he's in your brief to do and i'm not challenging at least for the purposes of summary judgment the admissibility of what i'm saying though is that what it raises is a as with virtually ever every other aspect of this case genuine issues of material


are we cited some cases from the northern district of texas i think there's also a lot of cases cited in credit watch which joe johns mentioned including cases involving fraudulent joint durations and whether the suit against the in state


that's what happened these


bankruptcy setting and the th circuit said we reject that argument finding that it is our duty to enforce the statutory scheme that congress has erected so i go through all these cases just to underscore that statutory


willing to provide that kind of coverage at a higher


context of the interview whether it's of an alien or even more significantly of the defendant it is critical to look into what did the defendant really say did he say he was from mexico could the agent


my point is that the officer possesses knowledge imparted correct or not imparted to him by the teenager herself and then the mother comes out and says no you can get in my car because i'm going to take you


even in the record many of them there is nothing else that solidly looks at this issue but the pentagon record report if we're going to have deference who else should we defer to except the pentagon and the department of defense i don't agree it


out deny men the right to apply that state college if they're not registered for the draft i've had and we know that since and i've submitted this to the fore since one thousand nine hundred and three over a one million men have requested formal copies of their


busted twice they sought to disqualify judge brower the judge they were complaining about for having interrupted their witness too many times and they failed on that count so i think the more important thing about what's extraordinary about the


to sign a hold harmless agreement or ha ha before her property would be released her class claims are not moot but even if her individual claim was eventually mooted she will still retain standing as the class representative under this picking


of matthews st whether the private interests are affected nd whether there is a risk of erroneous separation and rd whether a government interest is implicated and recently the eastern district of virginia in the


the plaintiff has no ability to contest administrative procedures for due process by the action if they themselves don't go through those procedures she hasn't lost any exhaustion from the agency in any respect whatsoever it didn't


we contend that the relevant product market is the market for specialty pharmacy services for those patients whose pharmacy benefits or administered by optimal rocks now we have to understand the


and that's it but of course there's no allegation that's been preserved that the merger itself was anti competitive there is no allegation and there is no allegation of facts of anything that was carried out as a result of this anti competitive


exist without being compensated and without being reimbursed by an insurance company so my clients of being a business are not in the in the position to service patients and not getting reimbursed for them so absolutely the reason for being in a


in this case is that the general and and time i didn't do patent cases as a lawyer but i did trade secret cases and you couldn't just show up and say oh this is a trade secret that you just read in the newspaper ok your argument on that is it is a matter of what was in the


another in basically with the th circuit says as in six flags you had to apply the flawed provisions not the named storm provisions absent special instructions on the


lexington and cited by the district court about extrinsic evidence those are talking about things like what did someone so say or what someone so think or what was the conduct of the parties before this contract contract got a policy and you know we


also tried to distinguish the regardless of last language in the opening sentence the leading language for the flood deductable when he says well that involves causation not applicability of provisions but actually


what that would cost what it would look like and very importantly what the nesa jing would be in the corrected bever ties and it's just an award the jury award of corrective


element that said the court the dury had to find substantial numbers it had to as the instruction leads you either have to have evidence of actual to self deception or a tendency to deceive a substantial number of consumers ok well i'll look


purposes and certainly rest on him did not object to the wording of this jury instruction during the jury charge conference


there is more involved in with loading people on the plane than loading boxes there's more danger especially these this day and age that's involved that a verified entities yet verify


the simple definition a nine hundred and twenty four c does not allow for attempted threats force but you can be convicted in the least serious manner leaser is way of committing attempted object robbery of attempted threat of force


cited in the government's brief show that there was no error whatsoever in coffins interpretation i'm going to move with the court's permission to the sentencing issue and let's talk about the nine hundred


and they agree with the dissent judge when's dissent from the one thousand domain guys and those cases agreeing with the defendant's arguments here that attempted hobbs act robbery is not a crime of violence and


requires somebody to recruit him and again that was mr phillips and mr phillips counsel accurately listed all of the many substantial steps we we went through that's enough i mean that goes a while when you


ultimately chooses removal from the court room and that's simply that's not the case alan explicitly holds that we are giving district courts flexibility and how to handle what discord can read the record for itself the


issue there of her not being able to say offensive or derogatory things in the course of her remarks to the board so we didn't have this st amendment issue that is squarely presented by the july th of the july th ban the limited


can consider them no your honor i just don't like getting sandbagged as you said with an argument for the st time on appeal that that wasn't in the record we spent a week at this bench trial debating the reasonableness of rejecting these


on the issue that the war decided the district court found that this was a medical treatment decision by the doctor in chelsea ford that the doctor in discharging without restrictions and without cautions that that was a medical


it compares the parties work side by side to see whether the defendant's work is substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted work and here the district court did that side by side comparison on pages twenty four and twenty five of her opinion she wrote the


analysis were left with is this scheme of the small portion of schema that we copied and there's no indication that that is an important part of their work so we think under no spice designs applying the principles of that case there's no substantial similarity here is a matter of


lack of standing because the appellant could not show an invasion of legally protected and you run the court below did not cite this case on the basis of legislative beauty but i think it's just important for this court to consider it it was fully


their row trustees from off no matter how much they may find their views of warrant sensual is about the only tool that they have to express disapproval of a trustee


side and there was a finding with regard to liability and then damages and we're here appealing for points on behalf of mr webb one of those points the first point in the briefing


that you can infer most tv's go on i don't know that you can infer that most pirate devices that this guy is distributing because he's fairly low level operator fifty seven and only you can infer he sends them to other states you know but i don't think that should be a burden of proof on directv to have to show that he


applies this is what i believe should happen in the case you will remain and there might be some modification on the twenty five eleven damages maybe a lowering at some i thought margin from one hundred twenty three thousand to the seventy six thousand your honour's i would


but rather the focus was that implicated mr gray in other words yes it was yes it was something i've been left out but the focus is whether or not the statement


developed a record regarding the claimants past jobs and also that the l j properly considered the claimants residual function of functional capacity and whether or not that residual functional capacity allowed him to return to any of his past jobs despite


sorts of conflicts and in this case i think that the the second who testified at length regarding the errors made by the first is enough to determine that the l t properly resolve the conflict so in sum i would like to say that the


the realm of possibility in insurance quote and get one over here eighteen one over here of the says thirty two and i think of this will the same information of both of them which one are you going to take it's not it is not so shocking in comparison to what his prior coverage


integrity of the courts and preventing misconduct by the conductor more so than reaching out and attempting to preserve potential claims of non parties such as creditors that would also be consistent with the hamilton cases to seventy a


that there's been some changes to the ordinance the last change was the change described in the brief whereby the recall process was considered an election for totality or is there


anything in the structure of the ordinance system that would that would prevent the flow of an incumbent money delivered to the petition gathering phase bleeding


was city attorney opinions that would have suggested that the early earlier practice would not of limited contributions that maybe there needed to be a little bit of control on this because it certainly identified the pitfall


live with you ok they voluntarily selected us which is not to pass then the future if you don't give me the history of the world right what you do when you get somebody says they will they don't want to live with children they will get a notification


then you just say we determined that could this court decide whether they had was actionable or not under the fair housing act or would it have to be sent back to the district court which i understand what the fair housing councils argued


suicide bombing on our own motion i don't think that the district court had any jurisdiction or authority to grant a certificate if it was diminished capacity if that defense did not exist at the time your certificate of appeal to work with


it is your honor sometimes referred to as diminished actually and i i guess that's the same thing i'm referring to as a voluntary intoxication defense just to be particular about these these statutes in california and of course


limited jurisdiction that you find in the district court for enforcement of an order but i don't see how you get around a language that says that doesn't have any jurisdiction effect by injunction or other otherwise the instruments or enforcement of any order to review modify suspend terminator set aside


happened here directv went into a canadian court got a valid canadian court order that allowed it to go in and seize this information seize the database and if you read the actual language of the order which


submit that the district court heard in construing the first amended complaint as it did and then in rejecting the effectiveness of the amendments made by plaintiffs to that person medically the pivotal paragraph


why that's why there's no that's why the court before i bring up and that's where i hang up frankly i know that most of the cases talk about the duty of fair representation at with reference to the collective bargaining agreement because most of them are i


of that contract and so what the legislature has created is it in twenty nine twenty four is to say look we're going to allow the employer to terminate for these reasons and which it which involves


plan that bankruptcy plan can't require the reservation for a creditor who doesn't have allowed claim on the day of confirmation now there are mechanisms to get there he could come in under five o two j later which is specifically reconsideration of disallowed claims


cases dealing with yes your honor


four hours for just the right answer so why isn't why isn't that reasonable i think it's i mean i know you don't agree with it but you know but when you do something like that where you just because you've got a great with something doesn't mean that the court can't do it and say


court also stated boilerplate discovery which he had seen before that's part of his reason for knocking that information out and the motion for attorney's fees itself which the district court characterized as weather plays so


peroration so they cannot otherwise afford to have their own in house so it's an outsourced if you will financial officers and as financial officers for these various clients of my c f o they assert that they


nor are you talking about some independent finding that is not of record i'm talking about the medical evidence supporting a foot impairment from the doctors not by the way l j which to me they failed they didn't even consider foot impairment well the record was closed and that


large and still the information that a weapon had been brandished these officers didn't know if mr boyer was with other individuals or if there was a weapon located in mr boyers car on the persons of mr boyers alleged accomplices


while i cannot give the court under the thirty four act a citation especially under section ten b which makes it one of the elements of the claim rather it is an element under the thirty three act under section


language all this court needs to consider is what the statute says on its face and here the statute says that the limitations period for causes of action brought under twenty cathay is five years five years means five years and there's no basis for reading anything else into


well because they had a six million dollars worth of additional cost to it because it was a low income development in the state was explicit that you're not supposed to do that or burden of development that way we won't have much low income housing events to be the rule and certainly that was with his


granted summary judgment the ninth circuit found that there were tribal issues the fact with respect to various tribes of the engagement agreement in four seasons motion for summary judgment hold on a second all cellphones


upon reading the declaration it's clear that they said they had over one million dollars in purchases of what's in stock so their loss is perhaps based on the stock drop in the in class period maybe forty percent of that and i apologize to the court as well as to pose the counsel


we're not asking the owner to guarantee that the dock is good we're not asking you to guarantee that the trip from home down to the waterfront is safe but once you get to the water's edge which is exactly what we had here we say that the true over duty should at very least


hero ever without any investigation of the underlying facts are i speculated that the claims were employment related and then i defense and indemnity when all it had was the complaints in front of our allies continue denial was without any actual


have to tell you when i read that it didn't pop into my head what you just said ok but i guess that's why i asked them to repeat it so i'm trying to you know i try to figure this out now because i read it and it's kind of i said what that means and we're trying to fit it in the


specifically wrote that there was no duty the reason there was no duty according to the court of appeal is because this was the same cause of action that had been asserted in combating what was before there been an extra trial so the what we have is the court


the fraud is not in submitting a declaration of a witness whose identity had not previously been disclosed and not going on says that for us under a claim they didn't have the problem was not going to us his


john there's no doubt with that the state was not a party in any sense to this order and there is nothing to reckon the state to do anything in this order well i was present when this order even though we were not given notice i was


just non disturbance agreement those agreements were executed by the capital bank they were also capital bank was also a site signatory on the lot split and


business determination for her time to memory as you say they're not entirely sure she has to report on those factors she says well that may be enough to go ahead she then get rick's reports from the three


component of damage as a generic concept and there are cases that so state but what we have here is that component of a claim which has to be looked at at the end of the day and at the end of the day


sorry serve at the insurance policy does not respond as to the unique aspects of this case the answer is yes we do not and without apology we believe that american business enterprise to the extent that they are


walks like a duck it sounds like a duck so it's got to be a duck probable car crash because they did made it the government admitted all those facts and just forgot about it so unless you can tell me where the one thousand nine hundred three constitutional action is for falsifying a report


time and and i'm not in trial i think a little nervous about what i'm doing here but you don't have a whole bunch of volunteers for that position that's probably true that is probably true and so


we will pay for any direct physical loss to covered property caused by or resulting from any covered cause of loss you continue down and if you


without interference from the state rather it's a right not to be unduly burdened likewise in the moher case which as i mentioned was an equal protection case that involved funding the court said the right protects the woman from unduly burdensome


huge problem your honor back when this case first occurred back and strike it when it was first filed back in two thousand and five based upon the letters that were said a request for defense was submitted to the attorney


petitioner the fact that the the two offenders caught at the scene did not initially give the same story that they gave later all of these factors together are things that the trial quote rightly considered in finding the evidence to be incredible


was given his evaluation and had twenty minutes to read it in court he'd rostered even show up there was no subject of cross examination and so the kids were taken away right then and there and moreover


didn't take advantage of the convenient means it had in the contract to find out whether or not it was allowed to perform additional services finally the appellate court seemed to find that if the underlying contract was valid a modification or amendment of the contract could be


risk of a criminal conviction and he was not put at risk of a colonel conviction because there was only a defendant in a trial court judge participating in this trial after the people stopped participating which took place prior


assess whether the fact finder there was sufficient evidence from which the fact finder could conclude that the burden of proof whichever burden of proof applies was satisfied so although there is a difference between


and unless there are other questions we would just urge the court to hold that the appellate court may not overturn a jury verdict in indirect criminal contempt unless no rational jury could have


there's also an argument by the pelleas that the ability or opportunity control evidence places upon a the holder or the controller of that evidence the duty to preserve and again that is not


appellate court was an error that should have that it's a question of law on the on the issue of the foreseeability and to be honest i i tend to agree generally that it is a question of law we certainly would not be unhappy in


favor of an expansive definition of the word in danger to the exclusion of the rest of the statue however the plain language of the statue read as a whole does not support such an interpretation the statute has a clear


road used to hiv positive status as a means to effect the assault the state's argument for an expansive reading of the term endangered is that odds with the rest of the statute even under the expansive understanding proposed by the


firearm statute the harm is ongoing while the ball is in motion and once that bullet comes to rest the harm is over and so is the offense in the child endangerment and statue in that case a young a young child is left in a car in on a cold


then and in fact after trial this defendant was sentenced to an aggregate forty year term thirty intent that was also a good sentence at that time yeah i'm very confining i know you're wrong


how the state thought they would get to that number again i think that if we if we take that on a separate thing being that the sentences were twelve and to ninety it could have been done at the


insert language or limited and not give the word unable its plain meaning age was at least one relevant factor for the jury to consider and this case there were a number of circumstances that


represent mr ken rosenwinkel and the rosenwinkel family partnerships this case involves the interpretation and application of the farm nuisance act and whether it can be applied is written or whether there's a need for to imply


because they both had extra water then one of the farmers said i'm going to change to row crops not rice anymore the farmer who was doing the rice continued to flood


that the condition of the property i do not believe so i do not believe that that is the that is the appropriate interpretation under the statute considering that the statute does endure a geisha and hardly common law and must be strictly


scared and has some problems all right that subject matter has opened up what about where the problems that scattered and found there was and that structure and the trial quite that the step two subjects a synthetic partnership was one


and the second the second circuit says no no no you can't use the bad evidence they didn't they only waived the privilege as to the good good evidence that's preposterous i mean that's that i can't believe that


know years told us it was ok they knew from day one and this gets back to a question they knew from the from that conference room when they were conference rooms because there were many meetings they knew when they were exchanging those documents and putting the steel


only public policy shouldn't turn on what another state has to say about how long a time period a planet has to sue for battling injuries taking place in another state but to your limitation at issue has been upheld as valid and a


circumstances of the individual case and not just to a bright line rule applying the same concept here this court should look to the totality of all the facts and circumstances and not just


of law that agreements regarding children that are not entered into quote orders are not in forcible distinguishing fact about coulter of course is that the removal agreement


objection everybody's on board she leaves i don't think the court i don't think the law would require somebody to affirmatively come in file a petition cetera et cetera when there's already an agreement in a court order but she did file this after the issue was yes


of sixty days that's the one we feel is in primary me and remain yes well did did the defendant not file its own motion to continue the case to bring the rimi in the defendant did file a motion before it they are trying to attribute the last motion to continue to be defended the


make up the right to speedy trial they also looked at people versus paul right to say that while defense counsel filed motions to continue in the hall the defense the defense counsel filed a motion and then later on the defendant tried to disavow himself from the motion


law and in the cases that defendant has cited to where there's indic there's some reference possibly to the fact that one hundred eighty day period if that statement is actually you


dept for this court resolving the issue this is the first time that home the issue has been presented to the court for reasons reason resolution the right to a


evaluated son says under the abuse of discretion standard and that has proven to be an extremely deferential standard in essence any sentence within statutory limits should be upheld unless it is manifestly


whenever someone has committed prior felonies here one of the defendants prior felonies was a class x felony the six year sentence that he was serving at the time he committed this offense so in other words instead of looking at whether or not a twenty year sentence is


the gun the harm was not or the analysis was not whether or not somebody had been injured the harm was the risk that he imposed on those kids in the same way there's a grave risk imposed on the justice system


at the time included a reference to the fact that there were a loving couple they still love each other during the proceeding and she did not want to be divorced that was never denied it isn't back to the facts of this case upon which is court has to make a decision can't presume other


negligence and answer that question is what just needs to look at the facts of this case council was confronted with a gross that with approximate causation case that the x set in motion a chain of events battery fifteen days later the to see


will prevail as the states as an under federal pavia slaw the appellate court the federal courts have already defined substantial showing for us and deciding whether to grant a certificate of appeal ability the the the


or that i didn't do anything at trial which is analogous to the situation that occurred inside dell where an affidavit similar to something similar to what was filed here was was found to


business a year and the time and location of that should have only taken one hundred thousand that's what a manager should have done we can use all of these to determine the real value and give him credit in terms of that so i am saying at the time of


holds that one of the few grounds in fact the only ground that you can collaterally attack a prior conviction would be on sixth amendment grounds so i do on that particular issue alone ask this court to deny the mandamus because it seems to be good practice


court the following illinois scott versus illinois i really might have to a certain extent raised the riaa delineate the liability issue to a new level your honor so i ask you to consider this for a second in the state of illinois right now in


i'm sorry and i wonder if he was predicting that we may be here some day he quotes moreover the drawing of a line and he's not he does not like the line of incarceration being invoked


counsel's cases is this and this is maybe what the court must decide is this the difference the difference is taking to discretion away from the court and requiring an individual numerically


well it's balls judge it is your honor and shouldn't it be if i could ask you that your honor because we are at if we are going back to the reasoning and scott and our singer the line is drawn at incarceration that's


for finally offenses committed in the presence of the arresting officer and this kid this court held held in people versus tobias that is it is the only court solemn


this court to break from last and again it all goes back to the intent of the of the people who wrote in ratified the only constitution it was their intent as this court recognized in the bias that the protections offered by article one


problem and i'd love to find a way but i haven't heard that well i'm a i'm a woman and i'm a victim of a sex crime and i never was able to get justice and i was do


arrested when a police report and detectives and lieutenants were telling me that they wanted to make the arrest but they couldn't because favorites were getting called then they have tonight me an obstruction of justice in this


score are the same for everyone whether their process or their attorney later on if you stay and hear the oral argument when the red light goes on for an attorney you'll hear me say the same thing there's no exceptions made argument seems that you'll hear from us and of course thank you very much


exercise jurisdiction over that property to determine competing interests


engaging in litigation abroad well the i submit that the district court under twenty three sixty one there is no authority for the district court to enjoin the republic from litigating abroad


right that they were trying to figure out when he's coming back is he coming home for christmas he going to return to peru with there were calls to a point and then they learn thousand and twelve and then they learn that he took off and they did they learned took off so it's just your client's


break into their house which again credibly testified is what they did this isn't a question like an a m of a painted threat on the door i think the fact that there was an actual physical attack with property damage with an attempt to break into his house is significant i don't think we need


evidentiary hearing before the district court by doing that he assuaged whatever concern that arbitrator had about that internal investigation about those upon trades in a manner that could do nothing but improve his credibility or bolster


decision as you know that but we're reading it to say well the employer's employees couldn't have seen the spill because it was a crowded dance floor and there's no testimony by any else saw it so the fact that this one person said when i was dancing right


search warrant has been taken to satisfy the first i did not cite any cases in my brief i cited a case for the proposition that the probable cause standard is higher but the


and of course there was a six hundred thousand dollars loan preferred shares were greed to rate of six hundred thousand dollars and shipley took the risk that that could have went down and she could repay that and that would equal six hundred thousand so there was no interest payment there judges


if a union intentionally discriminates against a member of the collective bargaining agreement that's a breach of the duty of fair representation in the same way that it could be a violation of the state human rights law and that's been true since one


way protecting an individual oh well i don't think it's any more difficult to go to the national labor relations board and file a charge for the national labor relations board exactly in the same way


there's absolutely no greater difficulty to go to the board whoever is on the board this is been uncontested for years and years as to what the test is for proving a claim of racial discrimination under the duty a


that rule orders not to extract we look to that rule or that's what they said encrypted versus although you're seeking you know more or less the same relief or relief with the same goal here and this is looking like a multiplication


immigration and nationality act that statute section two sixty ten of new york's penal law is not categorically a removable offense of child abuse child neglect or child abandonment under the i n a the reason for that is


by themselves would be sufficient to conclude that the fed the new york state statute is broader than the federal statute but together they leave no doubt that in this brief the government didn't seriously dispute a number of the key threshold points on this to


is it did a survey of federal statutes it looked at the tax it looked at the legislative intent it looked at a survey of state statutes and it came to this definition based on what i believe the legislative intent was


maybe your adversary just figured there's no point showing


was going to incur any personal liability for that in this lawsuit against j p i see that i've got about a minute left but unless the channel has any questions those are really i think the main reasons why the four arguments


you know what what where do we go to say these officers should absolutely have known that this was a wrong decision to place him in taking your last point first


alleviate considerable application difficulties associated with the clause as expressed by judges probation officers and litigants the court said i'm sorry the commission said we received text we've received extensive comment and we're aware of numerous court opinions


court reach the issue the court should find it is indeed a clarification


with this well if you're saying that we have to assume that people more even read a half a page letter then i don't know what kind of debt collection can go off your honor if there's


as for both incidents she called in a panic threatening that he's threatening to burn the house down with the child and that there's a history of violence she claims there's weapons in the house and they speak with jenkins that's


report showed showed that occasionally she seemed to be ok but the there were many other times when she


influence are you really going to tell us what the guidelines didn't influence this well the choice is required the district judges this court knows it's required to consider the guidelines and you have to get influenced well then every case is going to


point of this rebuttal was to exclude situations in which despite the presumption of reliance there was no annoyance is that what the the issue is there i'm sorry say that again


of the people at the moment that they bought and why it would say tell us whether they care about shipping and handling which is the issue where we're looking at well i know that since i was a trial counsel this point i would submit and i believe happened was trial counsel was trying to be


which which was which warrant a difference by this court on by federal court on habeas so therefore the district court was not accepting the fact that they were in fact were was another black person considered and that was a person who the prosecutor allowed to


the other the other thing which of course is very important and hippias review is that there are every news of support for the state for determination in this case and those were outlined in great


history because in order to to for the for a hideous court to to end and a prime aphasia i feel you'd make a prime fish case there aren't you can see your honour's there are that many cases because there is no is again there is no per se rule there is no


whether whether there was a written contract there or she was aware of well i think the council suggests that he still thinks perhaps there is a written agreement but so could you just heard first i think we should take


dismissal without prejudice not only do the vexatious nisson diligence factors weigh against bio here also the stage of the proceedings factor and the duplicate of expensive real it again also way in favor of and b c universal on the stage of the


made please a court that i jonathan are representing myself and similarly dairy farmers similarly situated your honour's you have our briefs the facts of defendants coerced farmers into supporting a sellout how class counsel colluded with their counterparts in other district court coverage for everyone


imprisonment and in any event such a sentence was reasonable starting with the nine twenty four j issue the government does contend that the defendant has waived any challenge to this


box and the person it says if the preceding boxes checks we require via science surance for the initial term i don't know it would if i read that box and was trying to figure out what i needed to do and i saw there's no check next to this box so


which is a final determination in the environmental preview there is it no right to proceed with a command of any of the project now you have to submit eight you have to go through the process of


the next time you might give the citation to a case that's not in your brief to your opposing counsel it will help us in our job better argument on that case and you can also notify the court in advance if you're relying on a principle


under the yates role which requires the court to reverse a conviction where a jury is presented with an invalid legal theory and a legal leave valid theory and it's impossible to tell which


alleged and apparently there was some evidence at the trial that the governor that these meetings were not so innocent in effect and that the governor was trying to pressure other other officials on those two points i mentioned earlier


not the legislation well let me say two things in that regard one is i think when you look at the overall context here the effect the combined effect of the instruction the evidence that was given about how everything a senator's


entered into a global settlement agreement with the united states government and with the made off trustee and with some private plaintiffs in which it paid a total of three billion dollars it missing


there is no plausible or cogent allegation in the complaint that j p morgan you know one of the largest banks in the world literally actually day to day controlled bernie made off


thousand dollars payment was immaterial to think argument that she's making it is not transaction based well she's correct the commission concluded that this wasn't a transaction based compensation in the way one normally thinks about transaction


then and then there's one for pituitary and farther and adrenal the reason i was saying that is i can't type everybody and maybe i don't even type everybody correctly so i like the test back up because they say well i think i have a


maybe a little of cocoa here and there but not this craving and eating and eating sugar and chocolate so the way i see it is we're under attack all the time and we're under the stresses and i would tell this is me speaking of course


they go in to read the signs of a dog's chemistry and worth their about and then as they get more comfortable they can move forward so that they're kind of sensing the pheromones and all of that it's the it's the polite way that canines meet each other ok


euthanized more than any other dogs and shelters and i think that you know it really helps dogs not have to go back to the shelter if they get a trainer etc i am very discount to anybody who has a rescue dog so what's the use of the time


the dog's walking better already so then we just went up like twice a week for a while and then it got to be once a week now it's every other week because they know has her and she started to walk immediately much better but she doesn't have a normal leg


but he had splotches always down to a still no hair on his ears taken to the vet the vet says oh that's a doc's in trait they lose their hair on their ears and i look at him and say ok and then and then within a very short time modifying food


old to me he was a large dog he had a full you know what i mean and that's just got we wouldn't want to eat that when they stop eating that's usually a sign you know that they're done and that's their way of saying yeah because when you know a dog not to


change to suit that you know where your passion comes out yeah so i totally get what you're saying about different iterations because trust me i have gone on but i mean like a lot of things i want to say which i picked up on and i think this is so key is when she


caught in the door so he comes in grabs the back feet pulls it out and runs around the yard with this thing and he's like you know the world this is going right i've got it i got whatever it is and so now


throw these cracks in and you'll see these in maine a lot


see the blue will turn that we have to get a little bit of the sky in there


that's what i'm looking at here see but sometimes it might be light like this


blast and fire along the periphery of damage remain the same in these fringe areas civil defense training can save many lives and damage from secondary fires and help establish emergency facilities


first experience with a dog the did that and it took him ten months to wag his tail and it actually took him a couple years to feel comfortable around anybody you know that he was going to be beaten anymore or you know


digestive tract the same and when you get when you're eating for instance pretzels or some hard food you're actually causing micro bleeds in your mouth and this bacteria gets into your gums in the your


you have these white marks on them and that's because the plaque and the sugar and the acids have laid around the brackets and broken down the enamel so we have to limit that and then tell me what you think about when you see it give me your direct to


is to remove the toxins that are in the body purge them out those both that plus of course using the supplements would make life a lot better for chemically sensitive the i'm chemically sensitive fine let's get rid of it and here's how i do it this is my


the same bottle sometimes it gives me a wall and sometimes it doesn't so my but you had infestation i had intended diocese i was i was one big fungus like me that maybe i was under three


you always had an interest for animals as i know so was that the impetus to get you into the animal care you know what it was really when i saw my dog get sick and he hurt his back at a very early age and


can get pinched or stuck in the vertebrae can get stuck and when you relieve that bone from being stuck the nerves function again just just the back story we really don't know what happened to him he went into the into a


bowel syndrome and it will be all symptoms to heal up or you know a lot of people come in for headaches but they don't realize that the spine affects everything in your body so your immune system is affected by your nervous system and we fix a nervous


kindness i mean and they may have papers i mean the quarter horse i kept is a beautiful horse and she has great papers yeah and the paint it's a beautiful paint mare she had one blue eye one brown eye


find stories or people bring them to you because they can take care of a life form is called one abuse and i go as a courtesy call and you know if i can get the animal i do it's a couple days


because they get spoiled pretty quickly and you know i come in off the street and be in a lot of the dogs coming in with them saying in out and just starve to death you know my vet always goes well take a look at him now because when you see him again that we go


photographs that i got online to work with one of this life magazine was lyndon johnson's two dogs him and her that were beagles they were actually featured on the cover of life magazine


get hit in the mouth with the ball per se but it is required that they were my for which is good you lose a baby two you're going to have a permanent to the comes in when you use a permanent two you're not talking some type of surgery some type of


always try to educate our patients who are snuff users to try to quit sometimes you know a lot of times we are doing biopsies on the areas to rule out precancerous lesions or cancers lesions and i think sometimes that kind of puts a little scare into the patient and that's


dog was running at large in violation of the the dog law the fine is fifteen hundred dollars i will suspend the imposition of the fine


encourage any of the athletes who have braces and the possibility because what happens is you can and it's a good question because i've seen a number of student athletes wear their the braces actually get abetted into their and other


well so there you go it's your body telling you so i was talking about cravings for pregnant pregnant woman you from what we were talking about you were telling me you were in a sense a pregnant woman the way your body really was definitely so my point is that and i'm


into the next day and by the end of the second day nothing could be clean pink and beautiful that is huge and of course you never go in and dig with a q tip you wait this actually brought this


sclerosis and saying that their drastically improved and how prevalent those things that you just magically parkinson's are out there affecting people it's incredible you don't know anybody that doesn't have one of those well it's true and it's electrical it's the central


mouth or these implants so right now we're talking about what you're seeing on the screen here is the going to go back that is the implant so that's the the top that's an x ray and it shows the


we can move forward with yeah actually this is from a dr william cohen and this is basically one of our implants versus one of the competitors and four years out with our particular implant we see the bone level above the level of the implant with a


wanted to come back this year and continue work so do it's not like you you know you walk away from it and say you know i'm not going to do it again we need to we need to get this solved and there are there's


look the safest thing to do is lock up overnight in one of the cages i don't think she'll run away now and what if she wakes up one of us has to stay on the face i will you can relieve me all right then good night jacqueline good night night


people leave now they have a very hard time that's important to know because then you would not want to work with that separation anxiety problem with a crate so in that way it's very hard it's very important to know the root cause of a problem but with regard to the severity of the


to be sure that a bill that you pass in the house gets taken up by the senate in a certain year it has to be passed by a certain date and that date is the fifteenth not the friday after town meeting but a week later


may not i see that as a you know terminal sedation there's also we know that in the one nine hundred eighty s historically there were there were court cases where it was determined that you


physicians and folks who have worked with over three thousand cases of dying patients and they said you know these are patients who have


we wanted to talk about the difference between natural herbs spices vitamins as opposed to manmade synthetic ones right and also this issue of super foods because really a super food is a


first came to mars or actually side bridge gave me a bottle and said i want you to tell me your pain and i got away from taking it i actually there were two there was a black t another drug a white might have been


there was a plant that exploded that put off a chlorine gas in the in the vegas area did they associate the explosion with your thyroid yes so the medical profession did say this is directly or result because that they weren't


consumption needs to be healthy fat to store the voltage that we i suspect that one of the medication you're on is causing this but tell the audience what your diet is now and this is so personal but you've already been personal


i've got a pulse everybody was like i want to and i was like what's going on right who went down and i see all these people around me and it's you never think that you're the one that they're doing c p r on and you know


if they sought to reach this class of activities which i take from your quote the assumption as your other question is that they did seek to reach these activities of the statute doesn't say specifically that they do but to mean that they did reach these activities this would be the on their powers to reach


the that issue was not discussed by judge was built nor was it the subject of any arguments or briefing before the lower court if i may continue please join us actually i should stop


of procedural and otherwise to the title seven and the state claims and all were dismissed in one order and the judgment and chart the one issue that i want to discuss primarily is the plaintiff's claim under california government code eight


these me that were not standard


that is because you have to read that opinion in context to and the context of that opinion was an appeal from a summary judgment motion the district court in the first appeal ruled that those letters


that had been in charge of the pension issues when she was at hawaiian airlines at the time of trial she was no longer with hawaiian airlines she was with first why and banks so she had at that time no stake in the controversy


asked that remain and did this for the matter to be viewed in context and the context was presented to judge king judge king had the opportunity to review to that


finalize ation of the first agreement the round of agreement is not until september thirtieth the ortho acquisition agreement not till november eleventh the ice for the i p l to agreement not until the following year the


still sue because when you're under the contract you didn't think you were going to perform damages would be quite a bit different might be almost zero but if you can demonstrate that you saw it was going on wallenstein yeah they might be identical your honor i don't disagree with that but the mere fact that issues overlap


but the your honor i think judge fisher your approach when you were outlining reading the three key provisions is the approach that i think is the appropriate approach to take the goals of the approach that you


thief in determining coverage on the policy with regard to the first issue i'm going to note only only that how much was the loan around one hundred thousand with interest and such and


covered by this policy that's in the record there was a separate property policy the use of schedule tractors was merely a trigger mechanism so that you could do so that it would trigger coverage for


procedures for doing a forced plan which sets up how you go about making site specific decisions that you're so far removed from any actual impacts on the environment that you don't need to go through need here and in fact the forest service could have failed that


technically done something wrong and for different planning for like five years by yes safety committees of regular barrage of years of complaints about safety what is it that happens here that it causes because we like that as opposed to something


standard with respect to the plans for the profile of the second thing is we believe that active information misinformation began earlier than judge also said over and over again with no basis in fact mr stillman continually conveyed that


and the common law right to be free of his employers and make the agency in maintaining his work environment and that is exactly the position we assert here that the city was or something was entitle to the indication of its rights as a


risk in this individual case but again that's not really the issue for the


perspective of the court and so if you've made a distinction in the time of the complaint you look at what was presented to the court at that time you have two motions and you have a complaint at that time you have an ongoing guardianship proceeding certainly extension would apply and also


most speculative i mean you have only disputed evidence before that before this record that the cost of the tomato seeds is last and one percent of the cost of a tomato in the united states and you have a statute that says that


circuit cases and supreme court cases involving the north pennington doctrine the doctrine explaining in applying the first amendment to tort claims arising from petitioning


case concerning the access to the public sidewalk where this court again went through how there was lobbying of the county commissioners about do we have a development agreement and now there was


test i know but it was still a trial so what standard of review what deference is the district court entitle to with respect to this determination because the district court made both an add on ambiguous and


testified that he did read the warnings and it says that page fifty eight of the supplemental excerpts i'm


page fifty nine of the supplemental excerpts and in the top right corner page sixty eight he says i think you testified that you did read the warnings on the bottle he says i don't know i can't recall


that occupation they get paid disability benefits regardless of whether they can do something else the ending occupation standard is a much more stringent standard under which you have to take a look at the entire person you take a look at what their skillset is what their


any record i can look at relating to exhaustion is there any process in the state of california courts where the exhausted is not what i'd like there's no evidence in the record in this case one who has excerpts or in the entire who has the burden of proof to prove


declarant now are they relevant absolutely their prior inconsistent statements and i would point out the judge mostly in this case saying that those were in conspire inconsistent statements it made it goes to trial so that the judge could


protect somebody for failing to comply with their contract to perform and vandenberg makes clear the notion because and i can understand the court's perspective because the notion for twenty five to thirty years based on appellate


they that they were scrutinised and supervised in the way that the other employees were perhaps what they would be but there is no evidence to that effect and we don't believe that that in fact air france exercise that kind of control over them this kind of control i'm talking about


went on the say as therefore we vacate the portion of the district court's order in which it held the contested litigation expenses were properly chargeable yes the deal isn't that something different than we have here where there's a determination that certain charges may not be appropriate no


in a couple points that need to be made with respect to that there was no class certified at this time now obviously my predecessor could not waive the rights of people whom he did not represent and moreover in class litigation the district


union to reissue the hudson no this is say this time crocker we added it until we get the straightened out about whether things are chargeable or not chargeable that's what we're trying to do here now unfortunate we've never gotten to the to the to the actual issue of charge ability i suppose we'll have to decide that on


second the point is in the complaint he says that ms hicks we used to release plaintiff as she was required to do by an act of congress for some reason my predecessor counsel did not spell out that


decisions at that point in time who knows he may have just sat down on his own the court this court has made it very clear that you have to give these guys some deference they don't have a crystal ball determine what's going to happen if he sat down didn't he have a right to stay there and then was quiet absolutely but what was


but it so basically there are people who just don't want to associate with the party organization and be recognized as such and people who is your own of course i don't count for getting this ballot status because after all when you go into a state that's for ballot status based on


liable for an eighty violation on a particular piece of property the answer i think is yes notwithstanding the fact that they argue it is not i don't think the m r case i don't think that independent living either compel a different result and in fact it's illogical to suggest


maintain control at all times over the decision whether to pursue fees or to compromise them in order to enhance asylum and one of the justices asked a question regarding settlement i think it was was your


insurance and all that were vindicated by the legislature late in later and saying well this is a better way to do it but you can't have that conference and less you have the affidavit attached which really goes to that another issue asked by the court for the letter brief and that is well it


decision of that at that point if you look at the record what's the practical effect of reversal how the practical effect of reversal could be substantial because mr sanders walks with these two thousand and convictions every day of his life


in this case david and daniel holley were the officers shareholders founders and directors of two corporations that deprive a hundred i do more than one point two million dollars it is undisputed that those corporations would never have been formed and would have been unable to operate on a day to day


will conduct the pre term a nation hearing a pre term a nation hearing before somebody who is not only biased but is totally rigid against even listening to what is said because he has a personal


mr i'm not sure you said exactly what you mean to say you just said that could support a finding of deliberate indifference to that cell you lose for summary judgment on that issue till i think you have to say in order just in order to keep your


whether it does and not quite what this court is going to decide is whether the preference relates to a uniquely indian interest and whether it relates to congress's unique geishas to the indians


that it just doesn't make an indian unique any interest because it happens online on indian my under that doesn't make it unique well if something was working fine only true indian land perhaps but as


memos or in letters in response to the need to still don't appear in the face in the four corners of the document it's not there a reader looking at it would have no idea that a major expansion


did not provide for this sales tax revenue to go to charter schools and for seven years back to the merits no this is related to what the statute provides and how they don't get they've been getting the money you've got a list of


existed was a limited joint venture it was limited to mc bt and under the evidence presented they could have found three or four different things they could have found because all of the evidence was the money people controlled


nanny important felony and how does that work procedurally how did you get to that point where you what was the process did you apply and they just slotted you in and did you get notice you mr


mary's father had his own disputes with the game and the reason we're speculating here is because there's just a gap in proof in the record we don't know why this particular gang member targeted mr maritz father and so it certainly relevant what


effect that arrest did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because the officers had probable cause to arrest mr hosea for obstruction of legal process as well as domestic assault and the force used to affect that arrest


police department received a nine one one call a call for emergency assistance from law enforcement and when officers arrived at the scene to investigate the call and let me back up just one second that nine one one call was interrupted


a nine one one hang up which means that no information was provided with regard to what that emergency was who needed assistance or what the officers were going to face when they got there when they arrived at the address before they got to the


the time frame is from the point that the officers gave a command and the point that mr hosea begins to move toward the floors commanders


to where your honor he was never asked by anyone in his deposition to provide a specific timeframe and i would say if the court will read his deposition testimony the sequence of events he describes is that he heard an order he turned


section two s one point one a two point enhanced mit was applied on them on the money laundering conviction two levels i think you would be it was two levels yes i'm sorry so what the two level enhanced meant under the grouping rules for the money laundering charge was


as to what would be allowed and what would not be allowed well but you have an absolute right to do an offer of proof i mean if you'd asked for it they had an obligation to make an offer proof well the when i have a definitive


treated her during that timeframe did you tell lisa davis to use up to three boxes of pseudoephedrine a month on a continuous basis she answers never i asked why not she said c o p t you don't want to drop the lungs so it


has ever had any issue with in fact that a circuit pattern instruction on voluntary manslaughter specifically says talks about the conduct being


the bankruptcy discharge notice or the notice bar i should say the court look specifically with hindsight at what the dahlan scase was about about benzine about a specific site within a multi billion


unfortunately adopted by judge hamilton below and applied to the merits of morgantown disclaims in the context of the defendants rule twelve b six motion after the filing of the morgenthau


it would require a mistrial if which is as important as a very drastic measure and so that's that's the the gist of of our response to that issue with respect to mr edmunds


officers vinson and bates who went down into the creek after after mr matthews was shot with less lethal in the in the stomach in the legs in


any didn't give an alternative reason produce missing the strict liability claims what is your she did she did and i'm getting there judge the other aspect of this is that it's got to be unreasonably dangerous and


world shattering financial crisis and fraud committed by management and where there is no materiality and just looking to go to your question about investor loss because the commission failed to prove that the conduct of our clients had any material effect on the financial statements there was


important differences i think that the plaintiffs rely on heavily in this case the first one is that in arkansas there were two separate state supreme court decisions that you have to apply retroactively that announced in two thousand and thirteen and twenty


issue you guys would all state would run a depreciation and send him a chair make a percent of a check for actual cash value and then if it's replacement cost policy if they actually go out and replace then they get the recoverable depreciation but the judge that's a whole lot different than


exactly what it looked like happens here and we have a long string of cases with various remedial actions we take so why don't you tell me why you you didn't this wasn't a manufactured appeal to evade


findings in its memorandum an order which is seventy two pages long or that the district court committed legal error but not just any legal or you would have to be legal error that rises to the extraordinary level that is reserved for only the rarest of


regulation where as a new entrant came into the marketplace they could get a state license very easy application essential a one page document and that would allow the incumbent importantly in the


intentionally deciding it was not even going to attempt best execution and not telling the plaintiff in an effort to and this is their words not ours in in an intentional effort consciously wrongful


subject to regulation under the securities and exchange act of one nine hundred thirty four and you see in the complaint actually the plaintiffs cite to italia study that talks about this fact of result of price being less not as favorable to people like the plaintiffs


order router a device under and their terms to route trades not to achieve best execution but to achieve maximum kickback revenue and kickback obviously connotes an illicit secret payment and that's again that's


a whole that reading makes sense in light of the statutory language because as i said these exceptions really don't they they do actually include examples where it's only noncash benefit those french benefits or one there are certain things


nebraska and iowa we have the benefit of unlike the guidelines we have the benefit of separate statute that defines delivery in distribution and delivery in distribution are defined alike in both the brass and i


opinion that you authored and it is not cited in my brief frankly i became aware of it yesterday and i will with permission of the court submitted twenty eight a letter of this is the fletcher case and i think it's clearly addresses a different offense but the same context of the categorical


deference under at pearl and it was not so objective lee and reasonable that no fair minded jurist could disagree and the trial court balance


minimis pain and that would would clearly count now whether there's other categories between two and three is something that this court doesn't have to rush to wrestle with at this time all this court needs to do to decide this case is to hold that weak physical force that


actually present his case without a lawyer this is not something where somebody knew what was going to happen this is a case of him being in a high security prison there is hazard there is risk it's pretty


factual legal complexities in fact mr patterson's response to the motion for summary judgment both motion for summary judgment indicate that he was able to make references to the record he


best evidence they have of this they have an expert who testified that certain immune sensitive mice when exposed to five hundred thousand parts per billion of t c e attract more ethylene exhibit symptoms like autoimmune


terms less and less than what we have five hundred thousand parts per billion which is the only number that we've actually seen causing h like symptoms that's we're asking a jury to extract lay down that there's no basis


in they told his parents that he had psychological problems and needed help so counsel knew all this he knew that there were indicators of significant mental health problems that us arise faced from very early on in


submit reports as to where he is to the people that he checked in on because he was a checker that was typed in the traffic tracker that the people that he checked in are several the people said everybody in the program knew


institution that lost money in the short sale none of that was contested at trial ever and the jury was entitle to credit count two involved bank of america there are two different ways the jury could have found that we met the


believe so i think a standard here when we're talking about pleading guilty under a plea agreement is whether or not the advice of counsel runners that knowing involuntary that being said would you have pled guilty had you not had this advice then i think that's


basically where we would be now so with that i like to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal


you're doing you're saying wow we want on preemption we also had a first amendment claim that was at least non frivolous and therefore we get fees well why is that why should that be the rule because because that is the law in the a


and then look at the practice rather go beyond that contract language and look at the practice they admit it runners are covered under that contract with us from g e tom fight about that oh but we regulate her runners off the


them i don't think it's hard to see that it didn't shock the conscience to discredit that claim based on this evidence there was also discussion this morning of the section ten b of the act one sixty b and whether certain claims were time limited


state now i'm not excited about getting into this at all but it looks like you don't have enough here to begin to argue to meet your own standard well your honor as you noted this morning this is about choosing


determining whether a local ordinance prohibits something that's also a violation of state law the courts shouldn't just look to see whether this is also a crime under state law but still look at the process by which the local ordinance is


not a situation where mr barnes me of just not noticed this issue or lost sight of it i really think this is a textbook case of intentional relinquishment of the argument because to


case that was decided to weeks december twenty first after i filed my complaint in district court and in that case there is a clear


required to ask but i can think of a number of instances in which particularly in the post twamley it ball world we've said you know you shouldn't just throw something out the door on the first try


ultimately august thirtieth which is the date of arrest between july thirteenth and august thirtieth there are cell phone records that show drug related communications there's evidence beyond mrs this testimony to


jones made precisely that sort of argument they just posed in front of the jury during trial namely that the dealing might have been just a joint project involving smith and rowland and smith and jones


and the second question is is the indiana attempted robbery offense does it fit the definition under fifty thirty two of the juvenile act as a violent felony


tomorrow what we think that's a threat your honor i don't think there's any distinction between a threat the threat a threat the threat is a threat if i if one says i'm going to threaten you tomorrow that's a threat ok i mean it's a very


breast cancer then these other things it and also the specific you know approximate two year period it mirrored an earlier opinion that it really was before the formal time period but


has to be highly exceptional circumstances i know this court and other circuits have dealt with cases where there was a bomb threat or a bomb attempt at the federal courthouse which this you understand why that's highly exceptional and one a judge


does that make it to live in mexico we need to know the denominator what does the record show about the


issue was raised was on pleading summary judgment we responded to it there and we argued it there both in response to defend its motion and i am ok marshall so so where where do you say


case and the case you're talking about is in this case there is no decision there is a decision you question it's validity because of this issue about whether the board could act by a quorum or not according to state law and the board's own rules that's an


you please the court my name is steven gray i am the attorney for the appellant in this case scott robinette and today we're here for the court to consider a statute from the indiana


left in the bill regardless of what the litigation having made that concession i think is their textual problem because the defense obligation then comes and says much like the indemnity obligation the governmental entity shall also pay all costs and fees incurred by or on


what the brief was getting at i mean how could a police officer take an action under color of state law without also acting within the scope of his employment i mean if you can come up with an example i'd be grateful we cite


the court barred the claim against any s d based on the unity because it was performing functions within the scope of the arbitration even if it carried out those functions improperly what the court said and a mad case the allegations included


informant it's speaking exclusively about the garage they pat mr lopez down they find nothing they look in the car they find nothing they look in the garage


agreed to continue the conversation with the agents and agreed to continue to allow them to search the garage and ultimately the house if the court is inclined to say that the house the search of the garage was consensual based on the sequence of events


isn't a victim worthy of restitution because of some of the steps they could have been a take but the fraud in this case was about the down payment and it was about the defendants writing and signing under oath that the buyers were


providing the source of the down payments that wasn't true for the defendants themselves for giving the down payment to the buyers and then the buyers would give it to bank of america the defendants did this mr leto's testified because they understood that if the buyers couldn't


don't know who else to contact but here friedman and mr fink omas holcomb's attorney were in court studying the case for trial and then two days later they sent a motion for default directly to ms holt it was entirely unnecessary they


that he was there on dates when he would not have shown up on his membership card how how do you i mean wasn't there a basis here for a jury to conclude that in fact it was more pervasive than the six point five percent


man parents who had apparently attempted an armed robbery with what was thought to be a gun others are talking about the illness the condition of the diff of the of the arrestee what to discharge and


appeal and their own willingness to do so deprives this court of jurisdiction they pleaded the themselves out of court essentially if the court were to find jurisdiction and reach the merits of this appeal it should affirm the district court's denial of


something we could have addressed at sentencing the fact that it was added after the in a written statement after the docket or the after the sense was completed and then further elaborated on the response for the judge's order on the most


one of the defenses that was presented at trial was the defendant's claim that he didn't read the sworn contract or statements before he sent them to the title insurance company and this defense has nothing to do with the testimony of the banks loan


discuss this is clear we're well i do agree with your honor's that this is a clear harmless error question if this court chooses not to address the merits or if this court does find that there is merit there is no reason to remand for resentencing under mr


your answer to the question whether it is permissible to sentence for both nine twenty fourth's and twenty four j single case we have a ready answer for you are on the because it wasn't something that was litigated here so i would want to speak up


and the confirmation order vacated for three reasons first the decision misapplies the hamilton be a landing decision and the calculation of current monthly income for medium level debtors second this projection conflicts with the requirements


issues they are distinct and united states versus the a d s miranda that which we cited in our brief this court held that it explanation may be completely adequate but if the court passes over a principle argument mitigations


silence they're still there the issue he has raised has nothing to do with whether the court adequately justified the thirty month sentence they did not raise that issue they raised the issue of whether the court passed


many years and gaged and that in the specific frauds that we've allege i do think that once one spear gaijin discovery and we and we can get more information about the transactions that we've alleged to be fraudulent we will be able to supply


regulations for a system and the statute as written require the whistleblower to provide information relating to the security laws screw law violation to the f c c and there was nothing


will it make the top ten percent elite runner for the traditional races will still be in the top ten percent and keep their place in the meat they will not be affected in any


jurisdictional issue was the only thing that should be decided and should have been decided and that's what the district court told us and i don't know how all of a sudden it they can change it and say well it's a decision on the merits we were never allowed to brief


after but that's what there's no rule in the adversary system that you have to take your opponent's criticism of your complaint as gospel right i mean you criticize and are stand up went to the judge not until judge stat miller and


why and the court should affirm it in all respects and should not send this back to have the planes finally maybe identify something that would just be a complete waste of judicial important resources thank you very much all right thank you very much mr danley i'll give you a


very briefly your honor i want to clarify we are asking that the court


either way you read the statute there's nothing in it that says they can ignore later acquired knowledge the static could have been drafted to include that but


to the trail and it's enters told to not worry about it


associates ations in the mix each of them with subcommittees climate change government regulation and so forth so that's not surprising the phone calls are equally not surprising because this is a small market the trades with each week with each other constantly


that was the decision made in two thousand and nine i think mr johnson's position isn't as i understand it is in if you look at the at the the blue briefs in the appendix page thirty five ok you have it there


were not supported by substantial evidence for example the objective evidence supports the l g s decision in two thousand and ten mr hall had a consultative examination with dr jane wherein he had


an internist and possibly the fake that he has he had some sympathy because he had a worker's comp case or something like that that's just wrongful those are not the kind of factors that are supposed to be considered referral by the internist no the main thing that


and typically according to this first definition in the past if it's not related to a cross that would be a fine and a criminal penalty so in that sense it matters if it's a criminal penalty under the new version unrelated to the cost of a case it can't be if


situation i'm trying to get caught up i don't like this person i hate this person i hate this person with a passion so what i'm going to do is i'm going to make up the biggest lie about this person and tell


jury instructed to evaluate at a different time all of this is before the jury trial they told the judge specifically that the only thing it could do was to instruct the jury to value the property in accordance with the statute that they now want to appeal have you no contest


difference between the data evaluation and the date of the taking there's no constitutional problem i think the constitution sort of recognizes this that you can't you know it doesn't for serial trials because every time there's a payment then there might have been that twenty four or forty eight


front and we do reject it in our position is that the other jurisdictions in cases that say that you can like the new annoys statute that's not applicable to this case that says that the court has discretion either under constitutional compulsion under statutory authority


finally i'd like to i'd like to address the invited error issues raised by the state counsel for the state indicates that we directed the court the defendants who directed the court to use the one nine hundred ninety nine data value but that's only half of the story


and and their choice not to exercise that right does not undermine the fact that it holds the right to possession and the force preserves argument under vehement domain act provides they say famine to mean act claiming that it


supreme court what they said is everybody defines the date of taking differently and for purposes of federal cases we declare that is our view that the date of taking will be the date of


let's talk about their legislative history and i know that the rule is unless it's ambiguous and of course one of the states indicating here that trust doesn't interest in this case all right so i think that's sort of the height the baby you're ready but if you want to build me just for second


i would say this to you that taking is a taking ok and just because you bay allow a car to be borrowed by someone to use the appellate court's analogy it doesn't allow that person to keep it so


i did not properly segregate manage those accounts and i delegate but it wasn't done with the intent or wasn't done with the knowledge there must be some reason on the nice that under your direction or the bank or under your direction


consistency with section twenty seven day and that would be as a matter of law obviously with statutory construction the second issue is whether the board failed to fully improperly consider section twenty seven a factors based on the


balance it they're not alleging obviously that the illinois e p a is violating the permit that would be impossible since the collective action plan created by the e p a was actually part of the permit here the department of natural


sought such administrative appeals there's been no allegation of any change in the law or regulations governing groundwater remediation the regulatory standards here are the same as when they were the permits were issued and in the absence of any such change performance standards


clue about how powerful exxon really is and as far as the policies go when you look at the statute it tells you that but that the whole policy of this law is to protect the health safety and general welfare of the people the natural beauty in a


king in which she had just pickings car on fire the trial court considered that despite her previous crimes he had given her a life sentence oh excuse me a light sentence on the arson conviction but the fact that she then went on


mentioned at all in the original judgment silent child support silence and then somebody can still file a petition under that section under the disjunctive or and come in and


is the motive to lie it goes here i mean was there anything at the in the now engine disposal of the defendant at the time that would be equal to or greater word


presumption under the tenth amendment state legislatures cannot be commanded to legislate one of the questions that was asked earlier is whether there was whether it makes sense to have differing rules as


here paragraph a seven of the identity theft statute we already have the mental state of knowledge i believe it would be inconsistent with all those precedents for the court to try and add support of a mental further mental state to it now i believe that it


unreliable and so damaging he still could have excluded he could have excluded them at one fifteen ten hearing and then if the state called these witnesses he had an incredibly powerful impeachment tool at his disposal in these statements where these where


but there is a duty to you to chat if a client comes in again in this case we don't know what was said to determine do you were entitle am i going to participate in a meaningful transaction with a climate where am i just going


she should have gotten an undivided one half interest in that real estate with her husband and then upon his death the whole or vice a versa sheep if she pretty deceased her husband he would then


one well first it was specifically with the offset provision that's a provision of purpose of that which is again reflected in the section three twelve one which provides for purposes of the of the work program the prison work program is


half of them and in for just preserve regular incarceration costs the state is limited to three percent again it's further confirmation that the legislature intended from the start that the offset that the department has said three percent


court found that it was sufficiently pled or we send it back to the appellate court on that issue that that would be another sufficient basis i just want to understand you are using social you know we find that social hosts in this case


deficiency with the facts that were played in the four corners their argument was there was no duty raised and that was the only argument that judge hall heard and that was the only argument that judge hall used as the basis or to dismissing the


have a constitutional issue that what exactly does that mean i asked you earlier about the where that it would seem that this is surplusage it means nothing if indeed it would what


statute to of to allow what used to be ticket scalping used it amended the statute to allow the resale of tickets at amounts higher than the face amount of the tickets under certain circumstances one of those circumstances


court to apply the same public policy in this instance briefly a few additional points about the travelers case i believe that contrary to what mr aris is says that


otherwise that's correct but if we go back to travelers in the cases leading up to travelers we're talking about the nature of the doctors live delivery to us not the nature of either our liability


that said the prisoner could ask for reconsideration sooner under illinois law and the law at the time that this court decided as much or it's a binding change in statute section three three five out


provisions do not ensure that all vehicle owners will receive a meaningful hearing and a meaningful time but neither of these positions can be can meet the exceedingly high burden that a facial challenge faces a facial challenge must


or promptly that there is no deadline now a few points on that first in this case complaints were filed within twenty two days ten twenty and twenty two days so again in this case they were filed quickly forthwith


used in this case and again it also shows the problem with respect to facial challenges and making and validating a statute on a bare bones record and finally claimants refer in great detail to the value


on that in illinois you must have uninsured motorist coverage you don't have the privilege to say i don't we should if you hear of unshared motorists cover excuse me if you have


and it was specifically set forth going limp forcefully resisting arrest or physically aiding a third party to avoid arrest and it's this physical element of aiding a person from arrest


happens and that's all that was given by the department the agency that is charged with the interpretation of hell so it is our position that there is no interpretation that is due deference there is no statute


annexation of territory our position is the only one that is grounded in the statutory text we agree with the board that the appellate court's decision has no basis in the text there


presented and off elements there was own testimony to warrant a self defense instruction and it was presented to the judge was that you have no discretion once you found that you must as a mandatory counterpart or say


going on in the street that day had she seen a gun she would have been able to testify to it and told somebody so immediately it was absolutely rejected is plain


gather my thoughts here first of all in his opening brief filed in this court mr hill at no time ever argued that the ruling on the motion to strike ever


an actual sentence he talked about the psychological trauma that a person might feel not knowing whether or not the state's intended to seek death he referred to the daunting prospect of execution those are exact words from his brief and other words in his


look at the fact there were three hundred twenty seven thousand plus new misdemeanors filed it we're talking about we're going to require the police departments to start with saving these videos for who knows how long they don't have infinite amount of computer space of these are digitizing if they're not


the admission of the adjudication was not an abuse of discretion and it doesn't matter that the trial court had ruled before trial that the adjudication can come in because this court can affirm the trial court's admission of the evidence on any basis


i believe you have some rebuttal time randi just fact i don't think the union is asking you to create a bright line here i think that the court can easily see that there just was insufficient


opponent moreover mr alvarez and his asylum application and even stated that he went to a field with a group of agents to capture subversive elements obtain information by any means and only the element he also


contradicts the statement he gave right after the accident that he saw the employees in the trench to l j properly credited that prior statement because he determined examples testimony at the hearing appeared hurst and was implausible this credibility


established that both j p and sam but didn't know the osha standards they were completely unfamiliar with them and didn't know the duties of a competent person without this knowledge they could not qualify as competent persons so whatever inspection they did on the morning of the nineteenth


kashmir there's evidence they can go live in delhi therefore even though there may be a reason for it i grant him asylum from what took place in kashmir because there's another safe place within their country now the i j a said took that and


can't i can't but i can't but the credibility determination is based on the petitioners overall credibility not just specific facts that are in the record it's


it refers to adults persons the argument the government is that persons includes minors but that's another issue the complaint clearly referenced the age of the victim the age of the victim being sixteen from there


confirmed by the defendant or some comparable digital record of this information and in our case the what was presented was the complaint and their pleas and the cases that we


that the petitioner fails to show that the record compels inclusion that he would be tortured by the government the facts of this case show that he he's no longer a member of the gang that he used to be a member of he


findings as to credibility now first of all i think he's clear off base when he says his evidence of change conditions is not as good as the government evidence he doesn't have any burden on change


conditions the government does so the suggest that the alien varies the burden of proof on that is totally out to lunch in my book so then i go or all of this stuff and i still have a tough time


regarding the exact actions regarding the charge of her movability what section of aggravated felony laws it's charging maybe they wouldn't have conceded it maybe they would have thought at that time maybe doesn't win a case i understand you've got to have some got to have some


the materiality issue i believe was properly found although there was a point of contention about the extent to which had demanded the reports through the years that particular factual point did


two when the issue was was more aggressively discussed between hud and mr your team about where are these reports that we've been talking about for so long so the later pay off which was in the last day of


married his present wife and on september twentieth of two thousand and two she found a family petition for him throughout two thousand want two thousand and two he was acting diligently to to put himself in a position to to adjust


authority supports the approach of waiting until the remedy is defined and then determining whether or not there's a conflict of remedies as opposed to addressing the peer preemption as you phrased it to my knowledge your honor


timely filed and that ineffective assistance of counsel prejudice my client as well because he never got the opportunity to present his case to the immigration judge you have any further questions


consideration of any discretionary factors that would affect her eligibility and not to allow the government to to have a second bite at the apple mainly to be litigate her entire application all over


remand i think it is certainly arguable if not successfully argue are arguable that if she would have raised that issue in who her direct appeal of the immigration judges decision on


needed to send it back to make sure that an exercise of discretion would be made only in the scene ario where the full picture was known and that's all they did they remanded to the immigration judge with specific instructions to make that determination


asked about his own activities and the whereabouts of other o l f members and in the end in the process of doing so they he was subjected to beatings he was forced to walk on


testimony they were given some past medical records and apparently they were given the autopsy in one of the problems with the autopsy in this report is or in this case is that it did not cover really the anatomical


these people didn't try to retain counsel they've said that they did but that's the problem is what happens when people don't act with any diligence and then in fact once that but once they do retain attorneys and they go ahead and they file a motion that's where the problem comes


you in the end you have stuff going out the other end of vengefully it's resold and it seems like nobody or never has the tax court or any circuit court said you can have different value lease right now like a money i don't know there's very


i understand i think that is a legitimate way of viewing perhaps of making the argument for two different valuations in some cases but i think the record in this case doesn't support that argument ok so let's go and so do you agree that that there is a


relative been in any event in this context where discretion discretionary determination doesn't come into play until after extreme hardship in the statutory provision is established it's clear that the regulation is a


entirely incompetent and i think the record of hearing establishes that she's not incompetent because she was able to understand and answer questions now some of her answers were i don't know for there's no indication that she wasn't misunderstanding the question


and you know she she clearly had undergone jehovah's witness training in the united states and she was continuing to undergo there's a question whether or not she


past persecution was that he failed to consider these three incidents in the aggregate as is required by this court in core belief if you the cumulative effect of all these three incidents together definitely compels a finding that


torture each of those findings by the immigration judge is supported by substantial evidence and the court should uphold them under its narrow standard of review i'd like to turn right away to take my leave it for the petitioners


i would note at the outset that this claim has never been presented to the agency and further petition did not raise it in our opening brief before this court however importantly the claim she raises in that motion i think on a cursory examination of the record is not colorful


half to see whether or not iran iraq at the are in fact would have it in her miserable retroactive effect on the petitioner we look to whether or not congress clearly


because i want to make clear the government's position in this respect it's been a month discussion from the council about whether the record supports the finding of a well founded fear future persecution based on independent corroboration and country


so i as to the rest i'm not sure exactly what to say because the attorney general has not addressed any of our substantive arguments on the law or on them or on the facts but one of those and deprive you from


reports in this case indicate that the student federation petitions in this case are often fraught with fraud and fraudulent documentation so the question as to whether or not


statute they're also i believe and the court should consider in this case that there's a constitutional aspect to it in the government's brief one of their objections


asylum claim and they were asking that it go back for consideration of current country conditions something that the board necessarily could not have considered i mean here it's patently unfair for us to have to litigate this over and over again at the board we have to appeal to the ninth circuit these clients don't have any


that country conditions had changed i don't think government submitted the country report but that's a slightly different issue as to whether the i j a is viewing it that the


withholding merits out of the way we have asylum timeliness that raises the issue of what the court should do with respect to the adverse credibility determination right now this is very odd


fundamental inconsistency that the i g found with respect to specific incidents so you have a specific finding that mr wagner failed to provide credible testimony that he had either suffered persecution on


come up under the under the convention against torture that would be part of the affirmative case so regardless of whether or not the immigration judge shifted the burden or not the the finding that relocation


to get the information telling him that he needed to produce the more information or he would see that and september in september of one thousand nine hundred sixty right around the time a little bit after he committed the crime that he eventually play no contest of that serves as the basis for his


in late july when he finally writes the international not the local union doesn't send a copy of union he says the international you've told me i can work the local doesn't seem to be following along relying only on butler's letter what's the story and the board


which was four years later by the way which is what caused him to actually leave peru if he is to be believed in his declaration he specifically stated that he cooperated with


he reported a robbery but none of that the threatening letters or anything else that he says he received or his family received were ever introduced into evidence when the judge considered all that along with the fact that his family continues to reside


sufficient evidence human inference is to the point if of pretext that the nondiscriminatory reasons given were pretextual so i think we're all on the same page that that's the locus of the conversation


example there needs to be a causal connection between the his his protected speech and the adverse employment reaction it's there's no evidence in this you could there's evidence from which you could draw an inference of


problem with your talk about all these evidentiary rulings that there's no showing that any work was ever performed but you kept saying as are you elaborate your answer about dr sacks not having reported his various convictions and


that provision of the title twenty eight requires that both parties consent to a magistrate judge there's nothing in the record about a consent to the magistrate judge well that's that seems irrelevant to the point because the only point is what is the


the procedural apple because he and the bench trial judgment should be affirmed because he waived his right to a jury trial and he cannot insist on having his case tried before a magistrate judge instead of just rejection


to these two charges with eight months old or eight months pregnancy going on it with that thirteen year old is beyond me but the key to it was what was done after that point in time


further reparable harm in the renegotiation of contracts under collective bargaining agreements that would be required that one though i didn't understand why you couldn't just have a clause in the collective bargaining agreement you're negotiating that says this is only good and