the company was simply a flip flopper of revenues that revenues from two thousand were going to be moved to two thousand and one and that there would be no impact on the financials for the current year which at that point was fiscal year two thousand


case they could've waited even three to five seconds they got to that first of all they went in the residence the garage unannounced now second when you get inside


confrontation that was an unconstitutional act on its own such as in the alexander case where it was their conduct was reasonable given the circumstances for a police officer let me ask you talking directly about there


metro media for the regulation at issue in that case did not draw a distinction between commercial and noncommercial off site billboards and if you with a few exceptions it essentially banned all offside


discriminatory motives to raise a genuine issue of fact as to pretext i'm quoting a case that reality is yes it's very he has come to me he's raised by my count five different points some of them are


make a difference well the very fact that there were such contested evidence means that the court below could have held an evidentiary hearing at which the parties would


negative factor in this terminations decision it was never the union pacifics burden of proof at trial to show that he said one use of profanity versus the other it was pointless burden of proof to show that


at the nature of the restriction as it significantly inhibit communication and that's that's why this case is different from the prior cases in which states state law restrict the number of circulators that could


obtain the relief that he sought he sought to have a ballot go out to the voters in danville county they did not contain the extremely misleading statement that this measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent as a district court found the


transport well that he made the decision to transfer i don't think i would have found that i would have to get your complaint out but i think your point is that officer green now having him in


in our opinion be the violent takedown of the individuals for no reason let's face jaywalking look if it's something that's going to scare people from participating in the event like this again yeah it was before or after the point


not going to find things like open statements of discrimination we're going to find things that are under the radar typically and this is exactly why the law sets forth the kind of procedure


has to have suffered the initial injury the doctor and requires them in the st place to have been hurt so we can't just be anyone with a generalized grievance it's a way of protecting the doctor the jurisdiction of the courts so that it isn't of a did by the executive branch which is avowedly what's going


but with regard i'm asking more vod evidence rather than arguments you didn't offer independent evidence of the value of these assets right you were lying about what her evidence was that the schedules and such that's correct did


but really given the clarity decision i don't know how much more there could be to argue regarding his bones argument regarding balancing the equities you never get so balancing of equities because that one's


litigation if there isn't a settlement which reasonability in the amount of money that it expects but to i want to address the nd factor as well there certainly is no incentive here on the part of cinco to


do not disagree with that thank you january january two thousand and twelve i believe i don't i don't disagree with that if i may please commend the to the court's attention


in determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted under all the circumstances we renewed our motion because there was significant changes since judge show denied a


attorney's fees was it a percentage of something yes the amount that was requested was the actual attorneys fees and costs that were incurred by having to york mellon in response


up in similar font as the button or above here anybody that went through and actually click through wouldn't realize and wouldn't have clearance because notice so that's an alternative bases should this court take jurisdiction


it go and what had happened that can't be so so the only way to bring an action against the estate is to remove the trustee which has been sought here and then have that successor do a forensic


bankruptcy court used in in coming to that conclusion was essentially that she had previously rejected all of these theories of liability you know repeatedly unless


so if you want to base around us the number a binary number the prefix you should use is this and not the g b right so they set out those prefixes and they give an example using bytes and they know that the


on the degree of control that over the harasser and over the environment or the operations or the activities that the harassing actually occurs it standard of that level of generality i'm not sure that


yes your honor it is because in this particular instance we have new contracts new audit new claims and as the district court found there was no ongoing audit the record soundly rejected that as a factual


intervene in the related proceeds that reward congress determine jumps to twenty five percent is a minimum and thirty percent is a maximum and i find it very hard to believe that congress was increasing the rewards and recognition of the risk and incentivizing


then there was no need to look to state law and what it thinks counsel has not addressed at all in the briefing or in argument is that it's i'm contested that in all of the other o c s locations that are adjacent to states other than


california consistent with standing antitrust principle that california attorney general will enforce a statute that is tied to in state sales that are made that are wrong paul charges of monopolistic prices now


can it's true that the bankruptcy could have been filed in the trustee could have said no i'm not going to file a lawsuit right that would certainly be true but one factor that is causing our concrete and particularized injury here is the


barred by but certainly if there is an instruction from this courts that there should not have to sanctions order the sanctions were incorporated in this case considering the appeal the significant legal issues that were raised in the appeal


evidence of that either which would be another factor that they would have to demonstrate in order for the court to grant the plimer injunction the other issue i think is important


so it's still a specific instance of misconduct mr hoffman is not challenging an ongoing policy or more widespread present policy which would be wrong


been a relentless effort to revise our allegations and that's that's happened all the way through appeal before this court


misstatements the subsection be a liability goes way beyond the single isolated bug because it wasn't just one body it was one body that led to the discovery


here you have a company that puts together a very large working group a task force to examine its privacy policies


this panel part from that apart from the footnote that you're talking about the previous panel when i asked where is it written that this that that simultaneous consent is required is there any other place i should be


this panel is free to decide the issue contrary to how it decided in google refer and i think there's good reasons for that i think who referred didn't have the benefit of justice thomas opinion


mr will and referred to to our proposal of self identification as it were be a sham process but in fact google wants to take the benefit of having all of these class members they want sixty but they want to have


way that the i r s would allow review and where the supreme court has looked that i rest guidance to prevent debtors from taking certain expenses the i r s also has gotten


hearing was a part of his investigation or part of his personal knowledge was that it seemed fishy to him that o'neill was telling them that he couldn't report yet his vehicle broke down and i believe the thompson was a couple blocks


keep up with its workload almost uninterrupted during this during this pandemic in the meantime we hope that everyone is safe and sound we as a during your argument you please watch your time keep your allotted


not criminalize arbitration agreements the statute creates the option for ringback both the lawyer and the lawyer the to use an arbitration agreement and if both parties agree to it


are two major components that one of the billing records and i think that you could you know address that to the court and further on the limited discovery relating to offset a quarter of a quarter of the brown makes absolutely clear that


find that it was apportioning in phase two ninety percent of the time to emerson in ten percent of facebook it does not make that express finding if you look at age twenty six in the pages it creep preceded


employer can give the employees or the independent contractor get the workers designed an arbitration agreement and i appreciate that your honor if i can point out two issues with respect and response to that number one the supreme


reached the same result and and and here vent if we are going to go ahead and look towards the motion to dismiss i will note that the same abuse of discretion discretion standard applies


interest and the bankruptcy court to properly determine that mister figure no longer had an interest in that property and therefore it was not property of the estate and so i thought and then there's other grounds that we can go


professional i don't draft these things i left it to the lawyers to draft them in light of how they viewed it should be presented so again it's not like ms mullins is saying i made these strategic decisions about how


additionally as the district court voted if the court looks at what they witness actually all testified to they all contradict the representation that are made in that press release i thought that the most


koppel i'm having a little bit of trouble getting around the what to me is fairly explicit condition and in the agreement that the policy applies to personal injury


every time it is possible for a state court to obviate the need for federal review by deciding factual issues in a particular way the federal court should abstain as discipline court has observed such a holding would make a mockery of the rule that


that have a specific value in the judgments the specific numbers in the judgment and i guess judge cricket was asking does that have the effect of liquidating that amount because she was a partner


has left us kind of in a little bit of an awkward situation and that's unfortunate so i think that it's pretty clear that he abandoned the lawsuit it's not a true deep


fox was appropriately employed so it doesn't just require a little more examination well i mean i my my my reading of the the decision there was that it's in the context of the


ok got it it was moving to the st issue the district court heard in holding the plaintiffs federal equal protection claims and state claims were untimely determining that those claims


perfect a claim under state law by presenting their claim to the agency and the agency if it has some offer to pay them you can then have that all class go to federal court and file a class action but what you are seeking to do


to me by the clerk about whether i wanted to ask for a bottle time and i assumed as an amicus i'm not permitted i just wanted to confirm that you can every bottle time if you like i don't think you ratting him now ok thanks for


they likely to proceed at this point i mean what good would it be sending it back given what seems to now be undisputed as to change scenario your honor we significantly dispute the current thoughts


record aaron and take account of all these various changed conditions would you be prepared to work could you give


necessary has limited that so the fourteen days is calibrated to what was known then about interfacing period and there was a high degree of uncertainty as to how to best respond in handling it was by design a temporary measure


dollars which would have allowed the governor an opportunity to reconsider that executive order or perhaps come up with something less restrictive that would meet the strict scrutiny test now but


here was accepting a binding legal contract why wasn't that the thing that had to be clicked that was in a large box why was there just a tiny little checkbox in the bigger clip was continue move on to the next


could be decided in your client's favor have i got it yes your honor particularly the question of bad faith which is a stand in for pretext which is typically what you have to show in you know i'm


legal that's a legal issue that's what they do you have any other argument yes your honor so i would say that i get the california supreme court said in mcgill that public injunctions can't be ported to arbitration


deliberation and express refusal to act something that is articulated here that did not happen in fact the district attorney ignored mr


stigma reg reputational damage and the and the employment related consequences this is not the case is not a direct link it is very clearly an indirect link where the prosecutor does something which


when she returned to work she asked that wal mart continue to accommodate her by allowing her to take time off necessary to go to work as compensation medical appointments wal mart agreed to that but yet now we see they're saying that


could have reached that out while finding that there was indeed an invention that was assigned by operation of the agreement that's why i question six so if you were there and we submit that you know that they should have been answered at the times they were once the result is there is no jury


little bit he sees her in the car seventeen minutes earlier when he st arrives at the scene he leaves the scene to go check on on residents and he comes back he sees a a very difference he hears gunshots


future under these new line extension provisions necessarily there will be no consideration of cost vs benefit


say that that the books in the library are are the content and the current catalogue is just a way of finding them so far which is the cardinal itself is not the content but the other point i want to make is that when it comes to peg stations


independently verify the complainants aged there is nothing the only documents i have for example it was a medical form where someone hand writes a date of birth argument to the trial judge was that was clearly reference to the discovery that was provided to him by the commonwealth


by his diagnosis and nd this is consistent with the history of the term facilitator prior to the affordable care act the only time that term appears in case long and in statute is in


new disclosures but it's clear that raytheon either haven't done the comparative analysis under doesn't apply this exclusion of physical conditions


legislature was trying to avoid people being cheated out of vacation pay by mucking with the termination date that is not at all the situation we


have here your client was paid his vacation pay the case you rely on was factually very different just as it district court said and did involve


judgment the marital restrictions placed upon her by the doctor whose medical restrictions were compatible with the essential conditions of the job or


of yes your honor if he is determined to be disabled or disabled as of the date of his initial application he will be his benefits will fully be fully restored so there is no gap depending on the determination


point but the thing that just puzzles me is certain of the class members don't need the benefit of the f c c rule but others of those numbers do need the benefit of the f c c will


was adverse to your own finding here and therefore favorable to you and and any need for us to figure out whether the d c circuit had it right that's on the one an


effect findings on this bloke and i don't recall this being litigated be i get the situation there the court did not read the ascertain ability or identification issues but it would certainly be an independent grounds for the court to have


come back tomorrow with my cousin who can drive the car will pay you at that time so the car is left at the lot over overnight a colorado versus burke time makes clear that this fact or stolen


conversations actually the evidence was that he overheard a fellow employee saying something to somebody else and in miers the very case that set forth the analysis that we now use they said that that was not under any reasonable


one point just out of when you client fired him though you didn't your client at some point offers an explanation that he disobeyed a direct order from his supervisor


please the question that this court is facing is the issue of good cause and as to the timing me what the court house to look at is whether or not there was good cause for filing the federal


daughter we've never accused anyone of collusion in this case and i don't believe that was a mischaracterization of our position very respectful your honor i don't believe our brief alleges collusion either it alleges that these parties


books also us now to the extent purcel turns on injuries to the state itself in the state election officials and they're not here alleging those injuries that maybe that's something that you would take into account but i would say it should be given


certainly good to read and a jury could still find and i think what the judge did here and what we have to be cautious about is personally all these little these pieces of evidence and the little segments and treating each of them in the very independently have to support


there's the telling that she needs to be closely monitored there's the blaming her for inventory problems that have occurred when she was on leave there's the falsely or inaccurately blaming her for an employee who left who he said who he initially held against


person is defrauded into selling all the cases the jan again lanny lanny anson they all went to a trial to determine what was what would have happened had they retained their interest and that's the issue and the fact is when


them was the fact that she was led to believe that the person in charge that the person in charge of the decision whether to sell this property and where she would realize a liquidity event in their lifetime was bellaver


no false statements instead she's relying on the idea of a half truth and i believe it's worth distinguishing the case that she talks about here the cannabis st and you know supreme judicial court decision in that case there were unsophisticated investors


despite that i think the supreme one says he representatives denmark in that case this denmark argued in that case that it was under reasonable to require her to produce objective


in and represented by counsel i don't mean to be rude but you have very little time and give us credit for knowing what the facts of the case are yes judge those the facts of the case i was only


to not allow law firms to represent clients that the accountability that the social security administration worries about and insisting on personal representation can still be achieved if law firms represent


get that's the point but i kind of just backing this up a little bit the stats that's the point the statute is what provides that only those who represent a claimant can seek representative c d s and


need to prevail in order to get the type of relief that they want which is somehow or some type of payment directly to them because the statute itself makes clear that only representatives get


information about mr alston for the purpose of dissuading him from continuing to speak out and doing so in concert with other members of the town government can you point to anything then in your


recommendation arguing to finding that it was not it did not give him grounds to make these claims against spiegel and you had the chance to argue that a


address some of the pollens suggestions in their brief that the state of maine understands how important religion is in many people's lives and beyond being important spiritual aspect it's also part of a constitutional perspective and we understand that


similar risk not things that look just the same as on the surface but is the state allowing conduct of similar risk to worship whether street being worship and if that's the case it doesn't meet the free exercise standard


because revenue sharing is reflected in the difference between share class costs as alleged in those cases the difference in the expense ratios of various share classes reflected the revenue sharing payments so plan


your honor it's not a repeal of the old three thousand five hundred and eighty one i think the language of briefs talking about it as if it were a new statute is just to say in the context of this new procedural vehicle on this specific aspect of the statute that allows defendants to


supreme court's framework to see whether it's implicated sure your honor there are actually two legal areas in the st one that i was point is relating to good moral character as you just mentioned we stated in our brief that the immigration judge looked at the


page page seven of her opinion she she here refers directly to during the ten year the during the tenure during the ten year period and then in the next paragraph she summarizes


certain as well as injury were not met those are not jot and tittle and those cannot be excused the whole purpose of a tort claim is to allow the government the opportunity to settle prior to clogging the courts


correctly found that the testimony was false and in idaho or incorrect you know false implies intentional wrongdoing and i think one could interpret it as a gradual


language and i thought it was pretty well established to be at least in the way the indiana legislature operates when they do that they're not meeting to change anything any law any substantive law they're just reorganizing it so it's easier to


then to the broker opinion out of the nd circuit where they say there's a distinction between vacate or being allowed for everybody and in these individual cases for courts to say that stands as extraordinary and


presumptively serious crime the order here doesn't do that the reason that it doesn't do that is because it's not applying matter of n a m this is a decision and this is an order by the board applying matter of why all is really hard to read it any other way and it is for the agency in the first instance not this court to say


perspective really whatever the commission does by way of a final order never know the m c i case is the horizon cases those were cases in which there was a requirement that the parties to those agreements would have to


in dispute that the drugs in the guns were going to those that were into joining rutan's it is not in dispute your honor that there were an adjoining rooms to the drugs were found in a kitchen and the guns were found in a hunch and a


district court was that because the mask was similar in this show that mr seals owned a mask that was used in the p and c robbery or one like it it was admissible that is distinct entirely different from


the government in the district court on the record had to identify any non propensity reason for the evidence there was not the government now asserts that it was the the


relevant for for a not propensity purpose second your honor it is also entirely possible the mask could have been emitted with some further evidence of


evidence of a time in proximity that it's not saying exactly on february fourteenth and i think we did argue that there were multiple guns that could support that offensive conviction in any matter in any event


choices for the guidelines was to have a charge offense system rather than a real defense system where the penalty depended on the charge and not on all the bad things you did in your life there seems to be some transgression here


the court are much more about summary judgment standard for that reason we have not had the opportunity to discovery we don't know exactly what is going on behind the scenes as to where the problem has more to do with what's in writing and where the problem has more to do


herring that is where mrs lawyer funded counts are one of the party against her so that he would have one million five hundred thousand dollars with which to attack her in the indiana case it is not insignificant that was


plaintiffs would like to meet in person in groups larger than fifty people during the pandemic but the governor's limit on the in person gathering seeks to preserve the spread of covert nineteen and the exemption the religious exercise does not


cmdr reply i believe what misandrist would have raised in her reply is she would have responded to the new evidence and new arguments that were raised by the government so the response to the


noncompliance you had the company had retained the data beyond the retention period after fox's employment had ended with the company that was the injury in fox the injury in fox was not


we have no personal interest in having our information sold or at least the fruits of that information sold respectfully i would suggest that in light of the court's decision particularly in fox which was not part of this


would be sufficient to satisfy th amendment concerns to the contrary have this court's holdings i believe butler is one of those cases indicates that a search warrant will be defective is defective if he fails to


that dollar amount is and is an assessment and estimate across the population of how much are you going to have to do i mean ideally you know zero out you don't want the government to pay and have


the level the complaint actually attaches both the government contracts where you can see the kind of relatively minor role that particular program goes goes to it attaches the milliman report which explains that it might have taken


allow this evidence in so that your client had an explanation as to why his statement to the police differed so much from his testimony at trial so it was all part of the trial strategy and why was


injury that we need an article three but i'm looking at fifteen a and i don't see what there is for anyone either an individual or a union to bargain about i don't see how a union could bargain


exclusively to the private entity when you look at miller and page ninety three


doing i think that any suspicion that was aroused based on those facts and that and could not give any reasonable supports a reasonable suspicion that mister goldstein was serving methamphetamine if


standard rights so the officers motivation in saying that does not necessarily go into the objective overall view of whether the traffic stop was reasonable in its entirety no i agree


the end launch at risk or subtle and here nine biosimilars all agreed independently to the two thousand and twenty three u s century day two of them milan and bar injure did


record follows dr norton really close in fact you don't see are the word extreme that popped up quite a bit in the substantive psychological report and i think that that says something


rule requires a motion to dismiss before the retrial begins and that's what case law including state vs court says and they do for arsenal equivalent of that before the new trial begins when judge schroeder says i want to get clear in a couple of


straightforward ruling from the wisconsin court on performance issue on the effectiveness of counsel so why should we didn't me honestly i can think of all sorts of circumstances where the


howl and i represent the president and executive director of the state of wisconsin this case is really the latest chapter in what this court has previously described as the seemingly never ending battle between some


comments in the dissent to their denial of review and jarkko where justice thomas made very clear that the claims are foreclosed by killer period and discussion and that only that court can overrule its


renewal which his clients were seeking at the end of the year of two thousand and seventeen in in november of that year the owner of the building in which the plaintiffs


that's significant among other reasons if you look for example at the madison versus mississippi medicaid commission case where it discussed discount prices and it gave the example of discounts and which ones


doctrine that is designed to apply in specific circumstances and to remedy specific harms that are not present here levin is not a magical incantation that sends the state or any case involving state or local


arguments are you in are you dr not in as a video service she got primary jurisdiction you've got federal constitutional issues in play this state


away it's cetera et cetera the point of the question is that the juda cation of the claim in all of the defenses would seem to immerse whatever court decides the matter into the fiscal affairs of a


it was part of the case was right so it doesn't seem that you are right that you can sue for part of a breach of contract have that life asserted defense and then try to flip that defense to be a


to not apply a local coverage determination is limited to that particular claim it doesn't have any effect it doesn't affect the qualified independent contractor earlier to review and it doesn't apply to other claims it's very clear on that so


discretion to either follow or not follow contested line of action then the case isn't moot you know you have a case that needs to be adjudicated and there's absolutely


as goals under the thirty four act including enhanced thing with court in competition amongst exchanges and that was an express goal of congress when it acted the seventy five amendments and what it said was that it wanted to increase competition among the


honor respectfully i don't see the case as a conflict of interests case i see the case as the following the plaintiff's claims and each of there are i think it's sick blames all concerned the


it doesn't matter but the whole purpose of this of this specific events exclusion is to allocate risk between time periods right does the risk actually fall and in the in the illinois national


already in the building and the county official heard that he was in the building and ran over and said hey you gotta get out might be a different case but i i don't i don't believe the law


he was led down to the squad car and then officers went into the apartment to conduct a protective sweep now there is a absolutely no reason to believe that there was any danger to the officers at their point in time


the facts in the manner the government views that if this court reverses on restitution and thus gives the district court the opportunity to make those are all or not relevant conduct findings but very similar findings for purposes of restitution


and then of course they don't put their their disagreement with him in writing so each our director is that somebody outside of the department correct that would be someone that works for the city not in the department they would be more objective and that's what the city policy really what it would call for but they shut it off


doesn't have to be direct evidence that he had actual knowledge of the protected activity a reasonable inference of knowledge is enough and that comes from writings versus riverside medical center and the court has found in other cases that suspicious timing


we'll never see it again i think we're going to see plenty of this i'd hate to tell you but we do have a question i want to get back to recruit women every question which is whether the railway labor


strong interest in not having that data out there for potential hackers to see anything maybe they would rather not work for southwest if that's the way southwest wants to run its workplace


we're not saying that the federation is no longer jewish and we're not critical of the federation for expanding its functions activities or grant programs for its charitable purposes but because they have done so


trial court the district court in fact at the beginning of our reply brief we quote the language where the district judge said this isn't about greed it's about control and we agree with that but it's all based on these funds going into a


the his current claims arise if not directly at very least in directly out of that two thousand and ten incident and this conclusion is supported by this court's decision in canada the urge there the plaintiffs can and signed a


agreement that i was form of aggravated assault in this circumstance is not meet the numerators ofan it's definition of a fair bit of assault and that is because at least our position


walk through this door i'm shooting you that's at least an implied threat or taking a knife in the other case and stabbing a desk stabbing a calculator in the presence of the person from whom you're listing information the threat


and invite comment from mr mullins well mr walters you and mr mullins and your colleagues and this court and then district judges throughout the circuit for years now have been wrestling with applying the


no events of default and if i understand you correctly mr brand and you're arguing to us the least money and the us lee allowed the tenant never to operate the


dating the issue of fraud here or there were all sorts of representations that there was going to be an operation here and indeed there there was at least that had


the st there were talking about is the reasoning level in that's in the dictionary by comparison of titles that for two out of three jobs there's a reasoning level of two which requires the ability to handle detailed instructions and


reflecting back you've been in this business for a long time to have the next word anywhere but about whatever changes there are but it seems that there is some focus here that


evidence as to the claimed specific protected speech as your as your honor pointed out and it's noted was noted by the district court and it's in the briefs when asked the question about the specific


right back to the hospital employees what are some respects no wrong if the committee has the authority to provide what the people working for it right why are hospital employees so much worse than let's


right contemporaneously roughly with when things happen and if it turns out i mean that point she would know you would the company would know everybody would know what prompted this tangible you know this


but no hint of panic attacks no hint that and she specifically asks him under oath has anybody pressured you into this are you satisfied with your counsel he responds no pressure yes satisfied with counsel


assumption is going to be there in the middle of a panic attack you know before the court issued its ruling in this case a number of issues had a court the court was alive to the fact that the attorney actually presenting the motion to withdraw the guilty plea


a psychologist well only had to do was file a supplemental motion saying these are the qualifications of you know me the issue was ripe for hearing before the court given the conflicting information from you know me on the one hand and


wasn't aware that he made the argument to show good cause even for the district court you're now saying that it was the breakdown in the attorney client relationship but where's that in the record frankly your honor it's


complaint we're relying solely on our current point your honor we believe that if the court wishes to valuate standings based on on the complaint the allegations in the complaint when reasonable inferences are drawn in implants favor and as they must


an evidentiary hearing in the district court where the district court can determine one whether petitioners witnesses will testify as they say they would in their affidavits where we can value weight the credibility of the proposed testimony and also evaluate the


states to if the states are complying with the regulations then they're meeting their constitutional requirements we suppose suppose waivers are there real vailable on paper but not in real reality we're suppose


your brief says tell us jurisdictional statement is complete and correct you're representing that there was a final decision in the district court and there plainly was about what's gone wrong here your honor we were under the impression that the court


related facts circumstances situations transactions or events so st we look at ok what were the facts circumstances situations transactions or events that gave rise to these two claims and then we decide ok were those facts


how the guidelines played in to his in the original eighty four month sentence and he basically said i'm very much shortening it i'm starting at a base level which incorporates the two prior crimes of violence and i'm adding about


supports that macon county can certainly be a joint employer with the state's attorney's office and amanda berger was a many and county employee who was simply assigned to work at the state's attorney's office


financial on the financial side of the business side of reading and selling trying to stand judge williams but he ran his own business for for forty plus years he testified that he has stayed in business well


different and i think following like the real question we have to ask is whether or not that serious broader or not and if it's broader it's a constructive amendment one of the other points sort of related to this discussion i think is worth


that verdict should stand so mr mr mr i should have probably races with mr leavitt as well but it's my recollections and please correct me if i'm wrong that there were no fights about the jury instructions on these points correct


counts that he contested very vigorously relating to the theory of indirect liability the jury did not return a unanimous verdict pending any questions from the court the government


experience harm that rose to the level of persecution or that the motive for inflicting the harm was not to overcome the protective trait gabrielle argues that she cannot return to mexico for three other reasons st pattern of


the question is the plaintiff within the zone of interests of the statute under which they brought a claim yet and when i read sixteen any one n b a it's very hard for me to envision congress contemplating someone like equifax invoking that


one thing i want to point out for this court again has to do with the chronology of events at any given point if you want to believe that there was any and discriminatory animists


identify a different credit card from the original creditor if there is a different creditor in this case there is no different creditor this debt was not sold to somebody else but it leads me to need to trace


in fact the defendant's conviction of a misdemeanor offense and not a felony that it takes it outside of the federal statutory definition it doesn't matter what the exposure was in an abstract sense what matters is what offense


its reclamation plane so we have been three days the debtor is aware that there is a reclamation flame in play here regarding who's going to have rights to the pool


concerns on this also is that under three hundred and sixty four dollars for a debtor in possession financing it says the court after notice of the hearing may authorize the sort of lending can


forbid you to use courts in lieu of an administrative procedure i don't interpret the state well even accepting for purposes of argument the notion that you could have


importantly the person making the decision about removal was not the person who supplied the product the decision in that case was being made by the homeowners the person so are you saying that that case doesn't control because it was about did it indemnify not duty to defend


crime something that the government isn't titled to offer as bearing on the credibility of the drones which is yes and i agree that they can essentially present evidence upon the credibility of their witness


on the context of this case everyone would agree that there is never an appropriate circumstance for a correctional officer to have any sort of sexual contact with an inmate which is what occurred here


it there was the letter in which you asked to supplement and amanda complaint was that the i don't see that there's a detailed allegation of


personal jurisdiction in a criminal case using a minimal context hastur or whatever other test that that has been positioned at the district court issued is essentially an advance advisory opinion that whatever motion we might like to file on this point would be moot since


self serving statement it's not a statement about his state of mind it's a statement about the market not offered to prove where the market is that's the government's case and because that's the government's case there's there would be no unfair


honor but if they haven't then how does it become a waiver for us because we're supposed to be predicting is this is substantial issue for the merits panel right but that's a substantial issue in itself i think it actually is a substantial issue in itself is the


that was the finding when i thought this alone may not be admissible in the spanish proceeding it might be relevant to inform the litigation and to inform appeals of rulings in the spanish proceeding specifically the


an investment banker who had pitched a transaction to understand new fact that his client did not have so that he could take those facts back and inform his legal advice to his client but here g


submitted letters asking to impose sentences recourse aeration and they didn't get what they want and it's just your pointed out after the sentence was issued if they had any concerns when they raised their issue about cost


the traffic citation was dismissed that mr ballard is not allege any collateral consequences and he had a right to recover his costs and he does not allege that he pursued that right i would like to briefly address


day in and day out for the past however many months i understand his slavens arguments about why he's why there's a concern here but judge press that you should put him on a monitored curfew that's all that's necessary so the answer your question is if this were the arraignment i'd be


this case in the jurors were accordingly properly instructed quote the defendant must have made the statement intending it to be a threat or with knowledge that the statement will be viewed as a threat


he was able to carry out brett but the whole argument on behalf of the defendant was this is just the guy blowing off steam he didn't mean any harm by saying things and meanwhile he's got an


ongoing issues is that he can consistently get behind a car and drunk and drive and drink and drive and endangers others and and lifetime supervise released sounds long however unlike a term of incarceration


involved four different government witnesses so part of the sheer number of questions was because the cross examination involved the testimony of three cooperators and it also involved the testimony of a little victimized


after much to ing and fro ing with the county department of health and never getting approvals from they nevertheless submitted an application to the planning board for a special use when they did that it was noted that they would need a variance from the


statements to some things that pete had said but pates denied that he said these things pates when asked during his deposition denied that he had any complaints about the program pates denied that he communicated to dr williams any criticisms of the program of


about three to four weeks before being detained and he saw the plaintiff complain about medical problems daily but i don't think there he says with what degree of severity and judge reggie i


claim here of the morgan hill claim the coverage in place agreement was that there's a clear change to the deductible there's a clear change to the notice provision and then when you get to the change to allocation


abuse charges that counts each one counts is a month that seems to be at least there is an argument that that is irrational because if somebody has an


amount you know but but sustained and then you came off of the benefits and there was no indication that you would need to go back on that person would be likely to become a public charge even though in the past they had used it's in a thirty six month


to the state of new york and to have a nonprofit or we also look to the harm to be aliens who are not admitted or not i didn't see that much discussed but in


to the federal election but the problem i have here is with the text of the statute it says provided that this provision shall be applicable only


when i think what you're saying judge was really the role is a very very limited one precisely thank you


but if you dispute that or any portion thereof that doesn't work i mean i just it's inconceivable to me that somebody who is told she owes ten thousand dollars who only owes five thousand


comparing different forums and then choosing the best one minute of the truth is what this correspondent show is there was simply no other place to go


counselling for instance which is the main thing that she needs but she's in the hospital last that's why i don't understand


the conspiracy charge to every object of the conspiracy and you say well the ip was convicted of a conspiracy to distribute crack then why isn't that something for which maybe it did maybe it didn't affect the sentence or maybe it


party or as a minority but rather or not they did in fact suffer discrimination any disability could be taken to reduce to absurdity to sue to such a degree as the court of suggested i


but no i did not you thanks


is all i can say is and we cited a case the a california case it's either a treatise on the issue that medical expense coverage is a st party coverage is not a liability coverage so is not covered by thirty four


charter i believe it was a conversion of the conversion of branches i believe to to it being federally regulated so i don't know that there's a one to one correlation between what they describe there and any


you can you can apply for the charter and again i think we will go live shark is definitely in and maybe the bar and grill as a possible they might want to move i want to give it to them but they are in the business of banking as


dispute they agreed that any award be final and binding and would be subject to force and by the district court so i don't think there's a conflict but even if there is i think we cited to a th circuit case


involves you know these three or four people this is a practice as we've shown they are routinely charging more they don't dispute and there are tens and tens of thousands equal we've


absolutely if the question could be in the event the court is prepared to affirm on the merits as your client and the objection to was


absolutely your honor so the notice we thought was adequate it comported with all requirements it fairly apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed settlement and of their options in accordance with this court's wall more wal mart stores easy


looking at him then mr castro was found to have abused a child in multiple ways not just physically but mentally emotionally neglect dangerous


alternate holding before an illinois counsel was reviewed by the supreme court and then reaffirmed that position at the th shirk it upon a new man from the alternate that's correct ron


faith withdrawals from their brokerage accounts and the withdrawals satisfied a debt subsection c five hundred and forty eight states that a recipient of the transfer made in good


statements do not meet that definition for this rule is consistent with state securities laws to the extent that defendants account statements created security entitlements the u c c specifically


that it seemed to me that you believe that district court had to conduct what is called a complete review and that phrase appears in section said see section four o four


let me ask you about that why wouldn't we have all the process that's due and appropriate with the benefit of your action and counsel as well as perhaps


understands what's required of him as he acknowledges at the beginning of the sentencing where he says that he'll consider them only as required by law and the fact that he has a policy disagreement with the guidelines is


or whether at trial or whether a punitive damages award has to be based on the evaluation of the conduct that was tried so judge goal thought the jurors found that the officers that committed perjury and judge gold thought that the officers had committed perjury in


or and this is the nd part there is the whole aspect of the golden parachute problem which is that any payments that we would make to him in this


a fact question and when we start you know dancing further and further away from just selling don't know right it is the coffee is the pastries is it sandwiches is it a vegan restaurant right at what


well i don't think there is any evidence and and perhaps that comes down to an authentic case in question we asked for sales data in this case the judge noted that in his order it was refused to give it to us we wanted to know that data i believe


offered for sale something but the record is completely devoid of any evidence about what those sales were and i think that's probably on purpose i don't think they wanted to we don't know if they sold any of those goods we just know that they've offered some infuser and there's


when he could no longer work submitted a claim under a different policy for long term disability coverage and that claim was paid so i think if my my interest that is the employer saying


hopkins was actually intimidated by this interview that he showed a willingness and desire to talk throughout and that is really one of the critical pieces as i said that separates that this case from this court's other cases where coercion has been found


reasonable and was not of use scratch i guess i don't i don't understand your answer to judge fletcher's question suggests that you do recognize how sexpert testimony at least of this ilk could be relevant to that just and


limitations grounds we the court need not even reach the merits but if the court decided to reach the merits the standard of review is so dumb parental under the f


had no right to the premises after going home from the trial losing mr solidary would then still be an authorised occupant of the mobile home park because a federal court has absolutely no jurisdiction


tendency does not have to be expressed as ms campbell has pointed out it can also be implied but nothing in terms of cities actions here and especially with the timing of accommodations for funds that were made in this


for where they are operating that is whether they're operating it in in terms of their minds out of state or internationally or only in grant county they all pay the same rate and this is not


that even though john has this is why you still need to be a member of the union with that be covered by the collective bargaining or would that be allowing i viewpoint that is


say if they don't play as for freedom i'd like to hear what they have to say if you don't if you don't like that then you just say well no you don't get to come here on of that's actually not how ecology is policies operate so take for


wally there was a possible allegation made direct competition but the next step if there is direct competition the traverse who or tell that there is no presumption of injury


attached so we have this going in the inference combined with the officers personal experience with the judge that would give i think any reasonable judge the impression that there must be something in these text messages that the reports referred


legislature to carve out that particular aspect that particular industry for the a b c has on the contrary it makes sense to focus on industries the present a problem so the legislature did not air the


that's your responsibility or their city or or the united you would seem to be the united states is responsibility the city says it doesn't really want to argue unless we have questions so can you address that question for me i think we can your


how you get your permit i mean i don't i don't know that i would agree that they're not substantive in the sense that if you want to permit to open a facility in thirty days because you had an urgent need to do so it's it's literally illegal and impossible to get that if you're in the


is this is exactly our point you're either of us completely independent so the city is in effect acting again it is acting separately it is acting and for the st time so the two meeting all should act again and separately for the st time now even if the two meeting rule doesn't apply one


counsel let me let me back you up to what you just said i want some expansion on it i look at the statute and i can't see where anything on federal is affected by it what


he had a light restriction or a noise restriction but maybe that's not true and the those things could have been accommodated by wearing a baseball hat sunglasses changing the lights putting on noise cancelling headphones there was a


then there's a series of efforts that were made accommodation they start in june th of two thousand and sixteen and now remember he's still how he used being accommodated now the question is whether he can be given some opportunity


be to the bar generally i'm not sure this is the case where the court needs to help guide us on how to deal with the difficult ones because i think when you have as here it complete failure to respond to


to broughton crude those are all mcgill was decided in fifteen years after those cases i will quote the language in the mcgill because i think it's important for the court to hear i will actually quote


me just report to decide this question whether or not howells arbitration clause could prevent plaintiffs from pursuing representative action in court it asked the court to decide whether arbitration


there would be every incentive not to touch those amendments because we want to avoid incurring more u v b life so that money to the plan would go to the trust and there wouldn't be any incentive to reduce to unwind those


and so my question is since the record shows that it's not even clear that ballots are actually postmarked and then you can't even i ask which ballot from


secretary promulgating rules to fill in the blanks and provide some administrative guidance to county elections and about how to hunt elections but that process requires just like normal rule making


may i does hold to that aspect that where you're talking about the copying of into rand as we are here that the th circuit has held that that is sufficient to constitute a sufficient amount of time for an infringement without having that discussion of the temporal


california does not make appropriate accommodations for fundamental constitutional protected speech in california and that itself on its face is a constitutional violation that persists to this day and


will continue to change that framework based on the statement by the government so none of those factors in the rose fraud case are met and accordingly this case has not moved and indeed similar analysis was brought to bear in the brooklyn diocese case where


regional stay at home order where wise so the executive order and thirty three dosh when he says nothing about well you know worship may not take place here but these activities matey please it says nothing all it is is the complete everyone must stay in their homes


think you hit exactly on that there were findings as to only or specific databases and those war offensive the databases that were the subject of the operative point in two thousand and thirteen there was if you look in the record there's no general percentage there's nothing will


equivalent that's a i think that's a fair summary of what it says even if even even putting aside whether or not the answer to the request for admission should have been introduced into the record at


it if anything in that as the district court that a later case that i'm sure you have to understand if if you know wyoming or montana here are some information that mr harris disagreed with in the service interval why on that would be the that would be an


did take the same tort ran the same four plan to do the same thing without star line and did it without compensation and the case for the supreme court left all the way down say fine you can't do it


of all the parties reflects an understanding that the video recording has a value that goes beyond reading the printed word but it is striking that everything on this tape is public already


obtain and record general employment information their employment character of these payments is really clear from the


regardless even if we don't find that there's still a violation for being not neutral or not generally applicable and your honor if we look to look to me that that your honor mentioned it was looking at analogous conduct also the hostility in that case was only joined by two


opposed to there or whatever one paragraph or two sentence order in the actual decision they wrote they enjoined what was going on in new york so your view is that if we find directive twenty


put it in that tax we got on pasted it into come right yet was it it was in your so so the district court could because it was before it look at that chart and determine whether as a matter of law it was


the out dated model whereby motor carriers use in the independent owner operators to deliver services to their customers so it simply cannot be maintained on the record it is the law of general it's like ability but


a function of the lights a service there could be recordings that occurred when someone did not intentionally act a service to the record but it wasn't the subject of the contract at all


noted that the that amazon is the only party here who had a right under the federal arbitration acts section sixteen to actually appeal and that appeal right extended to an order and there is


authorized exactly that warman's should be ignored that is fundamentally an acquittal rd mr postman speaks about the idea that if you picked up his mom's phone he shouldn't be bound


any access to the court irrespective of an ongoing custody dispute a civil case is very different custody cases in visitation matters can go on for years and years and years


that quote women in a particularly country regardless of the city or clan membership could form a particular social group and size does not matter the i j a the observation that ninety eight percent


all women in somalia in theory could be included in a group somalian females if there were so persecuted on that basis this might have been the benefit or for example and mohammed the i g found the group salvadoran woman too broad and


made my interpretation of your honors as i read it was a four thousand feet i have a four thousand feet to have the document issued and i'm sure that's me as a four thousand feet it kind of go through the paperwork at the government officials to sign off and that sort of thing and either way


indeed even dr shirks testimony addresses in his expert opinion that the reason mr de haar was targeted was because he has a familial relationship with men while this is


meeting car bombs and there were quite there were questions that how special agent hardy was able to identify that mr muhammad was comfortable with the interpreter eventually the different


really something new i mean we have now more cases on we may have more next year but if we were to determine really simply as a matter of low that the b i a was incorrect why would we need to remain


that feelin failed to observe and implement in this case let me elaborate


to all of their words rather than create conflicts between them and we cite the native ecosystem's case for eighteen f thirty nine sixty the other point here your honor is that be a lemon ocotillo rely on the plans


your question well i take it that he winds up ultimately expressing his conclusion in terms of government assistance and i hear you're urging us to view that to go back a


step and say it's really talking about intent to inflict torture on the separate issue of acquiescence understand when your brief argues but is there really a basis to conclude that


that the terminations date is april eleventh two thousand and eleven it states so right in the memo and if you come to the conclusion that it's a reasonable inference you


good morning your honor as i'm william name representing myself ross a i'll get into two things one the testimony did not reflect that i thought there was any partnership and two there was no concession that investors kraals


government was aware that regardless of any defense that the that defense counsel put forth it had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the alien it alone so even though we have this finding from the district court that's waiting for


th he filed his notice of appearance but did not file in a continuance motion he could have at the same simultaneously with the notice of the parents but did not on page twenty three of the record he blames his


relations on the east coast the west coast it's thing based on this particular bargain that was struck i don't abuse you with not entitled to electrical and then our work either because it had performed it or either


back for a finding about whether it was also one of the central reasons why why should or you know as in terms of judicial economy what do we what are we serving by trying to separate the issues here


opinion but he did not provide any factual evidence behind that and well well wait a minute if this were someone whose who were an expert in the country or knew the country would we would treat that as evidence here's a man who is


conditions that one has in a given country does not prove that there is any of fischler private person who has necessary specific and they have to inflict the suffering upon the patients


ignored the specific diagnosis of that analysis in their in their approach i mean that they just were talking in general about disability


was that the government offered this and gave protection to the petitioner and then took it away that they mention that at least real war crimes the majority did


and assigned her a code name to protect her identity and she testified that she had no idea whether there and they investigated because she fled soon thereafter and again that's why the agency looked to these mixed country reports in the


i think the exceeded station there if the court looks back at the board's decision in the house indicated this was that starting with the end of one the board simply said this has been a rule and did not provide an explanation


with you with all due respect in that it says that the police report him not only the only documents that can be included under circumstances specific or those that are fundamentally fair which it defines as quote procedures that you have an alien and


construed to be i a s opinion adopted that find it so isn't isn't a lack of due diligence itself irrespective of the issue you're discussing more than a sufficient reason to uphold


analysis exception we have for circumstances where the petitioner can come in and show that there was a single case let's say or or a handful of cases in which a conviction was allowed to stand under circumstances that would render the


match and you know from what we can tell today there aren't any outlier cases that would call that conclusion into question let's say though that you know ten years later the state courts have ruled


exhibit you admitted into evidence and used against our it was never translated so how could she her mind it produce full information on other legal issues that are germane like relocation of the law and with respect to the gym or got to your specific question about the multiple hearings


raising arguments the st time in this appeal under this court's precedent it's well established that she's not allowed to do that she has to raise those arguments were the immigration judge and when you look at the record and you look at some these transcripts


is there a review of that and i guess that's where i don't know that's where i think i know the reading provided by respondent i think fails right is that is that it is only the secretary of state that can confer it right and where is the role or the court's right as provided by


it's certainly true that you can look at many factual circumstances there are lots of information requests cases in the board and maybe in this court as well and different factual circumstances come out different ways and that's why both the board and its court of characterize it as a fact


lot of confidence in terms of what was presented well it was listed in the attachment and then what was taken and i understand that we're going to focus on the firearms in fact let's do that now i'm just


know mostly versus the circumstantial evidence that he was the owner and only driver of the car that he never laundered out that it had hidden compartments built into it where he had a very large quantity over one


do that give me a moment please is sam there sav can you help us out here this shows i'm here i'm ready to let mr fury know back and if you want to just leave the meeting and then reconnect


ties and if that's true you know that we would have to reach the question of whether the family can be a social group but i'd like to know you did you think that that is a finding the borderline on


honor because there was one incident eleven isolated incident mentioned in the record involving a petition on her stepfather and after that she moved out your honor yes


in light of that long history in the context of the well there's a lot of history going both ways there's also a long history of the board sometimes transferring these cases to be so so i'm not sure what that's all we have here and that's language is it to me this order does not speak in terms of


did say that she took into consideration mr called letters statements as well as the documentation submitted on the case if you look at the documentation by itself not necessarily mr color


sort of time surely be your honor and mr cochran of course en route and my clear in understanding that the revolution occurred in may but are you saying that the


the way you're saying and you the point of this decision to see this is precedent but that be really weird i mean you have you know seven adverse courts of appeal decision and eleven for this is a left standing only because no court ever reviewed it and you would be able to rely on it distresses would be really happy


unfair and plausible to require such from the immigration judge whereas the specific when it's the petitioners burden to submit any documents that would support his claim and he himself proffered as part of his claim what happened to


he you know actually feared persecution and part of that was because it was a father's experience maybe a large part of that and knowing that usually you have to come in with


interested in it as it may not be terribly important in this case because the hospital record doesn't show why he went to the hospital and this fire record isn't supported but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that he


a proposed notice of intent to cancel it to the department of agriculture and the fit for a science advisory panel nd and perhaps even more importantly the court should retain jurisdiction until e p a takes a


raises we would like to point out that e p a has indeed done substantial work on this issue there was a response to the petition and then the answer was brought to this court and


well again the premise of the question is that it is something new happening the answer is no this is what the statute has meant from its inception but i'm going to push back to the you saying what they meant but is it true or not as a


who has alleged that he and the union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement if not actual collective bargaining agreement this agreement obligates by all the to pay the wages of a full time union shop chairperson this


motel d they got a call for a person with a gun they found four people outside the motel that appeared to be together and mr ware at the drop the gun and the officer heard it ms bell are they who is charged in a separate related


act accomplishes the same purposes specifically with respect to the jury out the provision accomplishes the same purposes indeed the provision itself is part of a series of of provisions that were meant to


and also crosses copy of the letter itself at six hundred and twenty eight dollars and on the copy of the letter she wrote that she received it from mr bryant and in the affidavit in depositions she describes when and how she received it so that's how


increase their risk of harm as opposed to if the army had taken no action at all rd the district court correctly found that the army was not the proximate cause of this tragic incident


what could happen in this specific instance in fact she she really had very minimal facts about what was going on as she details on the report to the family as advocacy program which she testified she faxed over to the


that was in excess of our limits because the cash portion alone was almost two million dollars and then there was also an annuity and that's when the after we contributed our check that's when the next lawyers began depending rubidium paying the


house and that it says this force will not be used against an offender who is merely noisy or shaky punching or kicking the so do work for example but it wasn't even doing that she was and i'm going tapping on the


five minutes later he tells her it's insane and there's nothing in the record from the defendant's perspective that that puts it right right together i only have a few seconds left so i just want to make a concluding point


pleadings talk about this one instance and this is the only one instance that we're aware of and i touch on if it is one instance half how do you connect this to liability for


violated if you ever got past the threshold question are we going to adopt state created danger


this isn't a seasoned criminal that the police were you in this is a suburban austin neighborhood where a mom called for help and admitted leave the police were confronted with a difficult situation but just because it's a difficult


says this is the way you do it if you want to preserve error will fifty one gives you all of the instruments for doing it if you want to move for judgment of acquittal rule twenty nine gives you all the reasons for doing it and twenty nine doesn't say anything at all about the distinction between trials and jury trials


as to twelve and so what we what we see as a series of interest bearing agreements that were entered into between these same business venture partners and the same timeframe and litigated


notes so that he could get this money that he felt she owed him but is the test is the test one dollar of subjectivity whether he thought it would be interpreted seniors or just looking at the agreements and they were interest bearing and then that case


what's the bottom line and i mean you're taken meandering way to get to some but what is the bottom line or you are going in the red brief and the day that we affirmed the district court in this judgment or have you


shit in fact we know that mentally all of her took those threats seriously i would think i would take two exceptions to the characterization just respect but it has been several months it only been


oliver and so you know to the extent that they had some awareness of his personality and disorders if they had observed anything and wanted a subsequent mental health evaluation by mr oliver they could have put him back on and watched until


organization the definition does not require the records to have actually been recorded the definition is actually notably in contrast to an alternative to alternative definition of patient safety work product under the


obligations that maybe need maybe me become more economically unfeasible as a result of introducing competition just in this one area and so what tracy told us to do is


been no cases in the th circuit that have adopted this doctrine with one exception that was excited too and mr walsh


done these things hear knowledge that there was disagreements within c of you about his role however whether those issues amounted to grounds to


unjustly unfairly puts the burden on the company and that's not what the law requires so we also have that the the board's order ignores


making that statement and also i think you have to look at the fact that he's had a longstanding you know a thirty year association with an organization that this country has designated as


location of the hearings and it really when we look at them it takes us to what is this court doing when it looks at the air war should it grant deference or should it not and here the tribunal


to reject universal mail in ballot now that means that of eighty two three is constitutionally defective the proper remedy is to eliminate that statutory nd exception in its entirety and the supreme


th amendment if i might if the state were to pass a law saying that white people must vote by personal appearance but black people can vote by personal appearance or by mail in


franchise and all of the cases that mr dunn relies on warranties julich or harm colorado common cause case the common theme in all of those cases is you've got the state taking action to


just urban's from increased noise nighttime lighting and dredging within the b s that's disturbance and it talks about that animals have different sensitivity it boys frequencies things humans


and that's what ferg did wrong also inspire logical assess it didn't look at the noice extensions of its own environmental impacts take it just came in a biological assessment


had never alleged that the supervisor at issue in this case was responsible for creating the hazard the employee was exposed so here are the only reason there was a hazard in the st place was because big al chose not to


dow directed funds that go to do this now we've done your honor because the bottom line is that the doubt was the supervisor he was the foreman on the project he had most training and was responsible for the safety of the individuals working on that


receipt on the receipt ok and carib your meddling in this court that even where an employer alleges that it's accepting a recommendation if it takes actions contrary to that recommendation and continues to dispute the recommendation the employer is not


now we believe that this is an improper use our does not fall under the guise of the guidelines it is not under the definition of what synthetic marijuana is and we have some cases that are illustrative out of the st circuit about


legal profession to suggest this is this is a formal organization this is the use of the legal profession these this is a big deal because lawyers are supporting it and so i think that's the key to this st claim this association so it's my members don't


reads abood and knocks both of those are very clear that a simple rebate system like the bars offering here is not adequate and that both of those decisions say objectors shouldn't have to give essentially a no interest loan it shouldn't be the objectors


in which we say that in preparation for trial mansfield's attorney steven c hall file a pretrial motions including a motion for evidence favorable to defendant which was filed on october th one thousand nine hundred and two similar motions that also then filed in the morton


application of a state what system for purpose is not being applied the same in yasser county as it is in the majority d of other counties that pay part time and full town public defender


documents in this case was about two hundred and forty dollars pages all within our wireless possession and during those eighteen months there trying to tag us with t t l a few days our wireless withheld


they are all in a situation where they have to reintegrate back into society there's d testimony on the record again from the from the same gentlemen supporter that harmony house functions to reintegrate d them exciting meeting them


is a fairly strict standard at least that some of these other courts of use it might be is well you know it is it true that but for the accommodation requested the model would not work in the individuals would not have


there is no impossibilities performance put but that really misses the point these were renewable payments to these rd parties and so you do have charge backs and you do have evidence as to whether the minimum form of standards are met


sitting we've had another case where certain language was used for remain and so i guess i've been here is you know when you think when in this case of course the prior panel to a spot they brought it up then you tried


elocution in front of the district court because mr mcelroy specifically said at the end of it all and he made reference to the conversation d he had had with his probation officer mr hale but but


conjecture well that's true but under the guidelines a person can not of which is taken as either neither an admission nor a denial in order to preserve his acceptance of responsibility and there


they had to have known not just that there were conditions that might cause property damage or bodily injury but that in fact that those kinds of injuries had occurred i'll address the many of your example which is the only one that even comes


instruction the defendant consented three times to the instruction before it was given st at the pretrial conference nd during the trial when the defendant challenged a different instruction but not the one challenge here on appeal


and so that so with respect to the language there i think it clearly and their reason based on the language is that there is there is language that congress uses when it wants to talk about finality


my opinion is that case is still good law largely because that's why did you not cite it because it is by far your best authority if it's controlling it actually deals with the problem of wage exemption


a more specific explication is that would not be quite helpful to the jury in trying to distinguish between them and the actual charges in the many hypotheticals that can be developed here i also have to say


had the supreme court declined to discuss that issue i think that she and was from sol on the basis of qualifying grounding for the officer correct and that may be completely dispositive about the claim against the officers here but it


district judge has a lot of discretion to determine how to how to deal with that sort of challenge to the guidelines frames but at least should tell us how it's resolving that challenge instead of simply adopting the


that not only did it dismiss in favor of arbitration but as the court is aware the arbitration actually took place and was decided on january st of this year council let me tell you what month principal


so while the incidents were undoubtedly frightening they do not rise to the extreme level of past person moreover with respect to nexus for the past persecution petitioners do not clearly challenge the determination in


for that very reason after the other examiner found it yes that's correct but the point is we did address the question of this shape and whether it was or was not functional in the nd declaration that mr west was and it went in if explained very


the beveled smile it's it's depicted in the patent i don't deny that but the fact is that just because the patent specification used the verb we scallop the edge to reduce


probability if i could just walk through five little points from the facts that we believe establish probable cause here this again is the whole picture and you have to put this whole picture here together to


devices and ip addresses that are offering child pornography and then true only later on is it referred to as the i kept cops database it might have been better to have pointed out early on that yes that is the icac


couple block radius of dallas what it seems to indicate your honour's a couple of block radius of north fellas why does right you say that i mean because when you just now read it the st question that popped into my mind are what are the boundaries of district


we just accept right or we're trying to predict it's just advisory the other problem with that is the same trial court judge months earlier indicated that the jury's finding on the fiduciary duty issue


agreement to arbitrate it did not acknowledge that it offered aaa arbitrations an option and it basically sent a message not only to the customers that if the filing arbitration


series of declarations interactive pollens to arbitrate their claims before the th with national futures association pursuant to section four of the federal arbitration act again there was no injunction here because there was


ground but didn't in answer to your question judge i think the alternatives are a possible finding and certainly are supported by this record and by the case


that it does have as a a zone where they can weigh the evidence and reach a decision on either side but in this case there are parameters on how to weigh that evidence because the old


correct ok but that that scene's disconnected to me from the argument that you presented to the district court very clear in your appellate briefs but in the district court when i had looked i went back and looked at your summary judgment briefs


we're not it's not ambiguous correct and we and of course our position is that we did give them an offer for my hypothetical not not the case in your hypothetical so


replacing the cable and that did not happen in this and again it was rented one more time after this without a kink in the cable and what was the repair order for the repair order


bill it is a barrier to the court acting and again because the employment at once the conduct that was alleged here consistent with the archdiocese policy i don't know that the archdiocese has a policy regulating the


the manner in which a superior minister interacts with the subordinate minister is not the business of the state and when you are talking about the regulation he says it can be right it can be when it involves behavior or actions that are independent of


officious investigation and interference in the church minister relationship which was at the core of holdings like sharon and mccloy


of the northern district of iowa but the facts of this case are truly i think remarkable in the sense that judge mark that it was such subsequently retired granted a one hundred and sixty seven months variance off of the sentence of a man with his age was the


to make a decision yes i'm going to accept you know i'm not going to accept you and maybe there's a power in the court to enforce the seventy two hour window or maybe give reasons or something but i don't know where


that your state said he's entitled to you know he doesn't need any supervision whatsoever i think this is a different case i think this court might consider the th prong analysis differently but here we have everyone saying this defendant eats at least a year supervised release


our st is that that's the same argument that the defense is making routinely about the conditions supervisor places well they're not going to be represented by an attorney they're it's the sentencing judge you best knows what conditions are appropriate and i think this court has given that argument the weight that it's title


dismissed and again given the court's focus on the physical description it's understandable that admirer subsequently filed a motion providing just that the physical description of the doe defendant is


people saw the other advertisements but then my point doesn't the district court if you're making a determination of likelihood of success on the merits and you're assessing whether or not the statement


their statements and they do a cup of tea her use the word ingredient but most of their statements are not using the word ingredient most of their statements are the made with users brewed with one hundred percent less corn syrup all of


responsible for that conduct and is the appropriate avenue for seeking relief your question was that i ask that i get that mike my question is more so let me give you a hypothetical forget these facts let me give you a hypothetical


what you do to determine actual is you take the percentage of the purity right and right so how much was it cut by anything or something i know so we don't have any evidence about that we have testimony that from the users the people who were selling the ice


was judge the government cannot tie the missouri ice to al southern district of illinois there's no evidence mr karnow knew it was coming here this woman was going to be distributed so the primary issue was


physicians and with respect to that you're just saying very little marginal benefit for whatever i know this is not just reverse fair point but in any event burdens and


payment that was evidenced very clearly in the text messages for example between smith and jones where jones and smith made it very clear that if ifs


twice before filing suit they made a demand then then they sued and the included the costs of the that plastic as a category of damages so i mean that is everything it issuing the nd suit except they say the


district in federal circuit court so the primary claim here is deliberative privilege correct there's deliberate privilege as well as rick work product in those things but again if that if the question your honor is are these lawyers necessarily able to


did non frivolous allegations that he had made a protected disclosure and that if those allegations were proven they would add up to a protected disclosure and in fact


think the district court's words speak for themselves if you look at the sentencing hearing transcript there's approximately nine pages a typewritten a typewritten transcript the vast majority of those pages at least seven by my count are dedicated toward mitigating


the assessor's systematic intentional illegal debasement of most other assessments in plaintiff's commercial and industrial classes violated equal protection by causing disparate inflated taxes


well the thing about an adequate legal remedy is i think plaintiff is focused on the cause of action it can bring i think the decisions from this court the supreme court focus more on the remedy what do you know making the fact that you know you're overlooking the fact that those


supreme court said you know now again pittsburgh coal that this kind of theory works it does violate the equal protection clause to assess property perfectly under state law if you systematically


removed this case to the western district of missouri on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction and alleged that daniel had been improperly joined on the basis of the of the fraudulent jointer doctrine as


additionally mr henson failed to plead specific facts from which the court could reasonably have inferred the mcdaniel aided and abetted unlawful age discrimination and retaliation aiding and abetting the wrongdoing of another requires


iowa this is a th amendment suppression case and and other rather than reciting the facts which are quite straightforward the district court relied on


boxes generally there's a meth pipe there's a brinks box it's in the proximity of the defendant but there's no assertion by anyone that's my brinks box there is no


other insurance we believe that the westfield language referring to any of the other insurance has to refer to other insurance that are outside of the ambit of what the


on the scope of coverages what risks you take and what you're not going to not take it there are all kinds of risks that do happen to flood victims that are not covered in the flood program basements very limited coverage elevated buildings


she testify consistently with that some of these things were more specific evidence that was gained on cross examination which is perfectly understandable when you're considering a trial situation caba


sure and in the d end the amended statement before that however she didn't mention that it influenced with the police that they were his friends that they wouldn't do anything to help or because he gave them lots of money later he talked about his drug and alcohol use


blocks to go to the bathroom what even the post office designated representatives testify to is there is certainly some leeway when they are allowing their votes to go to the bathroom and not surprisingly now if you had gone down


authorized brake stop and what they have here is with regard to the stops as they fill out a form and it is an approximate location the brakes are are taken along the route


facts to the complaint and i just did i think that was more than just a reasonable inference the allegations against my office here are really pretty simple there are typically few and that is when


told the plaintiff came to the office she told the plaintiff that there were officers there to ask her questions she then escorted essentially cook the plaintiff into the room with the other officers on


all what matters is that edwards took her to this room and restrained her movement a sensually by show authority and that l g believe that she wasn't free


two responses to that st that this court has not said that there's a blanket continuing a fence exception for child pornography offenses that could


trafficking a computer in some ways it's sewage in there as it is a repository of data that is hard to destroy and get rid of and for that reason evidence of crimes contained on a computer


actually answered was that when he received a second letter in may of two thousand and twelve after his own attorney had protested to st jude into attempted to explain why the obligation was not own he blew it


based on assumption or speculation and the fact of the matter is that the trial record in this case was unequivocal and solid in every respect that there was absolutely no oral agreement between mr


provide no specific days or hours works or what the work was done on those days and there was also no account for that they claim they were on duty but they may not have done any actual


count nine was a count for declaratory judgment the plaintiff in our case acknowledged that the back of these cards referenced terms and conditions and that part of those


the wheeler case the plaintiffs rely heavily dumont and the a b s brakes systems case though both of those cases are are highly distinguishable from the case we have before you today on the demat decision


chance to cast timely ballots the district court decision didn't reach the merits because it stopped at standing but mr carson and mr lee ciro are obviously injured by the secretary's actions they are voters and the


individuals your traditional candidate and they've already been chose then and as the presumptive elects to are if their candidate wins prat if their candidate wins but of course that's contingent on the


chill the type of connection that you need for pretty is something like a relationship in a state where bloodworth lawson type of direct and and and active or either that or a direct and active participation


didn't dispute that the issue could be raised that it would have to be and so i think at the end of the day whether the legislature here is not doesn't really answer the question and it certainly doesn't implicate the equity of this case given the availability of post election


refused to comply with the order and he wrote the documents but by refusing to comply with the order do you object to the judge taking judicial notice that costs refused to comply with the orders i object to him chair yes yes i i


deterrence and also that there was a need for general deterrence there was evidence presented that the defendant was working in concert with at least another person and that he that the judge wives felt like a sentence with this severe punishment was necessary to send both


day actually continuing to wash the car to work on the interior of the car to drive a car i mean that doesn't stray i mean is that typical sort of restraint is a police encounter i mean the officers were there


as sheriff walks in at no point during the encounter that follows was a gun drawn at no point during the encounter that follows d were the defendants ordered to do anything and at no point i think as


initial less and even though they later when they discover those errors before the claim was denied corrected those errors now now you're out of the the law was correctly stated as i understand it an


miss bala that the charitable organization should have an opportunity to recover those funds that they were next in line under the way the money had been calculated previously to be


a reading of the statute in that regard there would be no facts in this viewed it would be a purely legal argument although we did bring up at the last minute some contractual issues but with respect to the date of the filing what we advocated and


that's got to mean that somehow there's a treaty obligation plus and that plus has to come from you know probably its origins would be in the snyder act right and then the subsequent indian health act right and we're


competent health care right how do you get there and i'm just that's what you know as i struggle with that with the analysis that's the piece i'm looking at because i'm thinking that you know you can look at the snyder actiq and look at the indian health


incorrectly determined that they were that by continuing to pay these fees that there was no longer any injury and no standing this has no flexibility in this case


sort of anomalies that seem on their face to be unreasonable or uncertain or you know irrational but if you agree to it you agree to it as long as it doesn't violate the constitution or the other federal law is fine right


structures slash offers made by either party to its customers so there is no express finding that we had to give all rights because believe me we litigated this for years they never did and number two mr pugh once implicit argument that


somehow they did would run right headlong into this finding which that was the primary question that neither party has to do it and then before i move on all right someone is it also makes no sense what they're arguing their argument this is an


analogy if you were reading in a sports magazine you saw the phrase failure to win you would understand in the context of that lead a contest that would incorporate and refer the reader to the rules of whatever game might be an


governor and the secretary of state or the state of north carolina where it's in the hands of a partisan election board to declare emergencies and to have plenary thirty to change election rules we will see those those those bodies


missouri timothy stockton versus eagle


entire green it and mr stockton refused to provide it so again i don't have much sympathy for mr stockton that the entire group does not record you're absolutely correct judged and that there are many many provisions of the room and that


damaged that's the burden of proof for the government to show the evidence clearly shows that what the defense is trying to raise and i just think i say you saying you don't have to prove he went once because the just the language in the in the


simply is now brown versus dunham does he implicitly kind of address this situation i you familiar with brown versus don i'm yes but because it says that if if if if there are one


dozens and dozens of pieces of evidence that came from the apartment yes your honor that were all linked by these same witnesses as being owned or used by mr moore the the that evidence should have been suppressed


policy that at the precise same terms and a lengthy opinion which relied in part of a circuit case so what else was obviously obviously you're telling us that to follow that what's wrong with the in


a summary suspension you haven't provided any materials would which indicate that the defendant sought review of his a statutory suspension before the secretary of state here will happen was that rescission was rescinded


is it is a totally separate question and it is a civil matter a nurse different civil rules it was what any materials would indicate indicate that the defendant sought review of his statutory suspension before the secretary of state that


also may please the court assistant attorney general david simpson on behalf of the people of the state of illinois illinois obstructing justice statute makes it a crime to knowingly conceal evidence with the intent to obstruct one's on apprehension or


well i think the statute is clear that we're talking about domestic relationships and in fact that definition although contained in the criminal code section one twelve is entitled domestic violence order of protections we are talking about


type of relationship that fit the spirit of the statute but we have nothing like that here if they had wanted to first of all include this type of relationship they easily could have but the only thing the state is arguing is to share a common dwelling


the option that has been offered is the sufficient faction what the rule of of the only circuit court of cook county no other court says that a judge may issue a protective order issuing a protective order comes with a certain just


tried to muscle let through where we american tried to obstruct that right to move forward with the discovery so i would suggest that that was the first opportunity excuse me


a consumer against a corporation or what why is that the way it is why do you think it should be for two reasons first the arbitrariness of the rule that that that the defendant


some clear recognition not only from the first district but from other courts as well that those two things race and services are two sides of the same coin the most thoughtful expression outside of the


yes i believe i believe that i believe that's right yes i believe that that's what the constitution provides and kane would do page county if you live in the county but your residence is in the suburbs or yes i


months earlier that was a reasoned and reasonable determination entitled to deference if reasonable persons can differ as to the propriety of a trial court's action the rule is a