got in the predicament because he fell behind on his mortgage payments and he did not know how much he owed on the loan even though he asked and that burden of or proving the amount of controversy either over seventy five thousand or over


seventy five thousand dollars has been met here so the one hand it's removable because the seventy five thousand dollars is met and then on the other hand the seventy five thousand dollars hasn't been met and i think the reason why they have to be in place


and they also seek actual damages treble damages and punitive damages for slander of title so it doesn't take a big stretch for the court to conclude that with thousands of people posing those same claims that we're going to get to five million dollars and the


he should have shown compliance back then after that he was found inside united states in april of two thousand and ice assume back then as they should have that he would then he did not comply and executed the removal order at that time he again did


look at the definition definition section of the cited regulations reasonably attributable means attributable by visual observation or any other mean any other technique that the state or in this case


they get enforced so you can't and if you look at the e mail it's part of the record you know it's not as though it refers to the buying agreement and says we're intending prospected lee to waive something we're going to agree to in a few months it doesn't come close to saying


leading grandel to believe that they had an agreement to manufacture these gloves but at the same time she's trying to get the best deal possible it's not appropriate to allow under those circumstances with respect to the promissory


rules are going to be basically in those gaps we've done a general standard they have some discretion applying that general standard and here when you look to the ultimate standard which is threat a threat it involves something the next step


beyond what you have in this case rather than all the post predicates it's all begin with you've had not just a request to represent yourself you've had the hearing and the question rather asked


were isolated and they were spontaneous isolated separate from others happening just once happening in different places sporadic is happening often but not regularly and that is what happened here in this case


outcast in east st louis was in direct response to mr smith's having instructed them some two weeks before that the wheels of soul was at war with outcast so i don't think that the relationship between mr smith's conduct and the crimes of violence in this case were nearly as


message to mr murphy and have him call me but that doesn't mean that mr murphy got that message and he sooner than september second so i don't think there's any connection there i mean it's nice to try but there's no connection there


fingerhut a company that was not inexplicably intertwined with the ponzi scheme fraud in any manner and it did not get sucked up into any separate claims being made against


company received the profits it had a clean balance sheet the other company had the liabilities in the bankruptcy proceeding those two halves were subsumed the consolidated the very very different situation and here polaroid was not


specifically ask the question what property is there that's that's outside the plant itself that's not owned by agriprocessors and there were two items essentially the the wastewater lagoon and the well and they in the agreement


about you know the e mail if you ask a if you look at the fact that we had a ten thousand dollar a year lease with i think it was a c p i adjustment you have a single time payment of two dollars


they all see for a while that the one thing but what did what a judge got to rely on is they were fifty fifty in the disassociation well my understanding is significant testimony and evidence that our


any of that type of language the minnesota supreme court discussed the purpose of the property tax refund act it's a one nine hundred seventy eight case and the courts


mr position that the reasoning and hearty certainly support treating the property tax refund actually here as being not exempt because like the child tax credit the


to be a routine part of the employer's response to this suggestions that are made by the class members of that were true how could the evidence have been sufficient and mad because it's a jury trial now but you still have to have some


was sure sure that's their duty there that they're the people on the floor they're the ones you have contact with the facts but to conflate facts and recommendation fact reporting and recommendation is just isn't the way it was done here that's the plaintiff's view


against guilt phase prejudice can't stand up is that under arkansas law it's the state's obligation to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt so the state argues that mr dansby could have


only failed to conduct a reasonable investigation but that they failed to conduct any investigation at all so there's certainly sufficient factual issues to remain to the district court to have an evidentiary hearing on whether


something that your honor said which is that martinez is supposed to be limited and i think that the way to understand how martinez is limited is the way that the ninth circuit understood it in when because there is that


brief background on that is during the brief interim between the last argument that we had and and the supreme court's g v yard this case was briefly pending


sailings testified enroll for it in the in the initial interview collateral proceedings to the effect that i was backup counsel the scope of my representation was such that i couldn't actively participate in the trial but


medium level of generality for the inquiry to even be coherent makes sense and if you do that it's clear that mr dan's piece claims presented in his federal petition rely on substantially different facts


intentional often sort of the slander etc which is not expected or intended by you so as an accident and produce an intentional tor it doesn't you know and that's why i mean this court it was an


missouri case so the judge had before her the eighth circuit opinion on that case as well as the recent insane transcript and the sentencing transcript and so then she then read those documents and accepted those documents as evidence in the


it's at a at a lower exertional level


sometimes it's discretionary but it tend to that i judge i think that the i think that the case is basically say that it is a case by case basis and any time you


case and the fact that the government did not choose to receive death is just a decision that the government reached for all of the reasons that the government hacks who it makes that i don't want my concern is the judge


not necessarily if it also contains other substances which is very much part of f t s ingrid me very well being more harmful substance and that's what the inquiry is my ticket to those smokeless or no smoke there are two things that that the reason why smokeless tobacco companies can


should be doing something more flexible than what the statute command i mean there are there are some opportunities for the f d a to to use some kind of flexibility yes your honor and f d a has said that it will use the


pleaded that we had pleaded them sufficiently it was responded to whether they don't like response or not i you know i can't say it and that's a view but the district court said that there's that we didn't say anything when clearly we did say say something this record said we


you know specifies


presumably on our motion to enforce the mandamus comes into the district court with proof not just supposition not just prediction there speculation but actual proof that it could not satisfy that benchmark


the statutory question that is the c for his case that that my friend pointed out which it actually lays down the framework for when he asserted justification is the ability to make a living off of a certain type of occupation and that's the asserted rationale here to the rule making it's the


completely distinguished from all the other hundred millions of americans this is a benefit that goes only to them the benefit of being able to charge more for preparing of a return and that's a benefit that they all already had but i don't understand why


understand some people might actually not care about privacy that answer security number but that this is a society wide systemic problem we're just talking a lot of risk to present because it causes too many collateral consequences so everybody's going to have to have a p


there's no way to use relation back of brazilian law to change us in or the first judgment it's eight years on the basis on which you came up for mandamus was this interminable delay correct


wrong party the inner pleader plaintiff is said in two thousand and ten the us government you the u s courts can figure out where this money goes and at every point for eight years until today they have tried to direct this money to brazil so i


district court record and the party's briefs upon consideration thereof it is hereby ordered the judge into created the district court's order awarding summary judgment in favor of brazil is vacated and the case is remanded in accordance with the


basis going out into the field to meet bullish on mandates instead of perhaps targeting management or other higher paid positions that were not so integral to meeting with sean's


maidan i would never suggest that it's not relevant i suggest that it's not probative because it's not statistically significant and so it's hard to separate out sometimes the particular employment practice issue and the statistics


morning good morning your honor good morning your honor sir if it so please the court i peer here again before the same how will judges argue as i did successfully in the house a wanderer case that determined that the


contend that the district court's damages awards were insufficient and the case law that the court followed finds no substantial deviation between israeli law of damages in this type of a case and the


issue is whether you have played with sufficient specificity that the website has been a source of ongoing commercial sales in the united states and it seems at best quite vague


what we have these allegation that the new york office closed down twenty some years ago and then just very vague allegations about anything that's taking place after that and in


it should have been operated operative because our position is the courtship granted lead to a mad i have it down so that that issue that fact regarding the injury that occurred would have been before the


facts of records and other proceedings of the vege mix of a u s department of agriculture case which we cited in our brief own on the freedom of movement i


mr i'm sorry it's bhangra him says he didn't sobbing and then who saw and well maybe it was someone else of the company maybe it was someone in the doctor's office to knowingly or


allowance again your honor your right i will give you the same answer it's that's not what that's not this case that's not what mr goble asked for whether in a hypothetical alternative universe that might have been inappropriate request on i prefer not to


that there are six components to transition assistance and one of the first one of those is to provide an assessment of the soonest upon a mission and many times many intervals after that the court found that this concept of transition


adopting i don't think that the asians see can can satisfy its obligations to clearly apply the rule simply by stating in the preamble a statement that's


discrepancy so he acknowledged the error it wasn't that we can't determine if there was an error he acknowledged that transfers were counted as part of the discharge count and shouldn't be under p p s but he simply said that the


statutory or regulatory sites it does not give us i think the example it gives is the statement in the graduate medical education rule making that issue in regions that that have been how they are always understood to be that certainly was the understanding the provider there was


and cook has to be paid first paragraph nine makes clear the cook's fees to be paid from the judgment recovered there is no language in the cook retainer agreement to suggest the cook is


processes proportions so it is coming out of the word so if you're as a lawyer thinking of i going to go do this work under the umbrella of leave that occasion attorneys and you're thinking do i need to write some special security and you


agreement between the attorney that the attorney was going to pay the other attorney co counsel fee that attorney who was supposed to pay the fee went bankrupt so he was also disbarred the tourney who claimed he was owed money went to the bankruptcy court


protected property interest or liberty interest that is protected by procedural due process we look to establish state rules and we look to see what our entitlements under including federal but we booked also


said when you that there's a recognition of institutional responsibilities in fact we can expect that all of the the genuine public servants at first both at the staff level and and the commissioners themselves have


could you start with it my question is what did the district court in fact use the wrong standard here by failing to get analyze this as a civil litigation matter not a criminal matter isn't there very much more difficult to get presidential


seems to me i mean you can make you can certainly make the argument that you know we could do it you know i could do it and you know you can do these things someplace else maybe not as efficiently maybe inefficiently but the fact of the matter is that i


work on even if that project is going to you know have some sort of finite the ration that they don't have to


of the reasons given for why her contributions were not as significant as some of the other people but that there were that the reality is that there are a number of factors that go into these sorts of decisions


would be along the lines of using this information to to to provide the subdivided pages for for that information exchange but i think ultimately the amount of what was actually provided to mr morley was not


cause issue if they had specific allegations that if taken as true would show that there was a lack of probable cause they'd still i think have to have something involving recommendation of administrative proceeding i mean the cases they rely on i'm not sure when you're in


right no don't you understand you don't agree but not that right yet you're asked me a procedural question asking you if we were to decide the agency was not overturn capricious and not to terminations the cases all


that that the specific circumstances that are spelled out under czech law for one it's appropriate to have a partial war going not present here and because they were not present here in the personal word actually and effectively was a fine award are you are you


unfortunately that occurred after the record was closed in arbitration we we would submit that the matter was placed before the arbitrator as a result of the discussion from one page one hundred


reprisal without including the subsequent action that may result from the proposal and in fact when the actual removal occurred she went to


in that more open ended open to interpretation and you know is it annoy is it no apparent purpose or is it something objective and to the extent that many of the definitions talk about


out because if you had a statute that said obstruct or crowd it would seem to be more constrained i'm not sure if you agree you were a little wobbly when i said it's


these eases have to comply with a temporary or seasonal requirement they raised the issue they said that temporary that the temporary bucket is what we're using here and that is in compliance with the


it's doing so it's not a question of an argument as it was that the agency on notice that was not only doing pretty hundred sixty four day renewals days but then renewing them routinely for three or three years that


standards issue denials and then forced them to appeal without revealing what criteria standards the procedures used to determine eligibility the first issue i plan to address is one of first impression whether this court can review it


didn't and they violated their own law and by not keeping the reporters notes if they had followed the law we wouldn't be here we'd know what the deal was i think didn't write thank you your time has expired


morning so i was as much in the dark when all this was going on that morning as i was the night before but i guess you get back to judge question hudson asked her to go to his hotel and then she decide if you want to go to the


today i do not know what happened on april ninth six months before this incident here because we only found out about it a little over a month before the trial started and didn't have an opportune do any discovery


the problem here is waiver the objection of being at an undisclosed twenty six b to expert was simply never made there was one expert made with respect to mccusker it was a twenty six day one outside the scope of the disclosure


reading into that really is the whole to me it's as if you report something to the cops you're protected well he did report something to the no he was just discussing this this with a client who was buying things wrong he didn't even appreciate well i suppose then i mean


off the table that you might be guaranteeing your client a sentence of life without and we don't know exactly how this was pitched to mr berry we don't know if it was pitched you know what i think it's eleven to one acquittal or you know what i think it's eleven to one guilt


the argument to how strong the death penalty case was the fact remains that at the time this decision was made the jury was still deliberating death was still on the table and it was going to be on the table if there was a mistrial and a subsequent retrial how likely was it that he would be


on some obscure provision you know in compiling your taxes it's a knowing violation that is material or relevant to the government's decision to pay or relevant to the government's decision to allow you into the program there's no question that this


judgment stage where there was no factual record and so what the court was commenting on was the state of what had actually been proved rather than what is premiss of all to be proved in the abstract or so we're sort of one


serious as mr walker patrick's right where the government has access to correct criminal records as you can if it resources out its disposal but let me ask one other question what's the constitutional hook with respect to his challenge


this case so our position is that what mrs stickney needed to do was to file a claim and her situation is very similar to that of the plaintiff and the u s b williams supreme court case and her failure to file such a refund claim


say that my client clark is so and i are privileged and pleased to be here this morning the court asked us to address two issues number one what state law applies to jefferson pilots and demi claim well the system


in specifically say such things as yes and here's something that that's absent yes i relied on that information all they're saying is that well there was a claim mr


you've raised that i'll address that directly you cannot just say one individual is responsible i was in trial and i was in a jury trial and second to supreme court and you cannot say that one person is responsible for not completing discovery during a


because of that vacation a seventy five week extension of the discovery kept deadline was given so that they patient had nothing to do with why the plaintiff didn't do any discovery in two thousand and three why she waited the last day to do it but even then


good morning your honour's it please the court my name is susan ferguson i'm here to represent the ellen and this is my first time before you and i consider it an honor to be here and we're here for two reasons today the first is that trial counsel failed to secure the testimony


walks now that's the other irony of this matter is he was not physically present during the drug transaction that occurred at the el cerrito parking lot in august of one thousand nine hundred eighty sacramento california


record to show they were any point concerned about their safety or the safety of others


that i just heard about these are the things we look for for pain annoys me because i've seen these decisions written again and again and again this is what we look for for disco


the bank not by b p arco that says well at least send us the money that b p article doesn't have a claim to we have settled as between the two of us it's confidential you don't need to know that the terms are are not in from on this letter but you can send us that amount of money


the district court said was that the reason the just court found that was a settlement was because it ignored the june twelfth settlement it ignored the consent saying we withdraw the april twenty ninth letter it said the settlement was a resolution of a contested claim


is which company employees the the and the employees at the time of the layoffs this court made clear in the chauffeur driver's case it said the quote the crucial question is whether the defendant at the time of the business


so you know this is a motion for judgment pleadings and that's what's before us so there are four days notice there that they knew about now you know discovery would would tell us exactly what the date was and so forth but that's what we


not sedentary these jobs often require a lot of walking because they have a lot of meetings they have to go and fetch files this is a lot of time spent on the feet heat he's he seemed to be fairly fairly confident about where well


the jury would have


going to affect as carriers renegotiate expired or expiring contracts parties don't renegotiate contracts at the very beginning they renegotiate contracts at the end and in this part in this contract there was a


of the call that will determine all forms of it or carrier compensation whether it be transport or reciprocal compensation and by departing from that standard in this decision the c p c violated its own rules now it's


that is for the amount the amount that customers are paying and think that they should be charged this is a local call because that's what customers things they think they're dialing the local we


had a track record and if you look at that track record and then look at the cauldron that she was put into when she got to region one in all the the pickering and the fighting that was going on there and what you want to call it political personal


there is a significant waiver problem appellant weighed any objection she had to this evidence and for the speech at issue in this case i submit african nothing they pickering


evidence is a confession that's prejudicial but it's only if it's improper yes and i don't think he's can see i don't think he's arguing that that was proper it's he's the argument seems to me i brought it on


that you get the information that you have does not it does not establish a possibility of wrongdoing there it is my time's running out but there is a smoking gun in this case


billing in the county of president all for not holding beds open that they should have held open for these children not returning over payments made by the county of fresno to them and double billing


this not impair their and require the requirement that they have to respect the other interests that are involved no i don't believe it would your honor because they can go elsewhere for the releases of the eight hundred thousand acre feet of water they don't have


there is i think a federal court this is not a very good position to deal with that problem and i would stress that these this is really a state law i think concerned what can we do i'm really asking this seriously i'm wondering is it possible to just tell him


not a part of federal constitutional law does the court have any questions well i mean you're saying that they enough in the first and second post convention revered


court and when that court makes a decision or a determination this court should give deference and when we're talking about procedural bars that are imposed by the state courts below it's


novo summary judgment is only appropriate if the evidence read in the light most favorable to mr remedios demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that there are several


it sounds from these were someone in agreement and that's i guess my point like i said originally if you go through the list of our facts on twenty twenty nine of our brief for reasonable rational suspicion and thirty eight for for probable cause


seems to be as well would be the genesis of your ruling would there have to be a state law that you would be enforcing in order to make a ruling you need a state law in order to reel in my favor is that what you're saying well


effects that would preclude them from challenging its validity to the extent they have as a result of the dismissal of this sooner as a result of the fact that they never effected a proper appeal in the first


the transmission imprints but on the letter august tenth there is nothing because it was it was made it was not even sent by fax and this is that this is the confusion created by factory


there is nothing in the record that suggests or any testimony there's been no definitions under any people but underwriting was done improperly number one and number two is contained in the amplification we have a right to rely in the


the amendment authorized two entirely new paragraphs paragraphs six point three and paragraph six point four which are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the


out if given a choice between working in pain or starving she'd rather work in pain i understand what you're saying factually but here's here's my my issue was


she just harms sosia judges may it please the court my name is richard riley i represent donna smith the appellate and the plaintiff in this action this is a alabama law alabama common law action tort


that was what gave rise to the public safety risk the other issue and this is something that is said very specifically in the recording and reflect in the record is that the reason the sheriff was there was because


stopgap measure he's not trying to sort of permanently take your properties just trying to ease the tension provide a sort of a short term solution pending your resolution of this issue in state court what happened to that state court litigation


innocent would that have even been proper given the procedural posture of a direct appeal from a criminal conviction you're correct that that's the legal standard it was a sufficiency of the evidence case and normally the court is


action was conspiracy right so you need evidence that she did not commit that act and i'm not sure what the th circuit to pinion can give you in the way of evidence that she didn't commit it they can only say that there is no evidence that


decision and i think that requires a little analysis of what went on pretrial and what went on post trial pre trial counsel argued obviously that they did not want to turn over the names of their


found this information carries little weight yes it's it does i mean in the scheme of things that juries always going to look at that look at that type of evidence and look and see whether or not there for libel evidence underneath


otherwise to remove the child from the country right in our expert attorney live i says that there she would have needed that right that when you look at the guatemalan constitution


you have the johnson case where law enforcement already had the car keys and was inevitably going to do an inventory search of the vehicle and so the contents of the car at that time are static


enforcement would have conducted a knock and talk that miss watkins residence and and what they are ignoring is the fact that this was not a legal knock and talk in this case what agent dia testified to was after ms


hearing in the district court when it did not determine that that was necessary at the time


illegal tracking and the agents inevitably would have gone to her home for a knock and talk regard less of the tracker having alerted its location at her home thank you


testimony would have impacted this case so i think in light of all of what just judge walker found and in light of the way the trial actually played out and the fact that the government all of the government exhibit were stipulated to mean really


there's any other way to describe these regulations other than byzantine there is a declaration that communications equipment are x are encouraged to be brought to cuba this device is


exceptions that apply one of which your honor noted where it is a pure legal question and we believe that the st half at least of the equitable tolan analysis is a purely bill question in this case and could be answered by the court even those rates for the st time on appeal and in fact one of


briefs that's a different issue certainly they do appeal the sufficiency of the evidence supporting our damages which was the basis of the rule if the a motion a trial as well and


comments and evidence are you able to convince me that there is not overwhelming evidence of mr robinson's guilt in this record in your honor well i have a couple of things that they and i hate to quote the court back to itself but i know you are aware


variances available to south grandview and that they could not the board of adjustments was did not have the power to effectively rezone the property so


actually given at understand was given to the jury that was without objection and the city did not raise that in the principal brief but so


and in the opening argument the court in a motion in limine e the court had already rolled this evidence was coming in and so then i understand then you relied on that ruling and we had to hampton that you did you call these


home is nationwide and if it weren't for the new bridge case i'd say worldwide there is a worldwide market for this kind of home on the other hand there was as far as i can tell and i haven't gone into the entire record but there seem to be a fair amount of


a term to be primarily geographic the last thing i would like to address if i may can trademark i'm sorry my all mater for not doing these well in


the pharmacy does with it including reporting it to a state database or law enforcement officer and once again chose to engage in a medical practice that focused on the prescription of highly regulated controlled substances and when he


as the interview went along so why not say it was after the interview well so per us policy in procedure correct that the interviewer would go through the questions make the check marks make


an internet promotion is lawful a market manipulation is unlawful that shows a mere possibility not a probability that there was illegal conduct at that time aren't you asking us to


essentially bedridden she was sedated she was highly medicated she really didn't know what was going on and she said that that essentially that that state essentially continued until her follow up surgery which happened on january nd so


keep to ensure that federal crimes state federal and state crime state faced a crime what the what the what this court has said is you have to demonstrate that the victim was directly involved in interstate commerce dictums and d s there were actually three


standard or that there's an imminent risk of future harm correct correct and so that's that's our basic point here is that i never


practices act law that would bring teeth to those kinds of violations i see my time is up to well to make sure i understand what your argument has been which i think you were time back to what you said earlier you're saying there was no


takings result in invalidating the assessment that's how it works in florida there's no compensation thank you i went a little over i apologize


just don't believe what the video says because you're saying there would be it would just be the you didn't you know that wasn't the trust of my question began with i wanted you to assume for the purposes of my question that the video exam bake it was not that it was clear


i think is really important in this court in that case made clear to acknowledge that there was also on the air when the answer asked the driver of the vehicle the ultimate point that in the in the lawsuit to step forward and step back behind the vehicle and there's a discussion there's an odor of


basis of the that's arguing that's what your agency believes is not because he's a top top mill tama but because they thought he was a terrorist they thought he was attached to a terrorist family and he testified that he was


i knew would be an issue but ultimately here we are and so are are is that issue i see them of my time your honor ron thank you mr i give you three minutes in reply mr natural


another issue in rebuttal or reply but if you go into other issues he's entitled to do so that's fine with me bring up point you want to time the way you want to are not i just will make sure you're aware of that i understand your honor and with


final judgment had been entered after final judgment and so for a period of three and a half years there is no issue raised with regard to judgment those as authority in any respect to


them may have decided a b and c are there i want to extend mercy to mr knight plus the jury in this case certainly was also told a instructed on another aggravating circumstance the


claim is based soley on state law which it is in this case their first v state just because the court does a harmless error analysis under law


florida supreme court applied hurst in correctly on the merits because it should have held that there was no hearst violation because of the circumstance you just mentioned and that's correct and what they did apply as i said of


know there's the one victim and he says you don't have to get into all you don't have to go through waiver and all that but the other cases i read them say you're not required a judge is not required to go through this drill i don't see any authority on our part that says it's reversible if a


step of verifying that this is the choice of the defendant because that's his personal right there are certain rights that the defendant has that are personal to him that it fence attorney cannot wave on his behalf and


during that exchange with defense counsel and with the defendant the court actually made comments like you need to listen to your attorney's advice and so forth and even that wasn't considered until it was troubling the th


sworn statements in a filed petition with a federal bankruptcy court and we think we've got the district court got those notions bedrock principles right it's important to remember here your


based on a misapprehension that the codefendant mind range was in the words of the district court at least double that of mr camacho moon as this mistake happened because the prosecutor asked for the upward variance because it


in the court's mind it was the bitter pill to swallow we also know that because the prosecutor conceded his responsibility for his mistake in making the upward variance in the rule thirty five motion and the prosecutor asked the court to go back and correct the sentence


told was and still of fuel oil builders are nasty dirty things if any of you have ever seen them out of i don't think any district court judge who would require an expert for us to testify as to that


harris principle on sides allowing the contractor to move a man a lift out rush hour with no barricade no cones no warnings whatsoever that man


just obviously people on crutches in wheelchairs have a different set of proclivities as boys hand washing and that kind of stuff a tickle they would put their hands back on and so i'm not real clear exactly


his co defendants submitted one billion three hundred and thirteen million dollars in expenses for that five million dollars home during the trial the government put on evidence that from the very get go mr hoffman intended some of those board


sauce which is marketed in sold under confusingly similar name match up mr not only did they sell the product under this confusingly similar name they took mr perry's trademark registration and used it


in this case what are the minimum number of sales sufficient to sustain a federal trademark which street is it a specific dollar amount is it a sales volume is it a comparison of up stales versus other


vitamin supplements that did not meet federal labeling requirements and the th circuit explained that the reason why use must be lawful and the reason why registration should be cancelled if you use is not lawful is twofold and this is now


have to be spoken at that will pronounce that and i disagree with that and the reason i disagree with that is because when you look at the subsections of the three thousand five hundred and eighty three that speak specifically to revocation cases the entirety of the language used in those


four hundred claims or whatever in order to say you are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings judge jones to your point i'm not here contending that judge darby a would know definitively whether every single one of those claims had all the information


understand the judge's point we contract it for this there was three years there was and that's for a however six months after this happened they dissolved and when the foundation was faced with the butt tension of not getting the sturgis bequest money


they specifically told him these are the same directors as the same chair people it's the same controlling people in charge of both these companies they reached out to sturgis and said if you're not going to give us this money and not going to say d we're d the legal successor we will


manifestation seery in his ruling but i think he may have implicitly applied it i'm not entirely sure looking at his opinion if there was something where he directly said that but that is certainly the argument that a i


leona case it's scientifically impossible to prove what fiber of its bestest caused the disease thirty years later that's impossible to prove it is not impossible to prove when the sinkhole


thank you judges they please the court my name is george gibson and i represent sanchez oil and gas corporation in this appeal from a summary judgment that we granted by district court judge hansie atlas to


did not put a limit but we could ask things all the time an hour every day arrives and we make certain assumptions about what's really being asked even if the question is open ended if you say that all that she was admitting to


hearing which would have given her the opportunity to vindicate herself the effect of that would have been a conversation with the sheriff in his office it would have been whatever it is that's complicated i'm sorry whatever it is that's contemplated has to be


that it was not diverse because october when those e mails are in the record as well the court said look this was four or five months after the del i'm for the joinder of additional parties it was two or three months after they've filed


assumption calling so this notion that we chose the the bill you know we we did choose the venue but it was based on the flawed assumption and the flawed information provided to be a kelly and that's why that


or there were hearings in front of the magistrate but not the district court judge the united i couldn't find those transcripts there were no transcripts there was no additional evidence produced at the hearing because the issue at this stage was whether or not the content judgment


we point out of the all three member end of sicko is responsible for valuing along with the board of directors three significant differences in the holding of that case says that the ability to stop it


in the prison is responding to to the complaint i mean this is not a this is not a well sorry there's just no way that you can that you can get any response whatsoever there he's getting a


and a balance on what i get from that answer is this let's see if you agree when there is covered in a prison there is no requirement for administrative readings period you just


to make edibility oh i think that would be a fair question i don't know i mean obviously the district courts or did not address certain issues and i laid out the ones that we did not address you know whether it be


audio on this video we certainly didn't see it i think is the point they were making and so what we did see is pictures of him bloodied face so something happened to his face and he your


and to be clear this is not a new argument this is not new evidence the arguments that are being made on the motion for reconsideration or of a o l they were known to appellant from the outset the


important to distinguish the type of information being sought this was private information that the government held but it's not related to operation of the police department it's not related to an investigation of how the city functions or


of the press is to go out and find nonpublic information to bring it to light and inform the public if the government could force the press and any other person looking for information to


and there's nothing in the record that you and not you personally but that they were egged on to get this out there or something like that that there was a secret testimony looming now that could be beneficial and would also benefit from because


here have raised the issue of energy as the intervening superseding call no appellant has raised an issue before used saying that a portion of the damages were somehow attributable to some other and that everyone else wrong then and you're going to get your money


i'm sorry i thought there was a citation to write a miller where it said that a plane at suing into capacity is invites severance well


happens after removal and as this court has pointed out as many district courts in this circuit have pointed out there are really a couple different jointer paths here that might be relevant one of them is what this court now calls improper jointer


board because if you're at home then you already have places that you can be seated what's the point of your case you well i think there's there's two aspects to answer that question your honor the st is to be clear


frequently and isn't there something fundamentally unfair in doesn't matter perhaps the law of the law isn't always fair but isn't there something fundamentally if unfair about letting your client sue all the time in the united


facts so overcome the qualified immunity defense therefore d the legal question of the sufficiency of the allegations to overcome qualified immunity is properly before you i was qualified immunity as to both defendants


since withheld all of his arkansas credit or was it only some of it and i mean you know the how do we as the defense analyze and defend the claim and the


appeal appear in their briefing below


fiduciary and we look at how would a lay person interpret the communications and so yeah i said i may have agree with you that if it had been just the two thousand and eighteen letter but that letter couldn't even have been written as it


action whereas this case doesn't have that situation well yes and so i think the short answer to that judge all right is that there is no longer any requirement under either the acting under or the connection that


said that a document to be produced there has to be produced not it doesn't have to be admissible it just needs to if it's reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and should be turned over we complied with that we were


so under that precedent had to it it wouldn't make sense to then say that the court can then go outside the scope of what it's allowed to consider in traditional sentencing and look at any evidence that it feels you know that it basically makes it inclined to deny


last sentence or whatever to wrap up i have a question for you do that you know one only when we have one of these cases we go through and we segregate out the amount of time trying to figure out what was the delay or segregate the amount of


only do about the fact that there's nothing happening to comply if there is compliance order has gone out and it's no compliance whatsoever even though they allege that they said that they complied


made in appropriately sexual jokes yelled at the yelling luke remarks of course the sales floor soliciting sexual contact


his request for me to amend and file the rd amended complaint however we argue that the district court's rulings were correct at every turn of the case and should be affirmed the two key issues i'll focus on today will be the role of the boston opinion in this case our position is


years and your written their servers argue that the context of that statute is alternative transportation fuels and i wonder does that argument rely exclusively on legislative history


dead the other one to testify is yes when we left the tourney's office we went home we placed our wills in the safe you can have evidence of what happened to it oh yeah he took this one went home he did that so again in


in my view we're dealing with issues of basic fairness you know they're working knew exactly what was going on here she worked for the association for twenty years she had never once seen anybody attach the


know we also say the case of walsh versus property tax appeal board with that same equality of taxation in proportion to the value of the property as being taxed in this property is not the other farms that are miles


fraser when confronted on cross examination that she should have gone beyond the cost approach and valuing the building and considered that this building is too ours it had the full value for productivity purposes she opined that there


or that person do you know there is a sales job right this isn't free they're trying to sell their camp services so they say to our clients we're going to get married hey we're going to take you one of the designated campsites that you might want to come to


these parties had to be in communication with one another on a constant basis what was going on who was coming in and out of the plant to remove items and particularly through j


there was two components of the original agreement which is our contention continued into the modified agreement which was the ten thousand dollars per month which it's understood he was paid but to successfully it was not paid and that's what we're seeking to recover in


and the payable i think was a thirty five dollars fee for using a letter from you it was sworn and sworn just the informal it's it's a letter from me on my letter had signed by myself i'm going to tourney i'm an officer of the


understanding is that that we didn't allege it i mean by judge land and it was simply we didn't make the allegations for a section one hundred and fifty five and that my understanding again was that we could not utilize section one hundred


so mr came in new and it's undisputed that he knew because he admitted it that if he told the truth the bar was used in his business it was going to cost him thirty thousand dollars because it wouldn't be covered now that's number


testimony by the parties by the agents of the insurance company of what you know what does it mean used in the us and use in the business my client the jury found at him and miss came in they didn't intentionally


twenty seven thousand three hundred and fifty five dollars


travelers sues caterpillar in may over coverage of the bender settlement then caterpillar sues volt travelers and peoria this court in june and


results against manifest weight of the evidence it's mistake because we seventy one thousand dollars a nd item is another one i've already addressed the ninety thousand dollars reimbursement for alleged investments dad made from the non marital


clue that this was aeronautical property subject to the grant from the federal government that entire exhibit is you know it's thick and it's all presumptions of well if you do


have but he tries to say it was tactical there was nothing tactical about that there nobody could reasonably think that was tactical he should have objected he should have moved for a mistrial because it violated the rape


cut everything off i think that shows bias that shows partiality and favoritism brendan was her son was on trial that still doesn't that still doesn't insulate her from being judged like any


visit on the public record and i just want to note that the court refused to dismiss mr webb's claims which continue in the circuit court mr webb is continuing to try to recover his alleged deposits and in fact


we agree with that they had a duty but in order for us to prove negligence we then have to prove breach of duty causation and damages and i don't think the defendants are creating a case or want to create case law that says that if a plaintiff in a


the head he had his hands on his neck in earnest and her head and holding the taken to and then he would have been the anesthesiologist at the end of the procedure the anesthesia team member who would have assisted in transferring the patient


under the contract unless it expression he agrees to do so clearly in this case you linux development the agent expressly agreed to bind itself so not only is gnu linux development responsible for the breach of


liability is not applicable to contract law this is a tort doctrine of tort law where a principal can be helped not liable for the negligent contact of an agent within the scope of agency but has no application to contract law he


let me back up right that was that is alleged by the plaintiffs in the motion to dismiss i don't i'm not a i'm a convinced that it was actually drafted by my client that was alleged by the plaintiff and that was not addressed in


that issue also involves the other daughter who had killed her mother and that there was a protective order preventing the disclosure of any of the text


the way it was argued and the at least the exhibits that made in there that it seems that all the cast and a fall into one pot so i think a full and complete record would've been helpful in least trying to figure out which money went to where


that point to greese that if the trial court and courts would if the if a if a court hypothetically finds as the trial court did that there is no death then you can't then even under that contract you can't


recover either costs or or fees that you grew that i agree and i think it goes back to what i was indicating earlier and i know this wasn't necessarily addressed in the briefing but the idea


zero it certainly makes sense to limit the legislative intent is important when ascertaining the limits that were put into place that the legislative intent as courts have expressed was to further the market


authority has trustee is now what she cares about what she cares about are the wishes of her parents and her parents wishes were that she was the trustee that she


the possibility have someone indicating under their circumstances this becomes unconstitutional isn't that correct i believe your honor you are correct that there is no specific olding stating that this type


very little contact with the state of illinois if we learn in law school regarding so will the jurisdiction minimum contacts nearly twenty years ago the system has remained world wide effect upon him we believe that the


it should be held against my client that he didn't system cooperate because he wasn't ever asked a system cooperate it just was run on him thirty years after the judgment was honored the other part is the


contacting all twenty seven charities that will help if the name given a proper name and address and phone number but after almost nine years i had individually verify each of those so just


the investigative report and argument and supplemental evidence that is submitted to it by the parties and any and the results of any additional investigation before the commission and those materials were


perfect example was when the state asked the detective why and where if mr watkins had ever said anything about evil putting his hands on mr martin's neck that effective said no on cross examination defense counsel asked him a nearly


going to do outside outside of a confined environment mr going to yes the stance you says that these specters are supposed to be viewed in mitigation correct


sentence was entered thirty years ago you know based on throughout consideration a very lengthy record is that new evidence enough for her she would team relief from her life sentence and at this point she her questing is basically a brandy sensing


deposition that was taken of danny edwards where he admitted to carrying out this abuse against miss rich in addition we have other affidavits from individuals talking about other abuse as well as an expert opinion from


in a criminal case if it does so it clearly would permit the court to make the conclusion that miss rish is at least intitled based on the new science and the new amendment to go to re sentencing hearing where the lower


relevance to that motion under of the abuse neglect


state farm paid the whole way for defense and indemnity then tried to collect back against you cage county and the appellate court found well du page county is not other insurance so they can't collect against you page


i don't think he was either and i don't think he was either so i'm struggling with why he wasn't i'm just struggling with why he would have


a duty to indemnify that's a question of whether or not five mr roeder is ultimately going to be able to be home by able for breaching the easement that's a matter for the underlying court to determine is an issue of liability or an underlying jury or


no you've already said that they were as follows in council may or may not agree with that in this argument but let's say that they're not there's no credibility determination made their acknowledged they're basically stipulated facts so to speak


but now we've got a final notice in the final notices for their behavior with this major will not be tolerated and so now it seems mean whether terminations was appropriate or not is a


in this particular case gotten off or nothing directly and said we'd have a many side trial on her whole experience and you know obviously the purposes of rope were three


or jury instruction eliminate the risk of jury confusion well i don't think it would in this case because of how much would have the need to have been attacked with respect to the assuming again that defend it was


think the prejudice your honor is that again he wasn't given the opportunity to to appear at all and to make his case i don't know that he has to show that it necessary that affirmatively bear the burden of showing that he would have been in fact prevailed on


disciplined by the prison authorities so in effect he's more or less out of the loop although there is some kind of connection between he and ms shaw nonetheless now that the f b i is in the case they are concerned because they want to fire a source of


says very clearly i didn't send it to him he adds more detail to make that understandable but i don't think he wavers on that and also mr foley's behavior once he does know suggests that he was a


having written to the court eight months after entry of judgment and also his away and filing israel sixty six motion was only about three months versus what we have here between the time that mr fully realized in twenty february two thousand and ten that his vision had been


almost thirty years ago and it's still the law of the circuit no and bang court has reversed it and so when we look at the last bit of evidence in this record mr sarkozy on a subsequent


know this is a progressive condition but if you look at the evidence that's before l j and the evidence that he relied on his findings are reasonable thank you so if if the court doesn't have any further


incorporates unions as its own section that's different from other from other employers and why isn't judge easterbrook correct that if if the if the title seven claim includes a far element that


like i said they actual transcripts as well as the the evidence that had been submitted below contradicts his analysis of the case it's not very strong counsel it really isn't there's something there but it's not it's not very it's not very strong there's


have within a week ok very good with regard to mr wait there is it's very important remember that there's a shifting burden here with regard to mr wade he has to show first approve a prima facia case he does not dispute that there were legitimate nondiscriminatory


briefly on adverse action or


also the conflict of interest was keen for years in the litigation after an enormous amount had already been achieved on behalf of his class mr bland you consumed all of your time you do unless there are questions from my colleagues you may want to some


isn't it yes but there that there there has to be there still has to be some concrete showing of of a likelihood of an injury and there's there's there's none with respect to to to to force fed flogger well how do we know


case nowhere below and nowhere in his opening brief did the appellant ever assert that the depositions were not to take them to him for that or some that's not the question question is just really you know whether it's really


going to side with the fugitive in which case mexico would rightly say we have to be allowed to send our witnesses over so that they their credibility b s s or the court will say i can't make a credibility determination here in which


policy that was enforced and made the insurance company made a judgment call about whether someone was operating in the course in scope as in the andrew case pointed out by appellants or whether or not someone had permissive use something some one of


infer guilt for example the government indicates the dog they got a manual was found at hyper time well it was not unusual and certainly is not reasonably indicative of knowingly and intentionally


the case of iraq the fact that her name appeared on some of the billing sheets and that her name appeared as the owner of the isis to testify says saddest


documents and materials directly or indirectly considered directly or indirectly considered by the agency decision makers and including evidence contrary to the agency's position that's what an administrative record is we don't


the concept of pretty obviously has been adopted by the marilyn monroe case and in other courts there is no rational basis for addison to be allowed to come forward and argue in this case


factors are either conceded or are all but conceded there's no question there's no dispute that all the work was done on company time on the company's premises and there's also no dispute that it was done for the purpose of


notice motion right and it's not an ex party entry of judgment and therefore if it's not that aren't all of the proceedings and for the arbitrator and the interpretation of a contract is reduced to no avail so i think this panel can look at the contract i would


better than no no what's holding up the final judgment well what's holding up the final judgment is us foods filed a number of claims in the district court in chicago that were not adjudicated by the


the judge in chicago the district court in chicago confirming an arbitration award does not resolve whether in the first instance judge bolton was correct in


the possible is the entire seventeenth floor because he thought there might be some offices behind the elevator bay but certainly the entrance and the incident occurred at a checkpoint which has as the magistrate judge i think reasonably inferred is going to


morals depor ation which is one fifty five of the record she states after receiving dr mckee's letter i spoke with misty herrera miss beeler mr craig we decided to terminate mr king's employment based on his positive drug test


sense they wouldn't have made the ones at all if they had known at those properties didn't have permits then where is the conservation problem well they said there is a single broad statement made three years after the fact by mister


now it's not right just because there are still some further developments to girl which i completely disagree with but even if that were true we should have a right to do discovery in order to find out even right now what the status is we don't know now what this


carpenter owed four hundred thirty five dollars in unpaid assessments with an additional sixteen hundred dollars in charges for attorneys fees and costs and that number increased to three thousand seven hundred eighty five dollars


fraudulent document and repeatedly testified it was authentic and testified as to how he got it for the court to determine well you know i had an experience once where one of my buddies from the


these twelve contracts the union had offered a particular severance pay formula the company rejected that and they rejected that which the union agreed to and they rejected that though in accordance with a structure that would not be


will when it comes down to what the histories are that's the board's role i mean we've been trying to puzzle out the logic of your position and the logic of their position it's very difficult i have


testimony of tail and farron the court unreasonably shifted focus to how tale unfair and interpreted or what they could have inferred from their conversations with the petitioner but that's not what they


really done something you would report it if doesn't come through her her trial testimony does it i'm sorry or if part doesn't come through in her trial testimony when the phone call suggests ok if i did it you're just as guilty


government's case in echo or about the failure of the judge to ask questions that had been provided pretrial and that happened in this case anderson provided a proposed jury questions as well as joining in the arguments that his mother had made and so the failure to ask questions on behalf of


that apparently the arizona application is no longer being processed that's the first time that we've learned about that we've also been told in briefing for the first time that the attorney general will issue some sort of explanation with regard


or dispute some of the factual presentations of opposing counsel and that goes to one of them with regard to retroactivity i'll be very brief i mean i would defer that i refer the court to our briefs but you know the retroactivity point that they make is not one that the


specifically he said well mr mr something doesn't need to worry about not being in the trade credit are fine because he's going to be paid when they make a recovery against mr blix


strickland i understand that isn't that the standard though that we should be looking at not whether we think it was reasonable but whether it was objective leon


ramirez still has a valid i one thirty petition that has been approved on his behalf that's not a visa however that's just a petition and it gives him the status of being able to apply for these


something you know you just but it's not really been scientifically established is it and it was it's you know the science has gotten clear on things like


that the government made to a single person on the street gail and the question was is that public is it in a private sphere or a public sphere and the court said but it is public as to gale in the sense necessary for the sensible operation


overwhelming that mr salazar knew when where how do you small protection and he admitted that he chose not to that day he admitted he wouldn't hit the ground if he would have been working


omissions of this sort in stan or a man had been arrested with fourteen pounds of cocaine in panama and that information was included in the affidavit of what was not included but that no charges were ever filed giving this misimpression


brief but pay attention to what consul said about the witnesses when he said all the witnesses testified that the plaintiff would not have been fired if he had met the deadline or even caught up on the april eighteenth memorandum all the performance


accounts in september at the same time that the victim was being defrauded and sending money and he was taking that money and deposit it he understood he was found with on his phone


summary order but i think that we are not true although i think i think it's this court's practice that it's a summary order because there's really no new law being made there one of the problems with that sure his summary orders get decided sometimes a little


after mr de samone but judge he was relying on his his institutional knowledge of these cases and he did point out our distinctions


being conducted even the defendant at sentencing did not object and did not try to offer any other explanation for decent moans attendance of these defendants that may have been more


and one could have contested the permanency they could have and that would have and in rather than contest and drawing out they agreed to pay the money with an understanding that if it turned out to be wrong


page two said to the second amended complaint incorporated still images only from f and g and from a video not presented by the defendants on this motion


informed them that they this is a ford lease i know i don't know who you guys are why is that the notices were accessing your credit report how that would have told her you know tell them that the


a writing on a on a clean slate i wasn't suggesting that you didn't have a claim i was asking you what damages you were looking for the statute itself just does a provide statutory damages i believe so yes how much fifty


concerned chases responsibilities as a furniture of information under the f c r a whether they did or didn't enjoy in galper as to chase they did not hear they do mr schultz or says in page one of his brief one of the questions presented


not necessarily going to see something isolated in context just the stickies or just this the sticky notes for on her desk the low down position as reflected photographs and not readily available are visible


promise that shopping a deal to multiple prospective lenders simultaneously wasn't standing alone problematic the problem here was what the defendant was doing he was promising investors a first priority and a sole interest in the same


for removal is that your view it would undermine their fear of removal because they can go back to their country without since they were announced their religion as if their basis for their fear is that they cannot practice their religion without being


conclude the court concluded that there was a substantial interference because of the credibility issues and the court did not believe that it could several rounds the impact of merrill's testimony on the verdict and determined to hold a second trial we submit


lawyer you use their letter here didn't you i use their letterhead just in two thousand and fourteen when i developed the relationship with them so for the prior two years oh sir wall the conduct that


judge buchwald they were not questions that we could have moved to amend our complaint to address we do think the affidavits that we've pointed to in our brief do provide a substantial amount of detail but if they if these are real arguments they're welcome to try to make and there's a separate pure argument that we


plaintiffs after judge buchwald ruled said hey i want to leave to amend and they got that leave to amend their complaint but what they did instead was ask for a final judgment by the district court and then run to this court the second circuit and now we're basically saying oh you didn't


to five days is well within her discretion but it is not within her discretion to cut out credibility witnesses when she is now deciding credibility where she had said no and you know that's


footnote that express fully acknowledges that the judge had converted the motion from a directed verdict to add to it to a two another motion and relating to credibility which the judge had no entitle meant to do that was the point at which you


submit that he didn't deal with it because he was in a box he'd already issued his damage awards when he was told by the district court here that he had to issue a wrist reasoned and ward and there is no way there is simply


after that the second circuit reigned that court in and said in reviewing they could sure of the words we look at was there barely colorable reason and was there any justification of


difference in power the landlord can alienate the property the critical concept of title you can alienate the property any time they tenant northern state realty co could not it was always on the hook until the


survives it becomes a butterfly and the are issue claimants and they are issue documents and the play and didn't have any provision for anybody to opt to stoop to be cash they couldn't stay or caterpillar and just like a caterpillar can't turn into a


thousand dollars sure the loan agreement that i'm referring to is at a zero zero twenty five in the first appendix and if you look on that page you'll see the


one way or another whether he believed at that point he was impaired he certainly believed as an officer that he wanted to inquire more and that's entirely reasonable for him to have done it again rodriguez does not prohibit the officer from asking a


directly to the question of malicious prosecution because i think there are a couple of things that need to be clarified the argument is that mr tucker was told that the allegations were unfounded that is simply not supported by


for that finding other than that it was her reputation well even if she were even if she had a credibility issue people who lie can still be assaulted so and in fact that's exactly the concern that i think the that the


period ended the conversation that melinda johnson had in fact it wasn't a conversation she made a write down a statement and that statement was in the possession of both was in the possession of mr noyce and position


allow the question of whether x person is entitled to benefits be they pension benefits or health benefits or disability benefits which is determined by what the plan says to be decided by the people


forthcoming and the consequence of all of that is simply wish that by virtue of the irises approval he continues to be eligible for favorable tax treatment under by virtue of four


clarification of that interpretation what did the plan language that was his so interpreted what did you find


know covered all such forms of public transportation into vermont for almost a year and we think that suggests nothing more than a trickle of drugs into vermont on public transportation and nothing more than that the vast vast majority of


bronx got anybody elected and yet they get to appoint one commissioner their chairman just a point one commissioner republic democratic party chairman also gets to point one commissioner so each of the five boroughs republican democrat you get two point one commissioner but what about the


case and during that period as your art is pointing out the big harm which is the right to get any indemnity disappears so and so let's summarize this part of our discussion tell me when the period begins


case is opposing counsel says we left down yes which we would agree with your honor that the i j a essentially believe that the petitioner was the heir but


because of delays in selling and whatever end up not selling for what it was worth although in fact we did get some sales for several million dollars including after the lawsuits abroad we found the sales and we only


also true that it's a different standard we're talking about whether the question of whether excessive force was used is one question the question of whether or not qualified immunity would


public and obviously important well i think though judge will do respect there is there are a number of cases that are cited in both briefs and in the district court's opinion in which there are


here the statute says explicitly that the question of whether the vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of united states doesn't go to the jury it's exclusively for the court as a matter of law so it's different in that sense it's not an element


and i don't think the government disputes that says that it's not an element the government says but it's not subject matter jurisdiction it's some other strange animal that frankly i have never seen that something from the government shortly yes yes your


registration or nationality on its hull and it's only when the federal defenders took the video that was shot from the helicopter and slowed it down frame by frame they found by


put to good to be true right well you are there are there are circumstances in which a court has the ability to entertain a challenge to a statute that says that the united states has exceeded its authority and an


three zero one we have to observe that it's far from clear what the board's decision even means and what its implications are regarding the current existence of the parties no strike in that


law judge me that finding that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds on that narrow issue that should have ended the case because if there was not a meeting of the minds on the riders then when time warner cable tendered a


and then there bring them to the dock couple hundred yards away and the barges would be loaded and then they would move to another dock another couple hundred yards away where they would be inspected to go back down river or about the


the details of this case and frankly if everybody always made the right choices nobody in this courtroom would even have a job so the question i'd like the court to consider is not whether mr astley not made bad choices when it comes to looking at his underlying removal


in the district court document thirty five exhibit three the notice to appear itself doesn't even have a certificate of service again we're going back into these regulations because certificates of service are designed to make sure you do get a notice of the


sufficient to rise to the level of a justifiable disagreement with counsel we also know that there were multiple opportunities to make a record of what his issue was and including outside the presence of the government's forever doesn't require


the record when we deal with that and please feel free to correct me if i completely wrong about my reading of the record your honor you're not completely wrong i am not sure what you should do with it because we clearly prove that


that's my row and more importantly the defendant saying he's a cop he's involved that would i came in at had this case gone to trial i think the end result would have been the same but more importantly i don't believe


security interests we said before the preliminary injunction here and it was brought to the attention of both jam international and the court we will remove those from the foreclosure list those four hundred and ten dollars parts that you cite


the phrase excuse me i'm explaining the phrasing in f five both of those and says that it means the offense of both of those great things and have to an f five in both the offense of conviction and relevant conduct why do you


we've talked about it going just wasn't relevant to probably because she wasn't on maternity leave she wasn't anticipating to take a maternity leave in any way so it really did not even play a factor in sheriff


if it were to go bankrupt it's going to be in a position to keep the promises that it may st of all if the if it doesn't guarantee that provision of services if that number is transported by another ambulance


and so it is enacted for the purpose of regulating those insurance policies but these terms companies out of the picture already at that point isn't out of the picture and


test which you know we've argued wouldn't apply or would have limited application but to the extent it's relevant it's not a dispositive factor and not the primary focus under the layout that we've given in


association to have standing they must lead at least one one of their members has standing in an individual capacity to bring that claim and in this case the complaint alleges and i quote that the associations have had


educational loan issue that what happened here is miss page and she promised that this would only be used for education loans and she promised that she would repay any funds not used for education and now for the first time in


fifty three as a conviction when forming the appropriate sentence so while its count one was not barred by the statute of limitations we believe the failure to raised the statute of limitations or count to affected the entire


questioning of this witness outside of what was contained in the women are hearing transcript made of will that be other prior acts of sexual abuse she had suffered from this defendant and other counties in kansas and what it also heard when she had prostate lines


claims that issue and i believe that counsel oversimplifies what point its claims are in this case they're not based exclusively on misstatements or omissions made by the defendant in


so that does not really involve the introspection of the f l s and the railway labor act at all neither of those cases due to the contrary they involve the intersection of the airline deregulation act and potentially other federal laws and so the airline


seven or the the burden that they had at they had to meet to use this they they knew they presented the testimony


the expert notice had come some time before that i thought you had made a reference to the transcript at page twenty one so it was look transcript i thought it was page twenty one dollars your honor but i believe in the record they were talking about there is a discussion about


made the findings and so the evidence was going to be admissible and the prosecutor proceeded


crops for the five hundred and eighty two thousand dollars of crop insurance proceeds that those are richer suburbs are not partnership monies and that was subject to member banks elaine so once again read fifty eight percent of the total craps are grown richer children and as the other


transfer and that she was a willing participant in the scheme that's on page sixty nine dollars and that's what's being appealed today the standard is clearly erroneous and barbara wigley seeks to overturn


comma as this statement demonstrates my quick least true intent that he made the transfers as a protective measure and hoping to make it harder comma or even impossible comma for its creditors to collect from him close quote


the cases the saver and the buyer cases that counsel has relied on to support this equitable nominal damages argument were cases that considered title one which deals with employment not title three which


extreme that the district court restricted the purpose of the six minute clause renders that right meaningless to an accused individual with these limitations there was no ability for definit to quantify or distinguish the respective biases of the cooperating


be notified this is listed on the spreadsheet and that's one of the considerations that they use when they're making the determination decision and so for them to come up with new criteria that we could have deposed them on gotten evidence i don't think should be considered i think it's just


properly nd the district court properly reviewed the record in this case against the governing legal standards and correctly held that miss buttons evidence fell short of a stablish in a prime of case of gender discrimination under the missouri human rights


counsel see this as a proposed instruction i think i think it was the day before but i well i was not was there a proposal from the defense on this question the proposal was just to take


make i guess the focus of the point what if the statute just said you can't refuse to deal with israel in business relations i still think that at the very least there would be as


the one the chief drafter of the bill basically said our goal here is to target the boycott divestment sanctions movement and so that is what the statute seeking to regulate now it's true that our client does not currently have plans to boycott israel but it doesn't want to surrender


motivated they wanted to express their opposition to the military's employment policies but that that was the law school this is arguably at least from the legislative history an entire movement a boycott that is


they can't point to a single pathogen clayborne that says a refusal to deal is protected by the st amendment and that makes sense because the mississippi state courts had concluded that as a matter of state law in that case that route voluntary withholding


was thirty to thirty seven months and they're recommending the severe significant variance to the nature and circumstances of this particular offense defendant's own actions and roll up of culpability compared to other co


what do we do with it once we get it and what they did is they read the guideline and said the plain language as such if you didn't get the mandatory minimum and we're not going to apply it so it isn't that they ignored the guidelines


the district court correctly noted that miss baruch was not charged with violating the workplace violence policy but the district court also correctly noted that it didn't matter because a line it retains the discretion to


an employee who threw a lab coat and judge erickson you correctly focused on the fact that a line in its investigation monitor make sure it was making the right


sure that i understand your honour's question but plain language the plain language of what congress passed and the plain language i think that this court should consider also in the context of the whole statute and in the context of the whole statute there is a distinction between lawful status and admission not withstanding that


accepted and i think it's accepted in this case is how many times a day was there a commercial sex act how many days a week you multiply about how much money sex act was and then how many weeks did this go on for obviously


that i would say the judge judge simple got that proposition of law right when he said there needs to be some evidence from which a juror could find that retaliation was the


god the problem though was his leadership in the department and the significant lag time for cadia was taking twice as long as industry standards to process


states department of education recognize that it's self evident that the inability to be present in a classroom adversely affects one's educational performance and this child her educational performance was affected in


district in the state and the four school districts below who were rigid who were originally defendants in desegregation cases brought as early as fifty years ago have used these cases in that way


a st amendment right that no court has recognized doe asked missouri's courts to create an exception to the grand jury secrecy requirements for her missouri's courts denied that request secrecy is crucial to missouri's


lines created by congress and not crimes created by the court and the st supreme court case which gets to the issue here decided that the crime was so bored that they had to have an


fifteen million was used restitution was calculated to the penny five million three hundred and ninety two thousand four hundred and forty two dollars and eighty seven cents it's true that the government provided the court with other alternative ways to calculate


risks of this class of cases taken as a whole on the aggregate not worry about laurie but on the whole that the kind of fee that this result was asked for which is not far different from what he got in other cases is not an unreasonable fee and


especially in that in the central district of california in the ninth circuit where our officers are central district is our biggest district and as the supreme court says the judges who see these cases


the the commissioner's ruling itself says that it's that it's prospect of only the statute which the insurance company the insurance commissioner relies on provides that it can only be a perspective withdrawal


or abuse of discretion does your client agree that these facts that makes the difference


facial that's correct your honor and that's the that's the critical point what why what is violence of the of any portion of the telecommunications act if the city regulates different


is directed at barriers to entry a barrier to entry would be a situation if the county decided to have pervert preferred providers and sue to a franchise in order to select those providers


constitutional preprocess issue the problem for mr lanahan though is that left ruth again this is a state issue and so unless the state court is violating federal law routinely


between the whether or not the mother was baptized i would emphasize that respondent petitioner repeatedly adopted his declaration during the course of the immigration court proceedings and not only that but at page three fourteen of


jesse in fact knew you by sight you by name and you by context in terms of being at the premises if it had been a stranger who was charged in this case and there was not a failure to identify the young jesse then the issue wouldn't have been


the prosecution's theory of the case was that the boy didn't know her name exactly and he was close when he said mata because her real her first name is mara but he didn't know the


i have a particular problem with johnson and more in the failure to investigate it's pretty clear that the temp testimony albeit through the words of somebody else or in other ways came in the


all the various risks that were inherent in the c b o two portfolio and specifically in the notes but the ino that's where the ones that everybody was hoping would be the most successful because everyone else would be paid off and what helps


and it goes like this present non conforming applications for new billboards to a city that doesn't want new billboards this part of the scheme


client it's hurtful because it gets into racial stereotyping you don't have any other evidence that gomez was involved on january seventeenth particularly these are two weak cases and they only become


ago or to my repair was a hundred dollars correct and and the and i j said sound that the quotation from the administrative record is quote he stated referring


else and so you just really our country is stopped from relying on the ninety day rule your reaction to that is why was that raised below by the way give me was that was that issue raised bloaters in the stop of the whole ninety day problem that was never raised


agreed to buy it for that price that was the issue below and our my argument below was we had an appraisal that contradicts that value in two thousand and three not a year later when the prices


or that it does not feel that it's being given a bona fide the offer then it would appear to me that the purpose of the statute is to protect the franchisee in that situation and not the franchise or that is correct if there's


provisions of the plan deal strictly with the concept in the provision of making a claim for benefits they do not in any way shape or form does the claim procedure in any way shape or form indicate that you


a struggle a little bit with what unfairness claimed they just record accepted as well but what we do know is that there was only one claim one theory the court accepted and that was this notion that subscribers were unaware of how to cycle billing


because he obtained the british passport to obtain some ability to have an identity document and that is all he used the passport for for the exact things that the court just mentioned the social


that what your occupation is and what you're doing other words you can't make that allegation and then when asked for proof saying well i don't have an appointment book that establishes it or i can provide documentation to you to show that i'm not doing these things and


where the quote necessary facts were fully developed and quote that's not the case in this in this particular case and if you honestly look at the it's you'll actually see there were several reservation of rights letters i will admit they were not consistent and they


was more likely to be intelligent and better of a higher income then a shopper in a brick and mortar store the district court didn't make a specific statement as to which side that favored but in any event that is not


wife wants for file the fraudulent right claim to fraudulent marriage right so you can keep your wife in america right so i guess the issue is you're absolutely right the husband files the petition but then


subsequent to the board's denial of her motion really have to do something about this concern what she really wants to do here is attack the finding that the first marriage was fraudulent


judy reportedly said in the morning that is that i tried to contact i fired you is non responsive no sign of a letter i made phone calls so i just don't know anything i didn't turn in the papers are supposed to turn in two weeks ago because my client hasn't responded to these


encountered mr pay and he explains what was going on mr pecksniff to him were go back and lie go back and say that it was your fault otherwise i will not go back in there with you mr mendoza refused to do that which was why


would be the immigration


impressive expert evidence but the question really at this stage is whether in fact there are factual disputes because although your evidence shows one thing their evidence


and how do we know that's representative i mean it's like every time we have a piece of evidence that you don't like it's not representative but if you do like it's representative that's why i'm having some trouble and maybe i different way of trying i'm


trying to understand your case what they need to do to defeat summary judgment in your view they would need to provide representative evidence that this classification of full time


how me what a witness would have to say or what a piece of paper would have to say my piece there would be in your view say ok we give up we go to the girls will someone let me give you two


if if you find that ok that wasn't a violation then clearly then we would think that the lack of a jury trial impacted that and impacted whether or not he could have met the bar and thus established that test so if if he passes it on so


california coastal commission and what it says that case is roughly fourteen fifteen years ago i believe is


was no identification in the time sheets of whether projects were union projects where these people were working and the judge sustained the evidence your objection to those times


so basically i would just conclude by asking the court to to not create new law that greatly expands the


both the final judgment any order that preceded that judgment in the case you don't mean that literally do you or at least in your reply brief in response to the argument that the plaintiffs seek to bring up in effect


sheppard saying when we talk about record or conviction in two forty c three bin we the same record of conviction that was used in taylor and shepard you're right i am not aware i


she ignored one of the factors in their entirety with which is which which is the medical condition of the female it's referred to on page four it's


is that you're putting a lot of stress and strain on the upper body that once inside any attempt to utilize a restroom that again there's more stress and strain as far as being able to get and where the door pressures is


the court has expressed the doubt that i think is always there what would mr williams have said if he did take the stand and to get a feel for that you can look at what he said to the police shortly after he was arrested


those types of statements is there is no evidence to show there's a time saving or benefit to answer the question you started with and the point i'm trying to make is in this statute where it gives you examples


professional broker my guess is and there is no evidence in this that the broker was very familiar with this type of terms of these these terms knew the policy very well and of course the knowledge of the brokers and feuded


the thirty three act it is irrelevant to the question of whether he's entitled to reasonably rely on the statements and the omissions in the offering documents so that and by the way the reasonable


determination with your meaning of the judicial review provision this year i do i get i don't think that they should be worried if they were making such a significant change something that shifted billions of dollars of revenue around by


for anything pertaining to the manner in which they are making decisions on requests for extensions of exemptions the government would know if you didn't go to court i'm not going to court there's another for your case that has


document the articulation of this change legal policy that hurts us that affects us gives us an article three injury and we would like to challenge it we don't know whether we disagree or not with any individualized exemption


them before and to address that st it may incorporate all the others which was which is how do our decisions in wisconsin and new york affect the ability of the e p a to rely on the uptick rule


concerns about specific stores that's correction that's a general statement of law which i'm going to take your word is true but that doesn't really answer the


that you're making in the blue brief she said in your opening brief that your client's inspector didn't observe these conditions but that


select a more specific standard of recordkeeping than i general standard of performing an adequate on ship examinees just hear a difference in penalty or severity or gravity of recordkeeping


credibility to search his determination because she apparently found the person personally for so i'm almost out of time i do want to skip ahead to one other issues the weingarten allegation and i


employer that he wants assistance and i don't know how you could listen to this words and not know that sram wanted assistance i called the union three times nobody showed up i'm here without representation there's nothing else those words mean and


employer has an affirmative duty to spell out those options oh the wangberg say that i didn't think there was any i don't even think the employer disputed that if there wasn't fact a request here if he had said exactly what he said and he


not previously considered as you said they very well briefed in their motion for reconsideration the c e o if you will now can he say that they have been raised in the issue that wasn't previously considered if it hadn't previously been presented to them we


congestion reduction solutions and what do you mean by opportunity compete what would happen what sequence of events would be occasion if you were successful in your effort if we were successful the as outlined in a


first and whatever there's not a lot of detail about the nature of the risks but the inspector goes first and is the eyes and ears and it's looking for hazards and the workers


the inspector goes in first and season's flammable rights as opposed to bringing in the miners that's something that has to be fixed immediately


army did not promote or oppose religion whereas your client's proposed ad did what standard to review we applied that finding you know i think it's a mixed question of


that that core political speech could be excluded and so i think on the case law well i understand that to be as you can well off politics is a subject matter and your point would be we can wall off religion as a subject


day is what lehmann is all about laymen say you're basically that if the court were to conclude that that the that advertising in a bus is a designated public form such that we could not have any content


it because there hasn't because the commission would like to have the answers decide what it thinks of these whether these are real limitations of access in light of this decision that's before the court now but it doesn't


include at least for purposes of this substantial exacerbation tass cost changes they happen in two thousand and ten up to the time of complaint filing


really no impasse and that's exactly what happened here the union was not simply making a general claim to stave off in passing we want to continue bargaining without making any actual movement or concrete signs of compromising


parts of the calculation help you walk with regard to mind one well with regard to to line one i think i would refer you back to that general consumer product is what it what it means it is before you embark on the subsurface intrusion test


ranking score drops down to fourteen that's why i'm saying that this is the most expedient and most straightforward way to think about this i know that it's complicated regulatory lead but it isn't that large and we straight forward you


is if you just try to assess the magnitude of the magnitude of these things item eight which is just is there any individual there is worth only


that and so there was an indication that defense counsel did intend to hire his own independent handwriting expert as we pointed out in our brief there was also ample reason for ample basis for defense counsel to the fos examined the government's other


the few seconds i have remaining i'd like to conclude with an emphasis on detroit and it's and once it's determined that the information is confidential the necessary draw from detroit edison is of the board was


that but moreover i think this is the last instance where we would expect congress to reach out and try to reel back in the f c c for the very reason that when this rule applies to any federal election is almost always going to have incumbency


where we really emphasized how there's a very delicate balance under the federal election campaign act that you know that it seems structurally somewhat at odds with that to say


that the able j just found that they didn't meet their right mind burke you have to show that you would have had to take this action even in the absence of her he