void for vagueness and codes the regulation doesn't say corruptly disrupt significantly disrupt or even disrupt the operations of governance and see it just disrupt a government employee if we allow any disruption of a


employee if i see a u s marshal or homeland security officer and they tell me you need to do this i'm going to know that if i don't do it they're going to tell me i'm probably going to wind up in handcuffs maybe


hogan i want to say it was twenty eight dollars team but it was it was fairly recently if i'm wrong about that involved copies of firearms but within that opinion the court noted did it specifically abandon


the conditional guilty plea would not be able to cover this discovery of the straw because before they search with this search warrant because that's simply not case


here i got a cold i think that moved this doctrine in a certain sense is kind of a pain for courts but that's a consequence of a jurisdictional limit and


an exhibit but i'm sorry and i actually i'm not it's not clear to me whether it matters to the outcome of this case at all but the defense the defendant spends a lot of time saying that on their face the regulation doesn't speak to what the


what was presented and what was argued and the district court seemed to concede that yes the statute only prohibits administering so and the expert for the government also sort of conceded


looking at yes yes the way the statute is drafted there are four care graphs of the statute any one of which amounts to a violation of the act there is no reasonable debate and all prosecutor


another in co a crime without there being the completion of an overt act


morning honors law around born on behalf of the government they placed the court the question that is before the court this morning is whether a trial court which everyone including the defendant agrees can require participation in a trade him program


statue so forth alternative elements that can lead to a conviction so mr williams may very well have walked into the courtroom and admitted that he possessed one gram or more of cocaine base and that would have been


statutory language and we think the analysis really can end there on that prong of the analysis because there are any number of circuit level decisions some of which involve the very same inadmissibility statute at issue in our


quite substantial a n you know it is sometimes the ground rules for essay contest and debates are another things that can appear to be arbitrary or they can appear to be


ok but it's a teacher's classroom teachers curricula well i mean at least the school i went to the same curriculum every year of the different eaters but you want i mean i hope you understand the idea is


authority to exercise control over the content and style students in school sponsored expressive activities that bear the imprimatur of the school as long


and her son in order to try to get her husband to come back so they could kill him and the immigration judge also found credible position or system only that other members of the very same particular social group the same family


but in doing so it is essentially ignored the at least one central reason standard stating that a person is the target of general criminal violence by private actors does not mean as a matter of logic that they were not also


i think kind of as a theoretical matter your honor it wouldn't matter if they could identify that it wasn't back someone who's behind it all i'm not saying she had to identify a specific person but the point is kind of twofold she does identify riccardo that


error so i don't see how you can say there was a manifest disregard of the contra well it's the contract he you just don't like the result respectfully i understand your


fictitious minors the facts in this case disclose that it was the confidential witness which i'm going to refer to as c w rather than her


that is to procure under age girls for himself either produce child pornography or for himself


understand the court's concern about that i think the government consulted with probation did the research and i think looking at specifically you know the dow the dow the double counting case and the creek cases which


formulation of england and we have no recent cases that refer to that reformulation and we have these two statutes one statute fifty eight to fifty eight and the question is ultimately


prevail on the merits and and get the the bond back presumably but recover on the bond i should have said but by


and because of nike's pervasive presence online and in social media the lack of any indication of confusion causes existence into question so the district court was basically saying even though this may only be four


not asking the court to make a general broad ruling that women an attorney is aware of the collateral matter that he's got and they do a duty to go out and take care of that but in


and that's not what you're being asked to review so it wasn't a question of whether judge whitney properly senate stern not this is all about the attorney's conduct i don't want to get


which immigration court it was you were giving the story to if i stated that the immigration court would lack authority to preside over an immigration proceeding without a compliant charging document i did not into without a


prosecutor a defense attorney trial judge and this warrant did this work are these warrants i should say they


existed this is a quote if the omitted statements had been included we consider only the information actually presented to the magistrate so that's a quote again from footnote three of law i would also note that lowell is not distinguishable i think mr young said that because here there


met dealing with transportation or anything like that and georgia he had a car accident and there was a search as a result of that car accident and when this car was searched and there's no necessarily on mr cabrera in the car even this


parties do it really applies here there's been no dispute here i don't think there's been any speed in any other courts to address this issue before the focus under taylor is an examination of substantial


border in two thousand for it was broadens to include aliens within a one hundred miles of the border and fourteen days of entry in two thousand and nineteen when they got on challenging the breadth of that


illegally into the country you have to apply for you status as well as a waiver of admissibility same type and under the you status regulations the agency the c i s cannot grant you status unless they also


resentencing if for no other reason than to ensure that when these relevant conduct analyses are conducted they're conducted with some integrity and with sufficient addition of reliability to justify enhancing someone's


genie is directed by the commissioners rulings in by this court that there appears to be a conflict she is she was required to enquire from that vocational witness whether or


pain this is not an indication that he is precluded from performing all work it's not an indication that he's perfectly good from performing the medium or that sound was was warranted was appropriate


expert testified that this men can do those jobs and she said her testimony was consistent with the dictionary she did here and i take your honour's point to the vocational


pacific leave you know if you taking balls and all the other materials that you need for the wreck so it's inside access storage there's a gras in the back that has overhead doors to be able to bring stuff that you're storing outside


turns that we've got set up as part of the program this is minister iter and director conference space storage little kitchenette and some bathrooms for up stairs and communicating stairs going up and down so this whole side


the country in designing and developing performing arts centers and we've been in business for thirty years this year this project began slightly more a year ago


to perhaps follow up on that with you know discussion so so why what why did i say we're thirteen hundred thirteen thousand in the red because we are fabulous but what what to do about


them flush out and the other projects continue to flesh out what the actual costs are and how long we would have to put this in place or you know what what the payback would be are


ok there are several available options for doing that you have the solar river reserve fund which is generating sixty to ninety k a year you also have a fish and sea savings right now that we work with efficiency vermont on that show that you're saving around one hundred ninety thousand a year but if


thank you and thank you for your report you mentioned in the report and again reiterated that that cord cutting is cutting into your revenue and i think that that's a really important thing to


preempted from putting any taxes on telecom services by the federal government because believe me the cable companies have thought of that already


the last four or five years depending on when you start the clock really my entire formative professional career dedicated to this building in the belief that it could be a transformative cultural community landmark that is a


say i i and the post that passes unanimously and i think you have a very strong message of support even though we need to know a lot more obviously but if you work for the concept


authority that is being handed over from the city council to the improvement district as a result of this charter change and you know maybe one again discussion there might be more focus on that but i think that's


six if not if not more quite frankly i would not support the final version of this if there's not some real concrete commitments around building that team so even i may vote against this ok next one i'm going to try to


loss of public property in burlington until burlington housing justice called to my attention and even then i had to piece through newspaper articles and kind of wade through a lot of complicated business and political jargon just to get


that structure will really hold the test of time i'm not i'm not sure i have to admit i've given it lots of thought and i've had lots of conversations with other councilors with friends with my


presentation a factual presentation that will run in the coming weeks second will be a tort of the m p a is for any of those who are able to schedule a schedule a presentation i was at the wards two and three n p a and thank you for the councillors for setting


answer that that the planning commission met last week to specifically discuss this proposal and when it came to the specific question of appointment process for the planning director their recommendation was that


define the charge of the mission of this new department having brought three separate functions into sure the main charge of the


numbers so that you really see you getting a true picture of what the costs are increasing by because in the old highway budget for let's take public works we took out all the building accounts this year and transfer them over


numbers and we have it on a big eleven by seventeen spread sheet sorry sarah for the phone but we used adult font not to show why staff felt this was the


so i think the devil's in details on this in the concept we kind of agreed to right when there was a recommendation from again that that committee and i'm not really against going forward is just how do we do that maybe what andrew it said


code number and that's where requests like that come from the think you know just a form based code it's mainly the what the building looks like this so you could think of a four story rendering plant earth slaughterhouse


if somebody you know if the unit was not allocated out of here it would simply disappear it would no longer be available that is what happens today every ten years when we move from one cycle to another so


becomes a soft seating lobby or a small local art gallery where artist can display the work has to be determined and then to address here other comment regarding enhancing the entrance at that south


to have card reader control at the elevators as well to yeah to deny public access have the rest that would be better yes that would usually fix outside it looks right yeah they don't know what is a black door correct that only certain people can access and it gets people out of


attorneys i'm here on behalf of fourteen interested persons did my hand out did the hand out make it around before i got here ok so they're all identified by name and address and i need to read their names and addresses now that's here


page for the handout a comprehensive plan identifies the following goals of the first page promote conservation of identified important natural areas open spaces aquatic resources exciter


to close the hearing tonight is that correct it will be other opportunities for myself and my clients to speak at future meetings so with that in mind you've got to hand out i think it speaks for itself i don't guess i don't need to read it to you and i'd be happy to yield the floor if there are other people would like to speak


allowed and then some others he said are potential yes these things that we have to decide on whether we're writing our plan what we're rewriting our planet in other words when you mention the the


salaries that was last february and then i think you mentioned that the governance attorney should come out a fund balance so we've come up with this list and are asking to prove it


the roommate of my son's and actually worked with out of essex way back when but he's one of the best structural engineers in the state and we got done fixing the the posts that were holding up in the main beams is so


sidewalk there is no path so it could be a path could be a sidewalk or a group that we need to we need to know storage but to me it's a logical progression if we can get storm water to fix part of it no by the way get a path in at the same time to get this part way closer to getting something built to


in those buildings and if somebody comes back with a plan that says here's my green space and here's my building and they can't give you a compelling narrative there's a flag on the play that's i would work that you know one of my disappointments with all the the


and every five hundred feet we took three sixty photos and the emphasis if you remember the project was views to the mountains and the idea was to save the view is to me


developers kind of coming in they can go to the town planning go to rec planning go to the master plan they go to the voting and there's like everybody speaking the same hymnal and it's not a question as to whether or not this level of connectivity or this level of recreational access is


truck that you would just do the home occupation full time at her home so so when she's doing the food truck she will have people come to pick up in her house and also they'd be taking out if they didn't want to


atmosphere in a big poor old to draw you in pedestrian to drop in and then of course the cars come on the other side so we separate that conflict so that you have both events


got designed now i like a lot because there's a lot of glazing that leads into the restaurant on the new street side and to have to make a hallway that is just for i mean it's becoming a much bigger thing than just a vestibule


be the goal of the hotel as well that when there are seminars functions meetings and events going on the spaces the door would be open because otherwise it becomes really problematic just to use ability stand so i think that if that's inherent


many nineteen did it be able to repeat that success and continue to grow those personal asks in twenty twenty and twenty one twenty one to fifteen can we would


the next few months but we believe that this is a credential is valid not just for this community but right linda burlington and i think john kerry but also massachusetts connecticut


gets that just goes to show you that you know when you're when you're starting to think about infrastructure and building new buildings considering what you want to put in those buildings that actually keeps a community engaged versus just living in your community


time consuming so this is a process that takes over a year in a lot of cases so you know we just started that we're looking to hopefully wrap it up by the fall of next year and get into the actual


village was great about writings of funding for that and we still have money and are checking accounts and so we have a plan i will tell you at some point but we have a plan


and hansing our role as an arts and cultural center for our region and then finally leveraging those unique characteristics that we have as a city and using them to help us strengthen our economy going forward


conversations or developing language access plans to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate so what are the goals around this element around this idea the first is about addressing those


subject to the same anderson burdick analysis but what the court did said ok well except that this doesn't implicate the right to vote it still raises valid concerns about you know about you know how these things are supposed to be counted and so will will soon that there's no


west virginia at this point there's this issue of certifying questions is whether or not there's no controlling our authority or confusing controls the wording there is no i don't think there should be any dispute the tawny is still the controlling law on this is


say ok fine this is just a general flood control measure but we'll ask whether there is an unreasonable burden or interference but if it's just the state saying look as a matter of state law you've got to shut down the railroad tracks twenty four hours before


assistance seems more urgent to me than the guy that rolled through the stop sign i'm not sure i would be making that judgment but in the abstract i would agree with you if not for the fact that we've got laws on the on the radio saying i don't need an emergency response anymore but then but but come to


in that maybe contract reading from the cite the paragraph eight or section eight it certainly appears as though the navy didn't require standard oil to extract


now your honour's again maryland law on which probably naturalize recognizes this that continuing harm doctrine flows from a continuing tort type


shirts that i want to donate in each one of them i think is worth a dollar but i want you to come pick them up and i'm going to give you sort of an easement on my property four or ten days come pick up the


president trump had made and that there was no conclusion that she was in the process of gauging in any type of violence you know the police officers you know


factors cause it to tip the overall balance of the confusion assessment in homes favor and to incorrectly rule the combe what the district court should have done is what the trademark travel appeal board did in two thousand and seventeen before this


case was appealed to the district court t v examine the same likelihood of confusion factors and reached the opposite decision and found no likelihood of confusion the teacher gave the reach that decision by correctly applying the


said plan and certified by the response of responsible federal official so the statute itself doesn't require pre authorization it's the regulation that requires pre authorization and our position in this case is that ultimately it was impossible for


contemplated using any money from the super fund by the obligation with that bird telep with the performing to fund it it was responsible for completing the cleanup work and it was responsible on its own well paying contractors to complete that cleanup work if they didn't want to do it and how that's


gang members arguably would have been just as motivated to target her but the fact is that she got the money for her husband and they knew it


right because not all catholics take their faith the same way you know some are twice a year catholics some are twice a week catholics you know some keep the rosary beside the bed and some do some don't right the same


physicians to emphasize one option of or not but your are your talking with the flip side which is could it then ban physicians from giving their best advice about what they think the proper option would be now we think that that independently would violate medical ethics and


i didn't realize all this that happened and that created just disability problem for us no it does not in your honor baltimore are still harmed by the exam by the rules all to more still would like to be a granted in the ten


for those reasons this court should reverse the lower court order the agency to provide an answer and allow us to provide a record and allow us to engage in dispositive on the administrative procedure act st the


those cases is casa recognize was those are cases where there is not a jurisdictional ball our own reviewing the reasons right the point here is that if it's discretionary


create a hazard for the employee and that regulation it doesn't like on all fours with this case address that issue but what it does do is it is it shows that it is


lakers wella no service no judge came what she said was i didn't understand when i made that statement what he meant by unable to work


consider the range of territory here on appeal that you need to none ssion at least a one hundred and eighty day requirement for long term disability in the


good morning your honor sir before i get directly into the arguments that government counsel made just now i want to make three kind of overarching points that i think helped frame the way we think about this appeal the st and the government didn't get into this at all is that


identical position they were in before they were deployed that simply means that there is no cognizable irreparable injury that they would suffer so plaintiffs did not address that at all they did not dispute our


complaint that concluding that freedom is not the service or for the purposes of the november th tax payment aligns with the statute instead n y c be needed to pay them money then


view of the of the world so long as it's described as a decision instead of a failure to act then in your view that's an affirmative act the decision can be the affirmative act itself your honor the decisions


imposes vital restrictions on the separation of powers that grants or it's tangling themselves in abstract policy disagreements like here like whether or not seven points of contact are better than points


sort of i'm going back to judge keenan's question a little bit i read your brief in essence to ask us on the enumeration cause claim to affirm on the ground not


why wouldn't have applied to numerous other statutes and statutes wouldn't mean what they say anymore we would be reading in good behavior exceptions to every stacks with their with their criminal or civil


but we didn't do this we didn't call this an offense that that cannot be non non serious types of events congress did and as you say congress in acted this to close this so called zero and it didn't put a time on


here whether we go back and look at the underlying facts and try to go back and unravel what he actually did is one thing but but it is clear as judge keenan has pointed out and as the record shows you even concede it is below that this is nine this is a deed


ensures an interest in south carolina is a question of law just like citizenship or policy not contractual interpretation except a right the question is is it an interest in south


well your honor our position is that the record does not show c c i personnel engaged in torture in any way shape or form assuming there's a question of fact about that because


that regulation and say that all of the issues that were adversely decided against you will be addressed and we will provide you a notice of those of those issues and if you had jack to the issues


rest of shepard and we know that under the randall shepard act you have to blast the scheme are they didn't do that so she didn't you are correct she didn't have the opportunity to step in at the time that the act


through this arbitration process i think you


comports with the circuit's decision and various others and it just you know as a difficult recognizes the puzzling for the court to conclude that the secretary of education has a role in telling the army where it can and


twelve a nd holding that was not addressed in williams and it includes a direction claim based on the fact that the nine electors are elected out large in the slate election that is also not precluded by billions go dark precluded by williams it is


well the notice is fine but i'm not even going to address what the opportunity to be heard in if one justice kennedy says is that what the due process requires is only some year arctic you will basis


the the the interview taken at at at a restaurant why wasn't it at u s c headquarters those sorts of things do not move us as to whether or not that statement is credible to put it a different


the motion for summary judgment misleader was traveling with two coworkers they were going to a launch for another coworker who's being deployed overseas she drove so they witnessed her driving there so he parked in what is the green garage which is just outside reston


because now he's eighteen that fundamental change comes only in the rebuttal of the presumption that's where he put the standard so you've got to find past persecution st and then we'd say ok did the government establish that it would be reasonable for to him to in turn to relocate or has there been a fundamental change


successor and not the earlier transaction in which the lender acquired the security interest and so it's not that that added value when they when the venture capital firm obtains security interest it's the value at the


you're continuation it's about protecting creditors against owners who are shuffling assets around companies to avoid paying the creditors and that's why the cases emphasize that common ownership is critical to the inquiry and i believe all the cases say that from


that is that as a given charge from the district court and what are issues they are your honor and why it matters under knoll vs all arced and the factors you alluded to in the standard view here what's probably charged is


assuming therefore that once the last you began there will be determination through expert expert proof that looks back at the records to determine when there was an onset of disease i was also point out that the law that the law courts says


documents related to for graphics allegation relating to the allegations your honor that is the distinction we drew in ms green kelly and i drew that distinction expressly because we said we've got millions and


judgement set aside we'd like to reopen discovery the motion before judge thompson said we'd like to get the five and a half million pages of paper that you produced in discovery in the last


but that's that's not something that needs to be corroborated that's kind of a straight remark and it seems to me that that explaining that you know you


story but not a single one of them explain the discrepancy between her claim that occurred in ninety seven and her husband's claim that it occurred in one thousand nine hundred what is what's what what standard are you under abdulai are you under what are you able


go i just read to you what i did and i don't think you got that you really answered my question so maybe you can help me and just focus on


this notion despite the information you believe they received and the actions that shows collusion it appears from the information that's in the twenty seven paragraphs


not yet been reduced to a contract is moving forward in a strange way and i wonder if we should find a way to give mr conne notice something for that we're zooming explanation in the record


nutritional products that's what you said the witness that's the truth what the judge found is that was a law well you're you're saying that he already had a nutritional products agreement so why would he write them in the margin is that


or from a b jury's verdict i look to say to say they put the snowball in motion and roll it down the hill knowing what was going to happen at the end intending what was going to happen they intended for rape her nation to get fired for the charges intended for him to say they they


commissioner who acted on the charge that had been added by the board and terminated mr carnation also since we are talking about boards and material that


just one more time i think there is enough in this record i think the court looked at the nature of the offenses that mr rosette had had committed and passed it did not deem the nature of this offense a sufficient to warrant a guidelines you know how about


that he would have received a better offer than the twenty year offer he received in the can the prosecution recant and that he would have accepted it yes or this is the state argues that he said he had to


court dissenters in the seventh circuit was right in striking doubt and that the regulation actually is valid the


lawful permanent resident status but in so it's a period of time we're going to expect you to comply with that status that requirement occurs ninety days prior to the expiration of the two years that that occur once you've been granted to


it would seem that they must because again you know i come back to this not just was he informed that he had this right he was asked to sign a written waiver which suggests that this is considered an important part of the overall


not just share classes of mutual funds but the entire market generally because that for the same reason that it is imprudent to select the more expensive share class of a single mutual fund it's imprudent to select the more an expensive investment vehicle


alice said retail mutual funds are fine which gets you back to a reception for a for a which looks at this what are the other large plans doing and what we put into the record it's publicly available in the in these foreign fifty five


judge mansmann carefully studied person it was precisely the same argument the same plan the same statute but we've had something happen since then we've had the department finally get around they say to moving there their view from


are sufficient as long as there are different types of on syria of seventy one and again you heard this morning no allegation that there was a problem like we take the approach of breaking into the problem and braydon is that what was going on there was a kickback allegation i


has a court order for disclosure may be issued by any court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the government or first the following it doesn't


i didn't mean to imply otherwise ron congress created again if i if i can just step yeah i think i'll try not to make a full page of history this time or are both in the one


the attorney's fees that you'd be entitled to receive would be that would be entitle to receive me within the cap or beyond the cap well if you apply the damages cap they would be subsumed


it as a battle of experts at one point and that in and of itself speaks volumes i think in terms of meeting the standard of clear and convincing evidence the f t c had experts that simply disagreed with the


government although strongly implicated and suggested by the government but others that are named by us in our complaint what is the government used the word superiors what do they mean by that you have an error the days that they yes i have specified what they really meant the government didn't


why isn't there this to some type of implied preemption here and what when do you cross the line ok there's a presumption against preemption too there is preemption how would you write an opinion that that lays out a standard for


point to the transcript had he said you know there could be some real merit here i see issues that are troublesome to me in the in the state's position i think they're really


covert activity and so this falls within this under the special needs line of cases in the spring but that's certainly what in reseal case that this is because it's not soley for criminal law enforcement it's like the


on in the videos in other words they weren't derailed from the evidence which is what real prejudice is about prejudice deciding a case on something other than what the jury should be paying attention to if these are


outram was not deprived of that opportunity and i don't think that really has anything to do with the question of whether he would have succeeded in a request for two twelve c really does have something to do with whether


hours late and i don't i don't think that i'll think that is a trouble to this court's analysis at all because i think the real question is having gotten there late in father a motion to reopen


judge read these notes of the district attorney and said it was not necessary to release them or


court didn't mention it's it's clear that he disagreed he did not credit the findings of all three experts which were very very similar one can view what she said


as covered by some of the specific findings he made about some of the other experts findings but it's also clear that he didn't need to make explicit credibility findings in order


that there are the facts that all the jury must consider and coming up with intent which by the way brings us back really to the coersion issue which is it is the law of this land that you can't patella defendants ability to present any and all evidence


threat to that country and that cannot be the law and judge stapleton you asked a series of questions asking whether or not there's any evidence about conduct membership or support and i think that's an important question because


it's only available if could have been liable to r a s directly and u n c styria on that was that it could have been liable under section five fifty two of the restatement for negligent misrepresentation it was and


d specifically says that five fifty two applies if someone is receiving provides false information in connection with the transaction we're receiving commissions as an


that decision of law by the district court with a remained to the bankruptcy court to get into the factual issues up the second point i'd like to leave the court with is that the withdrawal liability is


instance the police could have and should have found out what was going on with their car in fact they were watching it and the person who was the authorized


argument that he could be considered a bar or that's an assumption that he then had an expectation of privacy not all when did that


the fundamental issue here and the reason it remained is not necessary is the specific intent issue which is illegal finding a specific intent to torture is an element the fact that mr bryan is likely to end


reasoning was because of the depression despair or whatever and he thought that perhaps he could get his client to go along with it with the appeal and turns out before he


my word the successor what did the successor acquire it acquired everything that ward one had on the asset side in the liability side in under those circumstances how ward two could not be


what had what was being filled out of the tax once it doesn't change the legal determination that you must make which is what is the character of this benefit and how does that fit in to the car and we noted for you for instance cases from the seventh circuit from other


if if treasury is permitting this benefit to be a crew as a pension benefit and there is every indication that they did then if that should and fact prevail there is clearly more creativity under the code


that my client create these materials which is not within her the scope of her duties and when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to miss robertson on this it


could certainly have rationally credited the statements that were given to police short time after the shooting for a number of reasons st that there are three statements and so


three witnesses came to the station voluntarily there was no coercion no promises no threats the jury was entitled to believe that testimony and i think it's judge will point it out rogers


credited the officers testimony that he smelled marijuana at the outset testimony that also provided so in addition to that the dog the officers with probable cause to search the entire car including the truck and any other


here but there is a case in front of the court where he received a sentence twice what the guidelines called for and i would argue to the court that that is not


and we see that the panelist provided information in response to the questions by the district court the responses were more than sufficient to allow counsel to intelligently exercise their challenges their preemptory


self harm and what nursery did was that she called a corrections officer to go and observe blair and see if he was in any distress it was reported that he was walking around making phone


butler that evening so just ask that you keep that factual point in mind the only decision for dr butler during the st phone call was whether she should set up those medication the counts


judge your honor it is our position however that if the judge darryl still correctly found there was no probable cause and then if you go to leone


falsely denied going into the court room she falsely denied giving the artists associate her cell phone all of those reasons are amply justified by the the evidence provided and there is not a shred of


on the property and they put it in the negative but they say avoid using force except when necessary to protect persons and properties so you can turn that around and say use force when necessary to protect


in the record where he addressed that the her mental health is that her mental health issues caused her to rationalize was she said that yes but that was my understanding he was present when she made these arguments and he received them but i think part of the problem is that the


taking was that even though aquatic which is the largest account keep sort of the same parts over and over again they're saying each new purchase order that comes in that's a new job and we have to negotiate the commission rate on each new purchase order that comes in


procedure lead demanded to be freely given when justice still requires so it's not a case where we were dilatory that this was an issue that somebody brought up before this was where up with st time the summary judgment motions we acted promptly to address that


it defense council did as a part of its confrontation clause objection did note that it was both a confrontation clause violation because the statements were testimonials and miss moore was not being called but also indicated that


during which other alleged victims testified it's didn't refer to the statements or the repetitive repeated statements from officer wass on the stand and also was not reiterated at the conclusion of the evidence


commercial sex and that once when she didn't want to go on a date mister graham shoved her against a wall so hard that she hit her head on a television set she went on the date out of fear chelsea winner testified that graham also used her


on the limitation of liability provision in order to argue that sales tax and fees are covered is just too speculative are both correct and should be affirmed


necessity but that is wrong indeed the government's contrary arguments here like those in between no ring hollow even though it maintains there were tears and would rob again yet no one particularly


that they could not produce a fish an affidavit or documentary evidence to show that they can convey all three properties and in fact they made statements in their brief that they had affidavits for all the property owners but the evidence that they produce in this case clearly falls


evaluation process and the evaluation instrument that's included on the record provides a detailed assessment includes an observation of missed mask out includes opportunities for mis masco to contribute her own self evaluation in the process if she is an active


accordingly so even if the judge properly gave the weight to these three state agency doctors he didn't a calmer or address specific issues that were necessary pursuant


in or abuse of discretion certainly in excluding the evidence of those alleged as much less one that would be plain error or certainly not harmless error the evidence just


distinguishes between new residents and old ones and it doesn't and there are two easy ways to see how this is the case so st the state the ruling in a supreme court has articulated would it allow the state


and in those cases for example the courts found that the f d a c could declare declaratory or enter a declaratory relief in the claims process counsel mentions today although it


petition was filed on august nd of two thousand and eighteen so the reliance on l a b r is incorrect because the judge didn't have that decision because it hadn't even been issued by the attorney general the rd point in your honour's


cell tether him to his door and minister the cream and that went on for at least seven days while he was in this february two thousand and seventeen clinical confinement or observational clinical confinement period


staff implemented a care plan we're now they would make mr connor walk from his cell to the health services unit in a dove in a different part of the prison barefoot they would apply cream to the bottom of his feet and then make him commute


not like bailey you know where it used to be that you could convict somebody for possessing a firearm under your mattress and tomorrow you can't anymore that was a total flip flop is these are the where the court


plaintiffs allege and the allegations must be taken as true at this stage that instead of a responses the vast majority of purchasers of these products when surveyed reported that eighty five to nine thousand and eighty five to ninety five percent of


defense counsel said within the guidelines range would be appropriate but at the lower end of twenty four dollars i don't know how to read that other than that he thinks the lower end is twenty that this is a twenty four dollars to thirty dollars and he's going above forty going to respectfully


entities that insurance benefit sherry's now in these cases the courts through a clear distinction between these other insurers and the funds own beneficiaries who have been put on notice of their reimbursement obligations under the plan the courts also noted that the


a stop and you can't claim the other party breached when you essentially blocked it from performing think about it if the duty had to be stated for in the contract for the prevention doctrine to apply then you would


authorization and all of the notices and everything that has to be sent in certain ways pursuant to this contract so even though the letters dated june th akron submitted monet's latter to say well look


the document that was sent to ron for signature after monet graben since e mails at exhibit twenty had said you have access to all commercial sales problem to have signed it because


if you notice that it was top athlete again when we are judging the credibility of the evidence it should not be appropriate for summary judgment even if we would concede that even if we would concede he had this responsibility to do so there is no


that the anti kickback statute as broad remuneration is defined as a certain thing of value what we've done is the allegations fall in line with those to our knowledge there is no specific government document that says they can't provide


objects that would but allow for easy for easy identification as some sort says turn of contraband in this case we do not have that what we


analysis if we think that there is actually a benefit that might be protected and the problem here i don't even think we can get to the regulation in terms of assessing that kind of comparability the question is is there a protected benefit and


maybe we get to the comparability analysis but that's only because you have the kind of program that triggers the protections of the statute in the st place merely having jury duty leave or sick leave that's not something that you can qualify for by being on military


of his head of a bad rap here pacifically the judges have felt like the collection activities were just window dressing when they worked


court in the case laid out a very helpful framework for understanding what constitutes referrals and appropriate go and i think a very


clear reason why the management services agreement the shame and the fewer the people defendants let know that was a sham the better for them unfortunately the evidence came out and showed trial that these were under applicable law referral


rule that what i don't rule seventy for talks about the x credibility what i'm saying is they did you got the case a lot of the seven circuit that says it experts cannot vouch for the credibility of another witness and i


entire context of the transaction and illinois law says that a duty of good faith and fair dealing applies to all contracts including guarantees and the only way to waive such a claim of good faith and fair


claim where you know it's based on intruding on someone's seclusion you know that they've thrown upon them in a highly offensive in an objective and reasonable manner and


that incident resulted in a series of lawsuits i believe there are a few more than twenty and they involve claims for property damage personal injury and one wrongful death and one


on his own is or her own consultant outside counsel for their own protection and the in ask the the full board to approve


the district court decision on false arrest should simply be affirmed the only counter argument that we have in the other side is that because of this videotape of the body can the court should invoke the scott exception


it's a matter of competitive choice and competitive preference as we've said these contracts were terminable by either side on six days notice giving both sides flexibility to engage in these business relationships as they


i wanted to reserve two minutes for rebuttal and if there are no more questions i will say that two minutes rebuttal


needed and they have not identified anything in particular that they claim that they this is a bunch of conclusory language in their brief about it was critical that we talk to are etc etc it's a under insured motorist case


made offer terminated the claim all duties under the cooperation provisions all duty on the policy seized at that point because they made the st offer and continuing settlement discussions i don't think that's the law they don't like to any cases that say that and i think it would completely derail


douglas who are motivating factor you would still need to establish and be able to overcome a legitimate reason for determination


that he made the allegations to atria atriums if you look at the declaration of just sent to carter was an african american head of h r at the company she said there was never an ethics lying complaint made by mr carter and he


him to take the room out of order but he has no explanation as to why he you know why he walks away with this key why he pockets this key and there's no evidence that it was mr williams and he said mr


disfavoring rule comes from a federal agency as a condition on the receipt of federal funds rather than from a state as a rule of general applicability but that doesn't alter the bottom line for the supreme court has also made emphatically clear most recently in d


mandate in the context of labor relations the way the supreme court has all the professed common clicked there was by saying when two statutes could be read in such a manner that one intrudes on the the veba to the policy of the f a a we resolve the conflict in


hearsay it was an argument they just said that it should abet admissible in that it was relevant when i read those two opinions i did not get a articulation of how that offense intended on


i think i would go back to the identity issue and the and then running really short on time but the specific attempt to tie the rule for fourteen evidence to the identity of the perpetrator through the government's closing argument and that would have gone to alkies


fairly debatable issue is the one that mr jones was just talking about which is your goal a payroll or the policy is not a free standing category in damages your role is a subset of continuing


authentication is an automatic and in the case of social media evidence where it's so easy to create a fake profile courts must take care to ensure that it does it stays as a matter that is not automatic moving on to the hearsay arguments


us it would be a mistake to say that without the generally however at the end of that hearing he agreed for the representation that she established


fifty four the page right after where the insurance company through the underwriter again response to an inquiry about another proposed driver it's


argument here today though mister graeme's don't you just argue that earlier though that you need a precise amount absolutely not given no there's there's no question that the expert doesn't need to provide a provide precise amount but he's got at least estimate


qualified immunity was conferred to them based on the court the trial court nd trial court finding it reasonable suspicion existed at the time of the children's removed also going forward against going


what to other but what her two older siblings and two neighbors had already reported well that's that's not entirely accurate judge st if the flood of risk was not reasonable if you look at the totality of the circumstances it was


purpose but what we're going to hear is not whether or not she could reopen it for purposes of accordingly but what how to value the thing and my argument is the thing is more than just the home as it existed on the day of filing the as his condition oh well


was discussed with the bet a jury oral argument was discussed and b in connection with the windfall argument made by walter bell also the in their principle brief before the before the bath and before yes circuit


she has a house that is that while you're at one hundred and ten thousand dollars or whatever it is valued at today and in my client's sole argument is the homestead was the same value on the day of filing


reason but there is other evidence in this case to support the determination that there are serious reasons for believing and again this gets into there's a lot of confusion about the threshold determination and that i think is the key here that separates probable cause and serious reasons


cases that you're going to have to reverse from the circuit where people were not the provided appropriate medical care treatment in most kinds of things that all you have to do is come up with some competing interests are that we didn't have time that particular day to


what deputy shields was looking that he testified on and the court specifically credit the best of money that the amount of time that the rental agreement indicated would


approaching her aroused standing physically close to her and spreading their legs in front of her that was found as a matter of law not to be severe or pervasive for title summon purposes the duncan vs general motors court from the general


orders on that particular fact pattern i would say that part of what we're learning through this investigation is we do not know when many of the complaints from me at the university as claim that these complaints are what prompted coach long into being placed


closing argument that the theory of defense was not identity but was instead this missing witness issue and an inside job theory well knowing that we'll go through a question so you're


and methodical case presenting as much relevant evidence as it can in order for you to make a fair and just determination that's what i was and all last week presenting all of that evidence to you you're not missing anything the


verdict st i'd like to discuss what happened in the district court generally the applicable legal standards that show reversible error here are set forth in this court's decisions in white versus mckinley and valid as versus walk in white holds that in a case like this


general proposition that the district court opened up they didn't do the proper analysis they made a blanket ruling and even allowed the defense to make foundationless accusations of murder the st ruling specifically that i'd like to talk about that violated these principles in


about this if the court would allowed additional evidence outside of the criminal case to prove that and if the jury base a decision based on it to me if the judge larry said is not


sex i was forced to go along with it she bragged me into her bedroom she turned on the music and she mic me do it when asked why didn't you get stuck up if you didn't want to be raped while i was just into the


right well even assuming and in this case they are unrelated the but the case law basically says is that the whole scope of acceptance of responsibility is not limited simply to pleading pleading guilty


it is that true and what's significant about that your honor the answer is no that's not true but it's also not significant so if you point out which the j h twenty eight paragraph seventy to seventy one of the complaint which makes


relevant to my analysis jenny abernethy the only thing that she testified about was the driver status at the time the contract notice letter was sent out which


and sixty seven factors those were instructed to the jury even if the court order viewed this case as falling outside of seven hundred and sixty eight those factors were applied in this case the court review and how the jury applied those factors


possibly could do that if they want to do it


that these officers individual ethnic or why that's that's very conclusory i had i don't understand why what the city was required to report only if there was a basis to her court no


now i know there's a filing fee and some other technicalities but is it a motion to dismiss when it's granted without prejudice about the same as a


bring a claim but i believe that that is clear from the regulation itself and from the decision again this court could affirm both on exhausting grounds and on subject matter jurisdiction grounds and affirming some subject


whether it are those lines of cases control one can't ignore the fact that we are here today twelve b one challenge to federal jurisdiction challenge to cafeteria stage o'neill is a case that dealt with article three standing up


activity associate that reservation so that that is that is something that compels the speech of the student with the student group or the university administrator which it which is something i have never seen it any policy anywhere and i think is part and explore


in conflict because i think if the something commission today promulgated one b one point three given the way that the new statute is written it can still be promulgated one b one d as it is but


discrimination it constitutes the hostile work environment i mean if you are continuously every single day the people that you have to interact with on a daily basis to do your job every one of them is acting wrinkly and unhelpful


population to ensure that social distancing it's possible and so to your two year thirty thousand question this court's precedents clear that even if you take some measures to abate a risk of harm if you're not taking the most


the amount of the original lodestar eleven million seven hundred and seventy three thousand dollars plus interest the court should exercise discretion to award the specific amount under a c l u to ensure finality and hearings to the mandate in q three


council confirmed this finding at the fairness hearing on the global settlement she proclaimed this is a historic occasion it's the st time that a chinese company has settled with u s consumers and an american court under the global settlement


sending in the middle of the road is dangerous if we want to that's the question that troubles me if yours in the media not hit the road with a sign saying well he or i don't like


content but if we're going to adopt the authority of construction to narrow the scope of the statute we have to look and see what is that authoritative construction if we conclude it happens to be content based then you stuck with it


supervision the she alleges defendant sheriff operates and maintains its jail with a policy or custom of allowing its deputy sheriffs to have cross gender supervision of and mates with a reasonable safeguards in


complexity and then they are and that instructions often include many steps each of which is free water and there was a question earlier about what would be a detailed instruction


what we've done the structure of the law on hearsay hearsay has both exclusions and exceptions right i don't want to this is not a quiz but then three nato four we have exceptions to hearsay right somebody says hearsay


without understanding the question presented there the error alleged in rivers was that a search warrant was issued to and executed by a b c agents when quote an a b c enforcement agent has no


regulation the you do not understand you the challenge that will bring so i think it's important to look at everything the th circuit said about the language of that particular provision of course it


anyway because this isn't even a different claim we didn't have to fold anything new in and it's just a narrower form of relief and those two things just seem different to me well i think it goes to the implied consent and it's because you know stepping back for a


cross examination which is again not vastly different it's just more of the same and they had that opportunity indeed we filed the motion during our case in chief so it's really you know they sought and obtain this information


do what you're asking for is a check from the bank to your client at the end of the case that says this was the i mean the idea is this is the money that we lost or we stole or whatever and we're going to pay you back


case wendy this didn't pass he owned one hundred percent stock in a company after he passed a rd party claimed ownership of twenty four percent of that stock and attempted to


looks at this court's decisions again and again it specifically in analyzing the four hundred and four b issue refers to the defendant's defense in ellis


and so therefore for both of those reasons subsection three being so clear on the application to the h h s records and then the holding as we read it and that that we believe should be read just does not reach the facts of this case


diagnosis as counsel is now claiming there was another incorrect statement by counsel during his argument and he made this in his reply brief that we argued on ph eighteen of our brief


case it's i think the leading case on the issue of lost profits the only testimony that supported a jury verdict in awarded last profit damages in that case was the testimony of the plaintiff the owner of the business corroborated by two customers


collectors further efforts are being terminated and would be actions taking place after this letter was sent yeah anything that hasn't already been done i


disenfranchised the laws being challenged here do not disenfranchise anyone they only enfranchise but isn't it punitive counsel to say i'm locking every enfranchise this group


children can get to school other ways than by a public bus of course we cannot our clients cannot restore their right to vote without the state's permission they have an entire monopoly and so every time we've seen


judge but i think that there were talking preemption we're talking about a blanket issue and that is something preempted it's preempted but i think you have to look on a case by case basis as to whether the federal statute permits something


start with kept an inventory in the same store i don't think there's any indication the record that this would be in exceptional circumstances that it wouldn't be kept in inventory in the store but if you think you can make that reasonable inference here and then as


persecution for asylum that means that they rise above the standard of harassment and do you mean that's a very that's a very standard form is that this is the standard whether the be a determination of


over the course of two years and also what the i g characterized as physical violence i've been seeing the record any indication that these beatings were going to stop so doesn't that pattern distinguish this


purpose of this but what you want to stammer and my my my point is is that when this doctoring came into being the doctor and the pharmaceutical companies were the ones that were in communication and now you have pharmaceutical


or now is going into consulting they could be an expert and for this there wouldn't they wouldn't be able to find about the medical facts like dr margolis but they could explain what the standard is for a warning label and why


picture under this court's recent decision jones especially given the government's eligibility concession on appeal although unclear we think the order is best read as a discretionary denial but that discretion must be guided by three


qualifies under the policy statement criteria the district court may still have discretion to say whether he thinks that is extraordinary and compelling so at the end of the day i do think it's an abuse of discretion review i think


you how you're doing with your time and valerie is our courtroom deputy we'll let you know orally when you've got two minutes left of your argument time if we take you beyond the time don't worry you're on our


district court didn't set out what the new range would be under the st step that how can we have confidence that the district court understood its discretion


and then it says and then it's modified by the phrase until the expiration of the seven years from that date so there is a modification for the approval for another application for the same drug for the same


uses or indications and so hasn't had to consider the question the way that your honor is talking about i think one important thing to know about the exceptions is that when an exception applies breaks the earlier


getting at there is sort of a mismatch year and a bit of confusion about why we would be asking whether or not catalyst can provide its drug to a portion of the population which again it does not have approval to


hadn't have any of the people that have requested an advisory opinion on the one they have your honor how many honestly i don't know the answer to that but it's been you know several


m l b r r test comes from l ima be itself as it was explaining the decisions that it was distinguishing from washington versus davis that the


between this fee that i'm talking about which would only be out of prespective lee and would apply to everyone regardless of whether they tried to korean franchise is there a difference between that he and some of the fees that the state currently


believe that the statute that permits for adjudication to be withheld specifies that part of the current court's determination is that a penalty is unnecessary so it's not the


defined the term completion resits defined completion of all terms of sentence in the statute leaves room for constitutional avoidance that is not where the state's decision is not in conflict with the u s constitution


in that manner they've never attempted to there's only been three executions in that manner since nine hundred and seventy six all from one state so i think the the legitimate you know logical reasons i mean we haven't even got to the point of because of where we're at in this case


that deposition testimony and and so the court was aware of that you should have taken that into consideration but the other issue is this under georgia law just


special state remedy but that latest from other states still retained a special remedy a statutory remedy and that they should have as ever so that's our position that you had the


again guns don't typically don't out on the room it would be an odd coincidence for a gun to just fall out in the middle of an ongoing physical altercation right in mr williams easy grasp


that he admitted that both in the chat room and to his ex girlfriend on how is that not sufficient for the court to consider that information and deciding that this is not just a regular possession case i hate to criticize


that this is a sensitive reasonable to argue that that sweeps in all of these other considerations would render any distinction between procedural and substantive unreasonable meaningless and it would deprive the district court of the opportunity which is the point of objecting of


qualifying disease and you file by the deadline you're in if not you're out and i think that's why the district court in chicago and help that notice and opt out considerations do not control the resolution of difficult questions about the scope of the angle


deferred compensation plans for information about a furred compensation so this is something else this is something else there's a case that we cited on page twenty two of our initial brief


several precedents the policy is ambiguous and the court should adopt the interpretation offered by mr richards the record here simply does not support the district court's conclusion payments received by mr richardson


footnotes one in three i believe the knowledge that was being thank you so much the next fight in court made clear that knowledge is not just shown by direct evidence knowledge can be shown by circumstantial evidence and here there's a strong


attempting to establish a source of supply deputy thomas testified at the sentencing hearing that d'agata referred to the powders as research chemicals and it admitted that he took them to help him sleep and used him as a substitute for a prescribed drug which strongly suggests


rightly found in this case that mr gove you know founded southern trust metals he was the c e o he controlled the bank accounts he was the boss and the notion that he didn't individually benefit from the trading


i mean clearly you made that argument in the district court clearly post lou you tried to make it in a twenty eight j but it seems to me that your vantage point is that the argument even before lou was available to you because you made it in a district court but you didn't make it in the blue brief


it at the partnership level he didn't do that and even in the cases he cites the the supervisory reproval requirement was an issue only because the tax payer places an issue if the tax payer


hiring scheme really with without any fault of their own they weren't terminated these employees were already working at ridgewood nursing home and the transition that took their jobs should have been a very simple one they were caring for residents


honor i think you can also look at it just as strongly if not more so by looking at what the statute does not say and it is certainly true that neither the fair sentencing act nor the st step back provides for didn't over resend it saying it


means that the summary judgment should have been entered in favor of the plaintiffs on that issue


service company they don't sell widgets they don't sell cars they provide services to people who sign up and need the services give me an example of somebody who works in providing that service for that service providing


not allow for any meaningful exercise of discretion an independent judgment even if it weren't production work which it clearly is and i'm happy to take questions but otherwise i'll see the rest of my time


f agents going out into the field and conducting factual investigations actually interviewing people in the field that still too many mistakes were being made and firearms was being restored to individuals who went on to misuse them and to


found in georgia a case that basically was saying you know the acquittal of an indictment because the prosecuting party does not appear would still be sufficient


and we went further deep into that specific point in his appeal to the b ira in that appeal to the b a a we do discuss the regulations that state quite clearly that regardless of any any


forty one thousand dollars it was a five percent raise and the plaintiff at the same time which she was complaining about was this senior accounting tech position that she got the plaintiff actually got a ten percent raise the three roughly three thousand


two citizens of other states involving property that happens to be


claim and had evidence put on before it then and then they failed to appeal it then mr clark would be out of luck however this case is really more akin to martinez where they filed a statement saying that they


beak he dropped the claim because and this is also a quote no other good reason to abandon an otherwise sound claim appears so telling this court is we of course are not asking this court to just simply grant relief


i think it is and i think that we did make the harmlessness argument and you know the court overlooked that argument in our papers and we put that in the brief course it says in addition to or or instead of sanction


could refer additional medicare recruits means d s for the consulting billing shell corporation which was specifically designed to receive the illegal kickback payments diaz recruited in excess of one hundred and fifty patients for which medicare


that is then directly sent from the consumer right so it is determined that this was not on its face was not sent directly from the consumer their obligation hasn't been triggered has it i agree with that the legal


right because that again when a consumer sins in a credit reporting dispute they know what's on the report there's nothing suspicious about that to start with you're just it's not the consumer saying hey send me a copy of my credit report that's a different that's a different situation


the hole the economy but it was limited to this amount down which is that what you're saying or is it your position they're saying something else yes my position would be that they are indeed saying something else


doesn't stand up against the expert testimony given by the insurance company i mean if you're not saying that as a matter i mean i just i've what is your best answer to


know i'm aware of the facts so you don't need to repeat them and they are horrific as alleged my confusion is is is about the intersection between florida common law and the


provision if claims are moved as for the same reasons that were articulated by this court's decision in the mehmood case he is no longer detain and therefore this court


for all prior years and by providing some returns that we're missing crucial information that meant that even assuming we accepted that the net operating losses were correct in the amount that he reported and that the income that he reported was correct we


that is precisely what is allowed by a commissioner who has no authority to execute the laws or the authority of the municipality so making inquiry in the form of seeking


a commissioner's actions is not a factor in determining if the commissioner of the policymaking authority is acting within his or her discretionary authority


no single allegation while commissioner corowa who is a commissioner of the plaintiff's exercise of their st amendment expression the magistrate judge in the district judge


said they wore the st was that the plaintiff is in fact a fugitive you say the district court was wrong two reasons one she lacked the in tech necessary


serving and i think you know what i'm going to say that the total sentence necessarily relates back to the two thousand and one sentence yeah but but but that's part of an order that has a lot of different offenders some of whom are received


if in practice prosecutors are not tasked with proving an actual awareness of a risk and under the standard florida jury instructions for the behavior homicide statute


correct your honor thank you thank you for your time thank you your response


this was reasonably safe stuff it was turned over this is despite the fact that it came on hooked and went down to four stories and is lucky five or six people are killed only at the last minute did somebody get on a forklift


due diligence and check the results itself literally mr contest money was a little league understood that it could not assume a match based on a st and last name only and again we


information or the misleading nature of the information instead he focuses on saying that you determine accuracy not by whether statement is true or false and not by whether it's


advantage on notice that it had to do more that it could not simply rely on a names or only search warrant that is what it was commissioned to do by literally what is there is that says


on a monday night and someone in the house marijuana so after the party they clean up the house they put some of the trash in the garbage and they put it out for the for the pick up the next morning


treatment for bursitis in his right knee number six his mother's hospital records from two thousand and seven was number one would have been available at his trial in two thousand and three and number two whereabouts here p d and then finally arrest records for


of the old adage about the lawyer who represents himself and course i suppose it's true now was it ever him right here on let me start first by commenting on some of the


the spring of two thousand and three and two thousand for about tax time mr ties communicated in some fashion to mr webster who is the


commission's decision really did not have substantial foundation and clearly the opposite result would be apparent some of those undisputed facts are this was the only parking lot of a local perfect park in as she was working at the hard apartments as


the record was cold and that's why his car didn't start that morning and why it was late for work and so i'm sure it was cold i mean i think that's extrapolating obviously but that testimony was that this particular man's car mr green didn't start that morning he was a


arthur got it right in my opinion in the in the in the transcript where he over ruled the objection about the quote talking able to testify yet in the proposed decision says you


testified he was familiar with them that he had a history of math convictions i believe and that he knew about his history of buying a suit so you know


through their files to make sure everything is contained in the files that need to be that what happened here was we had to change in some board membership some of the b or members went back through the files and


unless and until you can convince the court that something the doctor or the expert is saying is new or novel since the friday hearing on the scene experts


not just about michael is in a high school he's always lived in the synthroid area other than for one brief period of time and i think she moved over to the bedroom used area but she's generally always been in the


they have found numerous times that dr opinion wasn't as good as dr hauser or anybody else that is a critical finding with a conflict that is because in their province in this decision they found the evidence and not support that session without without even going there


criteria for involuntary admission on all three bases under the mental health and developmental disabilities code section five life one day one my


weekend and then he stated that's what i want you to say so that's a little bit different than just trying to charge his memory or help him remember what was going on if this was this is what i want to say that is what i want you


they covered the bases they obviously were persuaded by the evidence that the employer introduced about the double dipping of the pain medications mr hughson did that over a number of months with two different physicians


there are no of the questions are


if the court has any questions i'd be happy


matter of strategy and


what's going on the patient can look fine clinically have a point was that what there was no no testimony of outward signs of problems by the doctors


exam he felt that he could work at a higher level than like to be based on the results of the functional pacify way ssion and also based on his clinical examination when he examined the petitioner he noted that he had dirt under his fingernails and also had a lack of atrophy in his left hand


well i don't know that there's pacific notation that exactly to that effect but i don't think the focus lives for it would've tried to put him in that position if there was not a reasonably stable job market she thought that he would have been


no evidence presented to the jury that he had a brain injury and from that he then leaps to the conclusion that everything the defendant said was a rational and not reliable but the


did complete surgery with reference of the shoulder and when he first saw him back in two thousand and five he recommended a different surgery be done and that was done as well as the road to warmer seat


or to the apartment looking for the defendant now there was testimony that the coffee filters could be used in the cup to make that


that's grim and so would you consider that settlement


are you saying that in every and every situation they have to the state would have to just prove that it was not one of these exceptions that's the way the staging i think is a very poorly drafted


this supervision i have to draw attention to is this seven o five i have c s oral five slash two dash three which provides that you can't leave kids under fourteen thousand provision for an extended period of time argued that before the trial or because by implication what it says is there's


felt comfortable leaving her children with tyrone shannon who you know the children had made statements was dealing drugs and using drugs in their home and whom


he was there every day and that sometimes he did babysit them but now very often and just for a short time none the less you know duration fifteen minutes a lot can go on whether


working during this time period that all's going on he's working out of town with an employer and staying in hotels at the mercy of his employer to drive him out of town to bring him back so he's not just blowing off these things and all he's just


they know that fact and they still don't talk about t p a or go up the chain of command and know that the process can be completed in that ninety minute timeframe you're talking six o five or thirty five and here we are at seven twenty five once again before that transfer


that the books records the party book just a shambles all he had to go on was the income that both of them when they were married were using to pay every important debt out of their relationship and then mr


on that issue the court can consider which party has the ability to pay which was that which does not in this particular case the court consider the other factor which is who escalated the litigation the court specifically said that he did


either i don't want to say figure out what happened but that was what she did this to me and i just wanted to point to one of the discovery will is intended to protect the point of who


for example in geometry euclid had this axiom that every record take every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square and the way that you make a determination about whether or not a four sided four angled


you know that's why the appellate court what local when you put someone in a weakened position because of the action and they're not in m m a and this guy wasn't m m r and they become vulnerable that's the purpose of the act to protect that person


and even once not once and i think that it's telling the state can't simply skip over an element of the of the beds or its burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but that's what it did below and that's what it continues to do here


three to four months just to keep the equipment operation how do you do that we tiled in two thousand and five and it destroyed all of your electrical lines underground and your flow lines that take the


and so dependents would submit that the language of it injured employees subsequently dies recognizes that and spread within the confines of the statute referencing that the employee actually could have been killed as a result of the injury and therefore we want to ensure that those spouses and not


qualitative such as some aspect of employment which contributes to the risk or quantitative such as when the employee is exposed to a common risk we're frequently than the general public now and in the metropolitan piloting case it


was when mr garrett moved from the building you both braver and that one decision had to be made is there a residency requirement or not it's always been the case that every employee of the


however he had sufficient experience with jennifer based on his relationship with her by this time to recognize that she wasn't particularly truthful and so easy to be opportunity shortly after the child was born to have a


obviously the mother was the one that filed the motion the judge asked to the mother it made a good argument cited to the case of our ally and explain to the judge that never going to three hearing was


i don't think it's necessarily a higher standard because i think that ultimately it's still by a preponderance of the evidence least that seems to be what really is that we have would say but again there's there's very little


this clear to the jury that this trial couldn't remember these events initiate talk to no line between the time she could remember and the trial how did she suddenly rumor all of this information since or even the dream then so are you running this


a manager employee of a bar or club about five blocks away which was a similar name of arrogance the the testimony from mr moore and


was the guardian ad litum but this is not an easy decision to make and i'm not going to insult either of you by sitting here right now and making a decision based on everything that presents me this morning so the court was aware of this


situation that is would be exact opposite of what the court based the crabber credit you had a statute that on its face appeared to define a generic burglary and then you had court decisions interpret in that statute in a way that suggests that something


and convicted with the breaking after entries because it wasn't a separate sets it was just a way to prove the st offense as the jury instructions confirm and i recognize that the jury instructions do not necessarily say what the law is or make law


outside of those three and i think i think vanderbilt has conceded in its brief that the parties understanding of the import of the court's order was that the summary judgment review was limited to those


important decision they said congress has never outlawed the sale of simulated substances right congress i don't know if it's a simulated substance is in the person representing that


but that certainly isn't a lot and we've decided pieces at least to show tenants of contract construction saying populate licenses by law they must be construed narrowly and you must only look at the specific copyright rights explicitly


got wrong in terms of it being unambiguous as i could not sub license but there is no there is no instruction whatsoever if it actually got to the jury and the last thing i would say is that


answer to judge white's question is now you're advancing a catspaw theory that because the mayor has some sort of influence and because he was prejudiced against whites therefore that infused the decision making process of the


we don't know did he work was a contract with the mayor was the contract with was with the city did the city contract say that he took directions from the mayor does he take you takes directions from city council and the mayor is considered as a member of city council ok so he didn't


judge is just pointing out an allegation in the complaint that his contract they refused to honor his contract that required ninety days advanced written notice apparently to terminate yes we would and so


haven't done april that was notice but you're not seeking some portion of ninety days we are in the wayne county circuit court case the ok ending so we don't have to worry about that ok let me start with the statement that


the question in this case are we talking about all of arkansas robberies from the beginning of the criminal law in arkansas or up into the codification are we talking about what we are addressing in this


questioning of the appellant there's no need to the magic words that by judge dowd to have said knowingly and voluntarily what about the fact that he did not tell her what the maximum penalties could be which is a pretty big consideration


are you still willing to represent yourself your honor judge down in the district court did make all of the necessary in you and take the record of the whole of the necessary inquiries as far as the penalties


stand and opened the door to her prior convictions she once she decided to represent herself it was clear through her opening statement and throughout the trial and into


reconfirmation where were the banks listing liens subordinate to some extent to the committee and better professionals free confirmation to some extent they would have been subject to


see and we are only seeking those monies that have been recovered from the proceeds of sale of debt or platter we're not asking u c b to come out of pocket per se to pay these fees the point of the carve out is to protect professionals in cases like this and it


occur and then what is understanding was a bit the nature of the drug that was that was the extent of the testimony it was a stand a few lines of testimony and so even if there were an error which i think it's pretty clear under this court it was prudent there


enough it is a very confusing issue and the point is you know we're trying to determine whether the law was so clearly established that trooper couch in the middle of a tense situation and has a kentucky march th two thousand and sixteen


again this is the kind it's you with this is not a swimsuit issue situation that has the immediacy and the need for immediate action that the community here taking exception excuses or justifies there was no need for media that needed action her


so i guess i mean it's number one i other that setting aside i really didn't see any authority for the proposition that a warrant like


it's undisputed that in this particular case the magistrate judge reminded mr smith of that rule in the report and recommendation and despite that reminder mr smith did not file any objections to that report a recommendation under this court's


would you would be engaging in a similar type of analysis yes but the the ditch or court wouldn't necessarily have to engage in that analysis depending upon the deficiency i mean your hypothetical i think that that would that would likely prefer a strong case


been able to challenge those things so my position is i would have to want to be as candid as i can to the court my position would be that if mr simpson pled guilty and the government came back and said well we don't care we're going


not yet been ordered to remain ordered removed and therefore he still could have sought voluntary departure at any time during the hearing i see so you think it it impinges the triggering point is have you been ordered deported or


failed to show that his removal hearing was fundamentally unfair in other words he defendant failed to identify a defect that would undermine the integrity of the proceedings george washington question about the audio recording that


assuming it does apply if you look to and i don't understand state to disagree with so i'll be brief there clearly is established federal law that applies to mr miller's case again as judge bush notes it's the davis and then ours the line that was not


that no other witness has that ties my client to the murder in a way that no other evidence can do and even if we use the case that the the state wants to rely on which is this right or versus what's case if you look at right or all of that thought


things yes that means they have to prove fraud you have to prove it yet and they're doing it with circumstantial evidence because of this high error rate but is there evidence that everybody has some sort of error rate in the seven percent


chose to defend the procedure under the matthews test the reasons it gave for defending the procedure under mathews the the arguments it gave in favor of each of


your understanding of judicial review that a review is judicial review


that's the issue here and because of that there is no all of that all of the evidence pointed to mr necker leddy's knowledge that he was dealing exclusively with th rd mortgage doesn't it go one tear back isn't the question where


i mean if you don't get that mr presentation you don't get the proceeds at all well the because that the lending decision had already been made my position is


disability perception for fitness for duty exams apparently advocates there must be some threshold under the a da and his her case demonstrates that behind a threshold there is no lawful reason for an


was it was to be examined for the purpose of whether or not she would remain and continue to work as it turns out from the future and what it cascaded


and then an equivalent amount of substantial assistance reduction should apply may apply to may apply to the guideline range that has been


case maybe the same choice the choice was between disputing whether it was in fact arson or trying to shift blame to the arson to the husband and so counsel had the argument that the husband had it it has it was i think some evidence out there has


of african americans or whomever on the jury i think in terms of our claim that refuted by their testimony both about the extent of their discretion which was full terms of who was allowed on or not


believe that's right that's correct and then i think pretty early on he put in some more money


know what sentence the judge might have given had the enhancement been implied point in first place my answer to that is no because we're charged according to my


person was arguing he's only sort of in the middle of all the people in this conspiracy in the court said well it doesn't really matter if you're the only leader because there can be more than one supervisor or manager in a conspiracy and indeed the commentary to


bringing into a conspiracy of another individual as as the as the key factor in determining as one of the key factors in determining whether an individual is more relatively responsible for the actions of


receipt of the facts were as a convey that because i agree with you on that but does it say that on in the definition the definition seems broader to me it does not say the definition but i think if you look at the definition the where the


the facts originates from is a broader definition there where the fact goes to it's clear that it says it has to go to a telephone facsimile machine which i don't think it's the intent and i don't believe we should even look at the intent of the statute but if


that ride a and why you believe you cannot see in fact an accusation of unfair pricing mr patterson particularly paragraph two of the


about the five point four percent and where it comes from and whether it was uncontroverted can you give me your take on that because i didn't quite get the business with your evidence being rejected as untimely and their attack on it


because this rose out of work this this was a workers compensation issue i would agree that that was the major focus of our work in a time at the time ok but we did reserve that issue as i pointed out in


place where plaintiffs recounting of the events deviates substantially from from the information that mr han street can say i want to just talk a bit about the cases that there's nothing that's absolutely


and right at my fingertips in any event this is a to put the case in context all of the questions at issue here are factual whether or not there was a specific informant enforceable promise was factual


it clearly states i want to talk to a lawyer i don't want to talk to you and so to ok to come back and try to initiate a conversation you cannot come back and


whether the student speech involving a petition requesting that a basketball coach resign is entitle to constitutional protection at all second if it isn't part of the constitutional protections


question is when as of june twelfth when the agency seen it by its own rules has a requirement that in and in an emergency ratification summary revocation that the


just let you were asking about you know what facts were considered by the by the district court judge and you know we were twelve feet out of a very early so very little facts were developed but the facts that we do have show that there was a reason to know


target community the football profession the baron and professional football players and their family was so negative that the series was dropped and what we're honored is the we don't need asa


case in terms of the ninth circuit's jurisprudence on on reverse confusion nor should there be because you know it's almost by definition the plaintiff's mark is comparatively weak


kinds of companies who are using yes so once you get past the fact that he s p f and and the plaintiffs use the same arc the way each party presents that brand are


on the record because of the positive connotation that it that is it has had so they soon the risk that if it gets negative this happens you know plenty of words the meaning of words changes over time but that's


their importance artificially by inverting the wait for the year of fire and the prior salary giving that a double weight for the older the numbers were the more weight they gave them and i was just i'm making a


and in this case the judge just didn't give a reason didn't even say he's rejecting it of course you can infer you can say well gee if we look at the rest of his reasoning we must infer that he rejected the


all employment contracts and that that any board approval that was required was simply pro forma and it was actually the president in his mind who have the authority to make that hiring decision i'd like to reserve my remaining time


complaining individual for going to a hostile workplace environment no report is made and they only focus on this particular individual a completely different scenario in terms of what the investigation was and what they were obliged to do under their duty under the city


occurred there are cases where only a portion of what occurred has become charged conduct but you can't tell the rest of the story without that other evidence in one of the cases they relied upon there was a man who


you see what i'm saying i do i think this is the intersection of some tough areas of law bankruptcy jurisdiction has been tough for twenty years contempt has been tough for a long time let me ask you what the issue is it your position that the bankruptcy court and


represent to at least have a word put in for the fact that the individual whose interests are most at stake mr casey here are doesn't fact have a vested interest in not


what it is i think you're absolutely right it's very complicated and that leads into another point that like to make that first of all i think that that complication wasn't recognized by any of the parties including the union's attorney until after the


statement came after the bankruptcy trustee acquired its super priority liens by the filing of the bankruptcy and in that case the court said truth of the not reinstate it would provide


by the debtor so but again i think the i think the taylor and frank and franklin cases they recognize the right of a distance of the bankruptcy court to basically determine the


deem appropriate that is comports with the state rules generally accepted rules of evidence that provides a baseline sort of for the proceedings they now think that parties know what they can come forward west but the second profession four


submitted to the u s district court based upon his tennis request to expand the record to have an evidentiary hearing would serve no purpose the information that mr nelson would wish to admit during an evidentiary


went through their normal process they gave the individual they presented it to management they did their investigation they let their standing committee make its decision that's what jacob was denied and there was a lot of room for a lot of room for arguing


can't find any findings within the greater sage grouse finding from the fish and wildlife service that relates specifically to them on a stage where else has a distinct unit they simply decided that they're going to explain away


gave up and didn't care so there are different ways to interpret the medical evidence or the evidence overall certainly a rational way to do it is to see that this was a young man whose motivation was somewhat lacking that some of the government and in fact the


eight essentially that led to the state in this case the congress and in that case can identify where its attention needs to get to be drawn addressed and deal with problems as they as they


service is there anything in the record relating to the ability of the pipeline to deliver its services if it is subjected to multiple municipal


that was filed on or before april thirtieth two thousand and one and his i one thirty was filed on feb seventeenth two thousand and four even if he did you know satisfy the same criteria for eligibility for


thing again and if we have an easement right based upon our the language of our parents around montana statutory law i don't think the forest service has a right to limit that to a term view the permit has a ten year life


regulation so show this cursed pay unconstitutional to require disclosure of expenditures for campaign communications unless those communications are expressed x t or the functional equivalent


and now this is found as the opportunity to review whether or not there was an abuse of discretion in failing to apply the war and the reality is that there are cases that we've cited in our brief to the fact that the


was therefore like to focus first on two fundamental legal principles that apply to insurance policy finders and with that background apply those principles to the timeline of