he was old timidly dismissed in some way possibly by settlement but i might my wrong that that's actively paying on his portion of the judgment and he was on represented for through both trials


not clear on the face of the complaint so or ignore your answer so i just why do you feel that the judge had enough that there was so clear that


and this complaint says essentially you know what happens to other towns counties cities that border huron or michigan i have some knowledge of one south haven and they have now as i understand it in response to a lawsuit


not bringing a claim which says the township should have had that policy in place what i'm saying is they should have responded on this particular day to these particular warnings and specific warnings and either close the beach or at least put up some kind of warning i e a flag system to


haven't given me enough law you know which is another way of saying i don't know the answer yet so in that kind of case i don't know when i was a trial judge you say this is all very nice to see you in a few weeks when you've done your job i would


two additional bases why petitioner loses on the merits i don't think that means the argument is forfeited it's not like a certain defense that a state has to raise or is waived this court can affirm the district court decision


considered the state arguments waived in those cases further development of the record factual development of the record was necessary these are not complicated arguments or pretty straightforward did have the opportunity to respond in the reply


the other courts i should say the other six courts that we've cited have squarely full stop bright line rule attachment applies only it adversary judicial proceedings which they define which i'm sorry which is defined


got a couple points i did just want to hit on our second argument because there are two circuits the second circuit mills and circuit in the redbird case of hell that a state court criminal prosecution will trigger the six of them right to counsel for a forthcoming federal prosecution for the


accepting completely wholly inconsistent testimony that was made up at the eleventh hour courts have addressed the lose reposed event justification that companies will come up with i serviced this is not a loser


not challenging any discovery motion he really wanted discovery motion she may no challenge to the entry of any evidence at trial there was no motion to exclude no motion to strike there was no ruling at trial that she's challenging today and can


about that going back to the deal seven she was performing you adamantly maintain was the twenty seven position duties that tara was doing she's actually getting paid more than me she was benefited by staying in the twenty


and the most important thing live with your daughter is there is absolutely no paper trail whatsoever no inner office memorandums regretting not only os herb's as both the supposed evaluation of the terrell position or margaret those responsibilities no


something i was going to get to but i would certainly touch on it at this point time not because the in this particular case the the burden to establish contempt is very high it requires a clear and convincing evidence and so according


that it's whether a reasonable person in the declared its position would anticipate a statement being used against the accused in the investigation prosecute the crime that's not an issue related issue here whether this is an out of court statement and whether this was offered for the truth of the matter


was aware of this plea agreement where that term have been negotiated out with regard to the terms of the plea agreement that would be something that would have had to have been a motion to withdraw the plea agreement i respectfully disagree with


you know that this circuit has held this is not a federal crime and i think she should point is really more about the question of the plain arabic is that this issue that the crime did not involve interstate commerce was not raised below so it seems


made without knowledge consent or authority and that's was wrong with no special into raga tori's we don't know what they found and then later that was towards the beginning of the trial in the jury instruction argument when we argued that


the second shot was the inadequacy of the the ratification and judge rake off clearly intelligently rightfully said why would we try and negligence again if the jury charge that


immunity if it was held that absolute did not apply right but you on appeal are also arguing qualified immunity in the alternative am i right yes doesn't this issue wait no i don't believe the issue was waived during the fifty argument


united states facing seventy seventy nine of


they just changed their minds now we should get an opportunity to go back and try to vacate the conviction as we would have done if we had known a year ago that this was going to happen there was an argument presented to the judge that the the the department's sudden


would you if you were writing me in the court and you get to the question of the civilian citizen analog before you even get to the specifics


grievance which is basically what the plaintiff is trying to do here and i think that that principle informed our seti i think it informs how you look at whether they're speaking as a citizen or an employee and therefore we look or said he


not extremely outrageous in any event that would require special injury which we don't have and haven't even alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress would require first of all a duty to the grito which there wasn't


plus we should have pursued we back heart of than we did what is your strongest argument looking at those as those eight ways where you think that the district court abused its discretion what is your best argument which one or ones


the factual allegations that were set out in the petition as judge lunch in your honor both referred to a moment ago it's completely unsurprising in this context with this type of petitioner


be the proceeds of the fraudulent tax shelter fees because your honor and it's not i'm not limiting it to the chicago office because it's my understanding that if we were able to have discovery in this we might be able to show that


sessions acknowledged and discussed this fact we believe that the defendant's claim that the conditions were imposed without explanation and thus were imposed without any individual ised assessment is plainly contradicted by the record


that the reasoning was not articulated by judge sessions this court can still hold the conditions if it finds that judge sessions reasoning was self evident in the record and


about their financial position so the district court certainly had sufficient information to understand that the assets worth would be compensatory if the third the third order


did states versus matthew


case where the defendant was being sentenced for threatening to kill a federal prosecutor and again and again the district court indicated that it was looking at the offenses in mr ivy's past that reflected threatening individuals or carrying out


the indian task force works closely with federal authorities the record reflects that quote the feds want to sing bad and that's a government appendix eighty seven there's there's lots of what is the in the task force the indian


was simply wrong and you tell me why the i j a refused to accept the sealed medical records when all applicants are told to wait as long as possible since the medical records have a date of expiration


good morning or honors christopher kos on behalf of mr boo sic my client's position is that the lower court made three fundamental errors each of which by itself


complaint to address the possible chill of the of the possible issues with the procedural due process judge i did not the first time that i even realized that that was what the lower court


american trucking association versus new york state thruway authority at though


my my adversaries discussion right sorry he is my friend as justice roberts has admonished us to address each other the legislative


suggesting is maybe the floodgates would be opened by this and i think the fact that really this is the third case and you know almost two decades to have an issue like this suggest that that's not the case too


double jeopardy that he's being punished repeatedly in it really appears that what's happening here is the government is unhappy with the sentence and so they're trying again and again and again what the supreme court has said punish repeatedly for the


i'm trading with an exchange when liability attaches when the match is made and i do i disagree with that because what we have to ask is what is the contractual commitment that arises out of a trade on an exchange the contractual


opportunity to duke it out for lack of a better term and to participate the why isn't this issue whether it's appropriate to proceed export to one of those issues that might of


congress's intent was that to react to this lawsuit but what it did not do a by its terms it did not change the construct of its by it the and that was what the legislative history is


situation where there is an express requirement that you sell it wholesale in order to get the money to one where there is a pricing mechanism that's use and i want to provide three reasons why the court should reject that extension of hughes now the first is


this chase you have a nine mile chase covering a distance of ten minutes even in the serenade case which my adversary properly relies on you had a situation where the accident was almost


with that to point to the phone records and say yeah he must have had a vision because the phone records show that my client was doing something completely different than he said just understanding how this trial took place but that that that approach


many judicial records from the prior proceedings there are simply no potential for a reasonable inference that merrill lynch is responsible for any of the misconduct alleged moreover the first amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute any


known company known for developing building and managing affordable housing projects utilizing both federal and state funding their primary source for federal funding is federal home funds which are


their money out of their hands and obviously that was another right and so i think stoking reinforces in some ways it very much reinforces the judge of all decisions in shabazz the connecticut cases and the simple robbery


issues on appeal first was there a valid stipulation of dismissal consistent with the plain language of rule forty one a second if there was a valid stipulation of dismissal should have been vacated


not necessarily the plaintiff's lawyer or the plaintiff herself somebody else who is connected with the case shows up and puts it into the courthouse i mean is there anything in this


argument that it's not adequate and then give us a chance to reply because we've got a bit more information we can you at but then there's a third argument that has to do with give us a chance to exhaust remedies and other


litigation going on elsewhere that might give us information that would then enable us to play well your honor i think answering your question about numbers two and three i think that they're somewhat merged because


very recently and i'm trying to get it yeah that i know there was a pretrial conference on january thirty first which is not yet in the record and i'm going to try to get it to the court within a few days but at the


estoppel standard res judicata in new york is the transactional approach which is that anything that was subject to the underlying case and this court held in jacobson anything related to the factual grouping in the underlying case or


shoving someone we can back it in them with a car but your honor the car was not a car that was accelerating towards someone at any speed at which she would expect an injury to occur in rafferty where the injury was inherent which


single finding the facts by that court and the bankruptcy court found i'm not challenging the single finding of fact his motive that morning was to get to a meeting with governor cuomo his motive was to not be late his motive his intention


a revised copy after and decided not to sign that herself yes so so what happened was that on the day of the meeting plane this testimony is that everyone passed around that agreement that essentially


adverse action to me so what am i missing about that respectfully no your honor it's not an adverse employment action the plaintiff was an employee at that time anymore she she didn't she wasn't entitled to have her ten days of leave time sorry when you say it was not you mean the


to really avoid that serious again in two thousand in contrast to the two thousand and two bill which restored the safety net for farmers has proven to be one of the most fiscally responsible government programs we've had by making