definition seems to include this that's due to she says school but i think if you look at the program that they put into the record it's a preschool program right and i have also cited in my brief a definition of what a preschool is that's getting


the drinking of alcohol an obviously it's all it's legal to do so but when interpret in that act if there is a question about how that actually be interpreted it should be decided in favor of not allowing


what he is talking about is that when you settle a case us the insured don't have the obligation to come back and prove your own liability that's the first part of what you said it says but the second part is


there except that i suspect that there's one of the protect you from any possibility because i've been driving down roads for a long time in fact there's one road right drive fairly regularly which goes right


clients it from the bank that visual funds would be needed and at that point the loan was technically out of balance despite that out of balance condition the bank continued to approve work


when the ninety days is not cured but that's twenty six min no obligation someone's going to have to pay that still out there what happens between august two thousand and eight when they acknowledge that they haven't made the payment what happens at the party start


prelim exam had to come from work that she was performing in dr wolfe lab so it by definition it was tied into that it's it's all part of the same and the people she was defamed to were the people she was


saying second floor the ip in mezzanine it's very important for to understand why the belief was reasonable and help syria to understand why that's reasonable you have the lawyers


neither one was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to exclude neither one changed any thing that was are to not add anything to the defense that was not already before the jury and with respect to the prendergast letter


cost so i'm going to scratch that i'm going to be at i have that competitive advantage and then they have the advantage that has to be protected that's why the bids are done the way they are so that if we all knew what each other's best well why don't we just go in and say i


although i would argue leaving him alone facing hours is not of that but putting america still didn't do anything to honor his right to counsel and given the fact that they had given him a phone three hours earlier when the police want to consent to search his bedroom but then did


finally the issue of whether or not the defendant should receive fifty or eighty years it is true that the judge at sentencing said that your actions on the murder are worthy of fifty years in prison and that's what you should serve he


stand the first was simply to seal that part of the record so nobody except the jury would know they refused he just said no i went through it after the trial was over the judge said just i just did not understand why that witness and that lawyer would not except


imposed a time limit the only thing the legislature has said under seven dash one ten is prior to taking possession once you take possession you cannot abandon the less all parties consent to the course we don't have that


interests that were not we did not seek to condemn unlike the this is tried for serious case we have no interest in gaining their lease but they were named because they had an interest in property that was being condemn so they're in a little different position here than the property


pretty clearly wrong why he is a fact just like scientists are in a fraud cases so if you take that off the table the point you guys have articulated simply was


that whatever the case law you really don't really need to restate that for us but what you do need to do is we did know your argument in light of the case law and i will say that it looks to me that your entire


want the house they want mr alina's family out they want to impact lending to lose all his interest in the property and they want in addition to keeping the three hundred seventy thousand the house


with the police powers that the state is trying to exercise in the purposes behind the police powers makes that tough decision about whether this is or is not one of those situations where the state can set aside private parties rights and i would suggest to your honor's that that


let's get her childhood to not use this discretion i don't believe that and the people don't believe that eight years above the minimum is something that this defendant didn't deserve i mean the child put specifically reiterated that it considered all that everything in


i withdraw the additional sentencing factors they stop prosecuting the firing the state has discretion to stop prosecuting or to prosecute certain offenses or lesser offenses or stop prosecuting enhancements even following the recent supreme court decision and


conflict even if this court finds that mr carter must show prejudice i think a prejudice as i pointed out in my brief is established at trial i want to point out of course that you only have to show prejudice


this defendant went from blaming pick computer excuse me blaming people that had nothing to do with the crime and what they are all the way through to when she eventually confessed to her complicity in this crime at that point and he points


well investigators the state employees are going to be subject to the pension benefit provisions of the pension code and so there is a change in the relevant language to add illinois gaming board investigators as one of the classes of persons that


two two tracks i distinguish this from skelton because in skelton's that was a flag stop and mr scull was allowed to go on station without it and the platform without a ticket and i believe some of the testimony is that he was trying to flag


statement there is a statement that accused the c h f dishonesty it appears that fine fifteen page nineteen and ninety run that were that the plaintiff sad when when you're addressing the child's right you have to


group health insurance through employees wife he may no indication whatsoever during any of these visits that this could be work related or this could have been an aggravation or


committed and the public employees employment that's the solution and the nexus language is in these statutes that is did it relate to arise out of or in connection with their


there's no question you could look at your brief so why did he have to bring in it's something in addition well after the fifth there is no question about them no and that's because he explained why he knew them


to show that to two of these people juliana and fernando had identified this this defendant and the other defendants as members of the latin kings and this was to corroborate that in fact the defendant was a member of the latin kings


boys were related to their family lived in the area they rented apartment out to the boy's uncle that lived beneath them they knew the family i was not needed to show that they acted together as the state just conceded on our argument they can show this by showing their


strength disparity between the defendant and the victim and here the defendant was told by two inches outweighed her by ninety pounds but more importantly was fifteen years younger he was a twenty year old man and she was a thirty five year old woman and had every


were that the evidence produced a trial shows that he was reckless now inside not reckless but intentional and now or opposing counsel makes this point that there was a break in action and that the threat to the defendant


just because you're a mother doesn't mean you are accountable for the actions of your adult child your adult child codefendant in the murder case where the state's theory of this she was involved in this plan


that she asked for a lawyer and that she refused to lie detector test was a lie in itself into a well you're taking the silence and you're saying let's presume guilt from the silence in this case we're saying don't


murderous the court said we can look now just at the preliminary injunction but we can look at other matters here and they looked at findings to the extent they determined the preliminary injunction remedy that's completely


it's the real estate pledged in favor of very substantial wrong one is this council i believe we are this kids and as far as contesting or hindering is in their response to the motion to foreclose and appoint receiver and they


not quarrelling one bit with your interpretation of nailing and not putting it in the rubric that just because the defendant testified that the automatically there is a close case you do


stole i'm not saying the husband still what i'm saying if you look at the if the evidence even if you consider that defendants evidence credible which the trial court did not that that step closer was the theft of the car because the husband had


imagination to say that snow removal is not a contract for construction which typically means to build the racks etc i pay just seventeen and eighteen of our brief by slight sight to a slew of cases that actually are that


instruction that we used the word make widgets instead knowing the only spin court reversed because the drug wasn't held to the task of finding the mental state now at least in that case they had a mental state though you know here we just had absolutely ability you know they didn't have any mens rea a requirement


and we all know there are cases i mean god forbid you could have a heart attack on a day of court might and we may not be able to reach true roya step before before all of this was among the alter this issue wouldn't be coming to us because the


an order was entered and b for the entry of a final judgment in the case through dissolution rabidly of the directors lost their authority over the church but the administrative commission kept the property and there just can't be


what plaintiff is advocating is inability of any lender after the fact after foreclosure in judgment after confirmation of sale in predictably after any victualling particularly if we're dealing with


siblings and that brought the litigation to a screeching halt to a stay to pursue settlement to sky sions and in response or on his question say five wells talking about


period and that's what the department was asking that life to do so i think the question before the court this morning is whether as the department has asserted and claimed in its three fifths of the phrase all taxes due in the two thousand and three


what you can negotiate but if it falls outside what can be negotiated you can always litigate whether it was meant to be within the perimeter or not your honor i don't think my client will be able to unless this


percentages here it's you know it's percentages between the three and my suggestion my argument is that the bank is in a much better position than your average person like violet rather well to know


throwaway argument is sometimes last arguments are is the doctrine of parents patri i which is in a set a jurisdictional underpinning of the entire illinois marriage and dissolution of marriage act under the doctrine of parents


appellate court and say they stand for the proposition illinois has long recognized after all adoption for the purpose of inheritance those are all contract based cases and then we go to the we go to the stately case in


made and the very nature of the statute contemplates that there's going to be successive requests in five years i may be in front of your honor's again if there was a new d n a and new technology that could provide insight that this statute


cannot see your way from clear defining with me that this should be that this court should be affirmed that there was sufficient at least and if not terri probable cause in this case if you can't find a way to agree with me then


and that i believe makes our point that the need for evidence and trial is apparent from the dispute as to the facts that are material to the outcome to


noted any factual distinction anything that would indicate that my clients but least in self defense change throughout the shooting it happened very quickly there's no reason not to have to infer the mitigating


significantly different terms of a conflict analysis is is if you would say well if you would say well we have sufficiently shown that mr boyd you represented the state's attorney's office i


doesn't feel that because of that he must have been contemporaneously representing mr birch it doesn't it maybe doesn't prove that but that it doesn't even suggest that ok i i have to respectfully disagree that it supports it it


the hassle and he can tell you whether he made that batch we're not so doesn't know what we ate at least a factual issue for a jury to determine you have testimony from expert witnesses that the exposure that he would have had would have


consider our point that the damages are not appeals from in this case and they're not intertwined and in fact in the two cases that we said that why well because there was no there was no testimony which demonstrated that the jury was


questions were designed to infer why did you refuse to talk to us so he does i did do not want to talk equate with i want a lawyer i don't want to talk doesn't equate with i want to lawyer but when he's asked it to


nolan detective maria nolan were the same detectives that had earlier had to find in custody in january defendant did not get along with those two men as he later explained to detective bush it thought they were looking at him like he was


proposition that you can use a suppressed statement to challenge an expert witness to change the i don't know many around but i think it's important to note


ruling on e suppression motion but there was a change in the wall that prompted that that change in the ruling there's no change in the law james was the case that applied for the judge's ruling and after in regard to whether this evidence could have come in from pietschmann


raise that specific issue in my brief now i did raise that he regularly used marijuana and that the state did not prove that he was not under the influence of marijuana when he made the statement that i did i did state i did not state that at that particular time when he


shared to meet with the insurance company before writing the letter information like what would you think of that but that would put me in a much more difficult


are seeking a certain relief and that relief wasn't addressed in the canadian court yes or and therefore the relief that you're seeking in this in illinois should be addressed by the oic or because it's never been


getting grilled sometimes is informative weeks of brain cells thank you very much well i want to tell you that the arguments were wonderful like you might say and the briefs were very well done and that you gave us a very interesting issue


i don't mean it may have not worked out very well i suppose so since he went bankrupt if i recall i read that somewhere so what they would have put tiffany correct it could have hurt tiffany very easily yes suppose she bought battalion backs of her own at six percent right now i'm


in question mr chase but the trust document does not require or does and does not impose on the trustee any duty to ensure that the principle is preserved from inflation that would


become insolvent now running back to the procedural issue remember the the script district did not respond to the to the documents that these charter school submitted in response


case where it's the kind of the defense does your these days of raising lack of standing is are more than one entity seeking repayment of the obligation or more than one entity seeking to foreclose on you and you know again it's just my experience


he refuses treatment but jimmy is one of the people who's getting shot by these people so the chances of jimmy providing positive testimony for the defiance are also slim it was reasonable trial strategy for trial counsel to avoid calling this witnesses and


court to up to a firm on this issue this would have to find that there is not even slight evidence on the record that the jury could have concluded the hill recklessly caused the death of the victim and under these circumstances where two shooters the victim back


was a plan his actions were spontaneous he saw his friend struggling with a grown man over gun the gun goes off and he comes to his rescue you can't hold he'll responsible for that if there was no plan he tween the chew of them


they kept their most valuable r v painted but it's not where your wallet is where your heart is so the question is whether the facts on the record that share their business and social relationships and their personal interests and their


and southwest is actually the direction of the gas station the group of the gangster disciples is due west of clarence so he's firing away both from party figure out his testimony and certainly from t r merchants testimony so that's that's number one


policy recognizes that additional shorts have more limited rights to coverage and because it more limited rights to coverage they are not in a position to know and cannot be expected to know every occurrence or claim giving rise to a duty to give notice


well they talked not specifically but they did talk about drug sellers being out there that repeatedly peddle the drugs trade so no they did not specifically mentioning young children but i feel at that point that that the harm has already been done and it's been done


the call that on theaters around the country and those sales of the of the rights to exhibit the picture take place from and g m distributions offices in california and if asked under


the trial court heard in allowing that jointer and that's because the trial court misinterpreted the statutes for jointer of related prosecutions the way that that statute is written it says that two or more charges


victims are accused of conjuring up negligence claims to manufacture coverage or hopefully complete their claims these cases oh wait it's had negligence allegations running through them the change that you're referring to


supervise allegedly is howard a lot of it but he did not say that in his deposition where the supervised word comes from is from a policeman who filed a report on the day of the crash who says


they know all of this gentleman mr pearl knew of the mental incapacity what evidence do you have that he knew of this mental commands the way got on the phone and said my husband's suffered a stroke


an estimate of what the under reporting was for purposes of the good faith requirement of the amnesty program and that


refund that are attributable to federal changes and now what the a l j says and what the director confirmed was again we timely filed a refund claim but they're saying we're not entitled to actually receive the refund we're requesting


about in this issue of showing cameron and photos so let's make that clear there are two sets of photos so the photo showing camera at the hospital they don't have an objection to that and that's what dr without his testimony was based on now they objected to both


our person convicted of domestic violence may have more need for a firearm than others where are you taking us let me aguilar talks about having some wine to have drawn to make


reason for the combination of the two different clinics and that goes back to there were three different issues that were raised one is it was economic that they could have one practitioner tree both the male and female patients secondly they could


succeeded do they know they don't and mark my point is only that the fact that he's never argued that and also the device that they argued they don't have to show what route they have to show there is some evidence to support the struck right and they've also


is the truth what he said must be accepted and what she said we don't care about that that's not the law as far as you know it is not whether we were here to say what


bullet on the street where they ran his two boats by the durango where he pushed her up against that car and two on the other side and then let's not stop there he's now got his service weapon out and he's he shoots are and she will


say contrary to what payne was saying about the the nature of his job then then he would have said that and and i think we can get i think it's fair to infer that deputy fire commissioner


creates liability on to employers courts in a court in the way you know a court has held that by virtue of being an employer that joint employer is subject to liability that's


to have to rico stay in the hospital until he could get a report that's not our position our position is that would have been a reasonable way to proceed if there was less so now that now they were at the point where we're at what's what's what's the


difficulty that the trial court faced on september twenty seventh if it did not proceed is that rico actually the evidence was that rico had been ready for discharge on september fifteenth it was only because the d c p investigation of ms


essentially that the situation in the home on september twenty seventh was was unsafe it was very unsafe they had a dysfunctional way of relating it was misspelled did not have the parenting skills that would


based on the stock listed on any change in the court said in that situation and choosing to create the index and disseminate the press information nasdaq represents no one but itself is the same situation here the same this for the same reason


a you know private or premature announcement and they've held that those types of acts are to fall within the doctrine of regulatory miry of the contract case with mr main mentioned as well so it is as though a very different case it was a case that i was and that


asked him do you understand that he did so there's no indication or the judge should have just assumed that this young man who you know with such severe mental issues which automatically


appeal i knew thirteen and fourteen the court thing goes on to explain that to the defendant this record shows that this defendant was engaged in clearly had no compunction about asking the trial judge what was happening and this trial the defendant's


we get to the issue of whether it's harmless or not and we have again your expert dr galbreath testifying that the circumstances of whether she flew through the air


find some reason to find why her testimony should not have been admitted she never saw anything all she did was run ten feet forward with the s u v behind her does indicate in all likelihood the point that was tossed some distance as everybody said but she never said she never saw


simply do not apply they are not constitutional decisions by their own terms they are equitable decisions they modified the definition of cost for purposes of filing a federal agents corpus


everywhere without prejudice so that that means that count as a girl because that was the only chance count there was procreated chance or the right if that will help then the appropriate thing is to transfer the case to the law of the vision and that's what was


section two thirty two of the juvenile court and that gives the juvenile one year to file an eight to fourteen one with respect and with respect to that one year time frame if vincent had tried to file a two fourteen zero one he would been too late


general assembly to act because otherwise you could sit on their hands and people need to put people would be deprived of their right to constitute but to address constitutional deprivations so don't need to wait for the legislature history of the


is that for what it's worth under the statute seven thirty five by all c s five three one ten three of you are in court is to take into consideration only the record so


our interest in the insurance policy in the michigan case there and to suggest and i was submit your honor that stay firm is offensively suggested or argued in other cases that he can go off to


mean more evidence of the obsession because defendant was afraid to introduce any woman that he knew as a friend but brainy knew her this isn't a stranger coming out of nowhere and attacking a she knew or defendant referred to her by name when she


little practice because everybody was worried that that that would be read if the legal malpractise claims were transferred into that trust as an improper assignment the legal malpractise claims that would be point that's why the plan


than the kinds of agreements that you see all the time where people say look i have the option to file a case in illinois and indiana maybe i can also file in delaware we're going to agree that almost several


and i would also point out your honor that under two fourteen zero two and seven one eight a receiver may be appointed if requested and then there has to be a response and then hearing on that issue and then that receiver must hold assets that is the


it's consistent with two seven a team and it's consistent with what a citation is in the first place any judgment creditor serving a citation is the pending appeal the judgment that are to come forward


circumstantial evidence is just as powerful just as relevant as direct evidence it's reasonable inferences made from the facts presented and the fact that circumstantial evidence was presented to the trial or fact with regard to the


fourth district which was decided after the amendment to the statute agreed with daniel and explained the legislative intent for that purpose the legislation the legislative intent for that purpose specifically is that the use and


investigate waiting and then after it instructing this defendant to put his hands on the head west side this is a defendant wouldn't be reaching for his pocket in any innocent way after being instructed


responsible to the person that caused the offense even if that person is on now if the persons are no however your honour's illinois has limited account earlier it has essentially found accountability in on principle cases and basically two situations the first is when you


wrong primarily because you did not follow dan off which is the illinois supreme court's decision which is the case most clearly on point and it's a supreme court decision and i don't have to say to you that you've got a court should follow the supreme court's decision


there that so if they didn't substitute first that's not the issue that they've raised an appeal they've now shifted their focus and said first make was the better so i think when you're looking at this under the standard of review the


it certainly is as a matter of logic and implicit finding the controls i might agree if there hadn't been the statement even if the jury found the judge was on went over with the earlier writing that seems to


of dual role testimony but the bottom line is if you read the opening brief there is no specific allegation unlike the oral remarks you hearing now that anything that actually violated


why those proceedings were not fundamentally fair the first one is because this court has recognized the an immigration judge has an obligation to inform a respondent of any eligibility for relief from removal in two thousand and one the


to me with that about them said i mean is deportable but not an aggravated felony in two thousand and two so when did you when did your view go back to b i and say i was not told of my eligibility for cancellation in two thousand and one when was that


court that follows it should apply that analysis because of that's where the malpractise occurred because of arizona's interest in regulating the conduct of lawyers the practice before it my understanding of the state of arizona has


and what is you get after repeated contacts to the court in august finally a phone call back on the twenty ninth and equivocally the records are not going to be available to you what


do that sorry i don't think my client said that any and again this certainly wasn't the practice anywhere else and in fact i think he has a letter his two page single spaced letter explaining his study and his purpose also explained how he had done it in other courts


of burglary or some extra height need perhaps the they can show that somebody wants to burgle their house only they can keep a handgun at home there's nothing the second amendment that would suggest that this type of heightened self defense interest can apply to one side of the


effective in the plaintiff briefing of the pieces of jewelry side by side and just looking at the comparison and they look awfully similar to me second is the fact that your client doesn't have a very good explanation as to


case especially with the biopsy where the risk factors with regard to the lesion was discovered before this biopsy was conducted that states a claim that this culpability of these the


there and so so they left him there in ninety four degree heat and the court said that once that one thing made her subdued then it turned into excessive force and that's a very similar situation


read yes well i've done my best with it and i have looked at it yes well point to what was the proposed to jointly proposed order and i agree it was not a consent decree but where


plaintiffs who was racially profiled and stopped due to race during regular patrol and no other evidence of intentional discrimination during a regular patrol racial profiling


is the facts and i think you are court under the standard has to defer to the district court with respect to historical facts what time it was and what people's intent was when they did it that's factual conclusion of reasonableness


you focus on those and so mr casey is pointing back to his statement of facts at the summary judgment stage in the district court and


his reports in my se o are that we submitted schmidt again cannot find a lack of competency so now he's been evaluated three times to psychiatrists and a nurse like colleges he's been found competent his attorney


speed was and your ability at highway speeds was and so my client did what careful lawyers do he produces documents that he and i've done this many times in fifty four years of practice i look at the plaintiff's theory of liability i produce


speed suitability and that's what judge silver held and said in may two thousand and seven it's in her order that's what the tests are supposed to be the speed suitability tests if everyone a good year says this isn't one and it's not proper in the law to


did the plaintiff's lawyer require that this evidence we found out about it because it was being properly requested in other cases and now she's seen what happened another case and she says why wasn't this before it was seems to


would rely on both chambers and miller have to give indications of a requirement that there be some connection there just otherwise i think your honor i think we would agree that you're then getting into simply a punitive


concerned about our judicial system and whether this type of behavior is going to continue to happen in other instances where does the money go by the way this this if it's paid two point seven million dollars who gets it that's that that's not in the record your honor


in this case opens up the question of whether it's accurate that just because good here hires a lawyer who's outside the consulate automatically they are for close from anything he may do could


tarred with what their outside counsel did is if they were involved one of either by their employees or by their own in house counsel now tell me what the record


as opposed to what you are going now which was really just trying to do a more limited examination well i think that you know the rape shield law was complied with because our client did give notice and have to explain its relevance and the state had an


when this plan when in fact of well two people put in some money that they hadn't put in before they did the what it what generally when will first of all look at the parties that are involved this case in


when did he say it's ok for the operation he had to approve it first when did he do that but he did that during the time of trial there was an issue and then we continued after the time of trial to try and get


it is not your honor it was done about a year afterwards we brought on a motion for an order to show cause it was denied because the case was of course i see it's not before us but at least we know he's now been operated on he has been operated on in


includes to the extent humanly possible put what i said you cannot consider it out of your mind i mean why do we bother if it has no effect at all we bother because we know that most jurors take their jobs very seriously


been ongoing for the past almost year and we are concerned that is or what's the status yes your honor so apparently there were filings as recently as on friday of this past week


reviewed what i mean by supervisors what the defendant's own policies say is the supervisors have to put notes into the system showing that the reviewed it showing that there was no meaningful review of what


duty is not preempted unless it is different from or in addition to the federal requirement the lord court further said what we mean is the standard of conduct so the fact that you bring a state cause of


that this court should as judge judge thomas suggests delay that in the syntax case referred ourselves to the f d a well your honor it is a did overview so i think your your honour's can


hawkins didn't dispute that didn't indicate at that point in book in front of the court that no my my focus is broader he conceded the point and then asked to take more evidence as to the prosecutor's intentions and what that the court said i have a declaration i've read


thousand dollars and sanctions has not yet been paid and if it was referred to attorneys the u s attorney's office in san diego and they sent me i told them i couldn't pay two thousand up front


to the birds say he had direct and independent knowledge of fraud of k and he didn't satisfy that burden because all he could do is say no i was


so this is decided on the papers yes that's my understanding what the relator have asked for is an evidentiary hearing that goes beyond we think what the statute provides and that would be appropriate only have the relator have


plaintiff's counsel five twelve i and with respect to case law it would be in un g recordings versus shelter capital in you tube and the video line of cases that


terminated so why isn't that sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury because the statute requires reasonable implementation that doesn't require perfection or isn't there a question of fact what's reasonable


uploads that christie seven one eight seven did a small number trigger d m c takedowns but you can't conclude as a matter of law of summary judgment that the inference from that is that it's no big deal you don't need to terminate christi because the vast majority don't trigger complaints from the actual owners always held in


jury that was making that determination so that's the on clean hands instruction now to the answer to the jury's question about the whether


emotion acknowledged that statements made surrounding judicial proceedings are privileged but they don't answer the question because i don't believe they can if as to how a statement made in two thousand and one


privileges to as far as the fair reporting is also a conditional per village and the court should note that under montana law there is an absolute privilege for pleadings and statements


days regardless of where the individual is in the process so for example somebody who has not even been through the entirety of the administrative process hasn't gotten to a final order from the immigration judge or an order from the board would be treated the same as somebody who for example is under


know at the time that we argued rodriguez to in addition your honor even the government just now and in their briefing and various other places they concede that there are some prolonging detentions that give rise to serious constitutional problems


twelve twenty six a provides that opportunity so we think it was improper both for the court to provide relief to the twelve twenty six a subclass as a matter of right but also for the court to impose any standards that are different from what it is that for the twelve twenty six and


couple of other histories in the record is the history of taken by doctors earn a victim as the history of dr bernstein both of those stayed relatively similar things she's got a repetitive job she had and using dr support of its words there was an acute


and then the city passed a statute that the plaintiff objected to they sued not only the city council but this is the speaker at the city council meeting now the facts are not the same here but i


the language of the p m a it essentially contracts to take title and joint tenancy because if you take a look at article seven c it's talking about dividing proceeds are dividing the properties equally


it's perhaps not a fact that probably characterization of the facts respectfully but if it was being chased by a police officer pounded on the door in the door open and you ran through the sparkman and it's not clear whether or not the owner of this apartment saw that he had a gun or anyone really good


i have not seen any case that has been presented by the defense that has effect payout unlike this one where the court said you should not use the ordinary negligence instructions the only case we have seen


case with respect to the issue of the evidence it's in the record as to whether anybody purchased p s else without the intention to go to the game and it was a suggestion that that didn't happen we would call the court's attention to our appendix


the lack of any information in her have to say well i think that's right and of course we have cases like williams the manchester decided by the illinois supreme court of switch of the jane decided by the illinois and the illinois


no restrictions nobody's put any restriction nobody said the skin is unable to work until she actually goes under the surgery by dr heller in june at which point he t d s paid t t s paid through august


unlike in class in this case the judge entered court orders for illinois state troopers to appear on what i implied as the judges in this case explaining to the illinois state police who came to court you need to bring this information next time


we got a working copy to him no later than january twenty fifth which was sixteen days before this case was set for trial and why didn't the state's attorney why did why did office seek to appeal a back way and not go to trial on february tenth


he was not searching to try and find a reason to say bad things about mr stein what happened was that mr kristol up was in fact emitted to practice for the assistant eastern district of pennsylvania and had a case pending he was going on the electronic


the elements of the case he did not even mention the burden of proof he simply said enough is enough it's time for him to go home after that the closing there is a jury deliberation that lasted approximately twenty minutes and the jury came


case the victim however was under age consent was irrelevant and the only appellate court said in that case that it's simply a chronic care to assert a defense that cannot prevail as a matter of law i


i would agree with that it's one of the few things in the briefs i do agree with it was simply not contested at all and that's why it brings us over into a chronic standard finally of a few of the other areas that the court can


simply be satisfied that an inquiry was made without regard to what that inquiry conveyed


know better who needs ten thousand dollars to pay her real estate taxes gets that ten thousand dollars pays it back and let's she's taking advantage of three that is the purpose of the s t s you and them to suggest even though the


night or when all we know is night we cannot think it's even more likely than not that someone is going to ole i heard what could be firecrackers what could be a car back backfiring i


weapon he said that in direct examination i believe judge but on cross he said actually when the test was explained to him a test you could do he said yes that would be possible it would not necessarily tell you if the gun was used but it might there was a test to fire


and i also think the spirit of the law with the intent of the law would be satisfied if it were applied here where we do have a recorded statement subsequent to the oral only memorialized by those thank you


instead accept the version of of facts in the criminal case files was highly relevant to the jury you know the victims were screaming third parties had to intercede he told them that he was going to rape them that was all relevant to the


the the the the pot of last resort right for people who don't have access to any other insurance pots right and this is a case where the insured employee


a corporate client who has its general counsel get involved in a case is subsequently determined to having control of its defense for purposes of the insurance obligations of an insurer under the peppers or stop that's utterly


cleaning that doesn't somehow shift them to become employees of those management companies just part and parcel of managing units and buildings is cleaning but that's not the underlying purpose of the business i mean if i were a factory and i made


coworker who was of the same class as mr job on had a joint management home depot credit card


that regime for these unique neural contacts that we think this fits with him is that it's very easy to allege a bad intent i mean how do you really know what's in somebody as mine it's easy to make the allegation and it takes heaps of


has made it trying to influence or the like but i think in the record it also shows that she did not lie the itchy eventually when put to the test she said i did not sue anything on say anything on truthful for to the first investigation


amended statute was switching to discuss receipt system well they didn't they just say gross receipts in the state versus gross receipts everywhere and i think that that illustrates my point the they didn't because when you're talking about gross


that there was there there was a a public policy interest here of wouldn't creating a subclass of people that are uninsured and this is what happened in this instance that the commission if this incisions allowed to stand is basically committed a subclass of people


agencies it's our contention that with that parent that a call the illinois general assembly at least contemplated a situation where a bank could own or operate a collection agency so


ten allege that judge ryan left early in portrayed his vehicle in the driveway of a home it's a fact that it was not his vehicle it was not his home


based on that activity which includes showing that the suit was near a list and retaliatory you threw that as well that i do agree with ok tell me how your opponent did or did not carry its burden me showing that that


time one of our wonderful institution and he says three fifty was improper the three fifteen instruction provided to my jury the second jury was improper and that


there's no question about transfer of title but the consideration paid again is considered proprietary in a contract that is signed in south dakota that has nothing to do with illinois law what you're suggesting is now when you're talking about the transfer from company p


defending it but i think that the jury should have heard just seems well mazie to me that on the basis of the foundation that was presented that that expert wasn't allowed to testify number one and number two there was enough evidence of just


you that that's that's the argument makes five a sides but what did what did evidence was there of the standards what evidence was there that there were other banks in this area that will require in the assuming


presented at a new trial supposed that this was a mistake that well the jury guilty after hearing testimony that his his whole version of why he was there so did they reject the jury wasn't given any tools


trial cross examination is your position that this language from the first clause applies to the second clause he said yes that's what he was doing but again judge only one half way the the wod doesn't


reinstated even if you're right within ninety days for no cause of all right it'll be terminated that's correct that's correct they will have ninety days notice to confer with their patients and let them know there's going to be a change and to get a


as a matter of fact mr gray prior to this it worked at somewhere between a half dozen to a dozen other pile driving companies so rather than going through and getting subpoenas to all the other places that he worked throughout the years to figure out how many hours you work


from the location of the well years before the the water was actually cycled through that system with with that and i would point out that the we were talking about the allegations yell occasionally go across


to request the services they knew tanks were being brought into they wanted things to be checked they could have done that and they never did they never did this case and i think you're absolutely right there's nothing in any of that testimony or anything in that manual


bill for this particular case i don't know what the arrangement was i don't think it's pertinent that what's prudent is that safeway hired him and he promptly got into the case vacated the default and filed pleadings appearance and commenced


rather than jane hamilton and what list is which is what is listed on the certified copy of conviction all i want is just briefly go back to the stipulation that it's actually in the record and here's what it says the state seeks to admit


i disagree with what he says in the assignment you don't need me to repeat what i said in the previous thank you rym thank you thank you thank you consuls that is taken under advisement court is adjourned


d j we don't have identity of the cards we have westfield an insurance company suing f c l and asking the court to find that they don't


i'm sorry little prodding but thank you i appreciate that the commission determines the way to credibility of the evidence and in this case the commission determined the petitioners medical evidence was not credible in this case there is no


terms of that project practice i think it has to be recognized that it wasn't just a one shot exam because this is a doctor knew the patient both before and after the injury and again how often do we see


done people have to meet people absolutely empty but i would say that's a personal interest ya know we need food shelter clothing now what you responded to was going to leave work to look in apartments a landlord could only show an apartment


mean you're throwing in a good response you're saying well he had the choice to bring the one you have that's an argument that wave of believe in your favor in reading the facts is it clear that this you know was a lack of the catering service just happened


for a gotcha i mean we have this thing where it's the response is followed by that's your judgment answer you got it it sure is showing me the frustration followed by based


you point the point that your honor pointed out that it could be possibly helpful to the defendant it was relevant because it gave the codefendant a motivation to come and take the blame totally because he'd


these witnesses failed to come forward not because they came forward in their own interest because they were arrested as defense counsel said they didn't come forward because these are the type of people who don't like to talk to the police these are people who don't


subpoena that had not yet arrived or to reset a trial date when they had already fancy a case to set the motion is simply a bath and beyond any case has ever been held for this or i would drop one last station


but basically analytic much analytic models provide a guide but the matter at hand is not to be resolved by a panel of experts or by particular witnesses a proposal is a sound a reasonable judgement the commission in which the term ends a reasonable rate of return to common equity


seating have to be clear explicit unambiguous in this case for the reasons that i described we don't have such an order as to several of the other arguments that the private company has raised and that the circuit court


an occupational exposure at work and he got a line of duty disability and the reason we're doing workers comp is this is a pre nine hundred seventy seven worker this petitioner was hired in one thousand nine hundred sixty nine before the offset provision of the pension code was an active


but you you claim one in your application and you file the file the application and it's done so within the two year staff your motivations but there was no accident i checked off facts and because there was no exposure here and so that statute of repose


herself but when he wrote that much as an ex predicate other courtney as lawyers here on october thirteenth there was no emergency he could come in here but he couldn't fight here because he couldn't win here he's three times conceded the first order the second order the visitation order that she's a


e mails focusing on the type of the residency permit those are all arguments against the beat of against whether or not the order was correct whether or not the indian judge adjudicated things correctly it is not for us to say we do not sit in judgment of him our supreme


after taking whatever amount of money can still from people and then run away and that's not a criminal act but well says what you sense that yes you are going to begin what states that there needs to be an intersection between the intent not to perform and the


focus only on the time of formation inches no it does not and i think it does but i know well i'm not certain i think that the states actually agrees based on what they stating in their belief that there are the


december of two thousand and six before our trigger black mr august had an opportunity at the permanency hearing to redress the causal connection issue he could have established a sort of evidence to indicate it has a


condition in february of twenty two for which according to these are two different conditions in seoul they found it didn't present any evidence that his then chronic condition of ill be was causing related to his injury and so they


you're asking does the fact that the informant said that there was a black handgun indicates the police that she was saying basically that she saw a handgun on the end no not explicitly some they could have told her there was a black handgun and also you know most guns


these informants individually have a history of reliable tips the fact that they're all corroborating each other suggests it's the police that they're likely giving the police a true story or the one you know a false tip is you know it's possible


this is not a time we were joking around i totally agree with that iran or any other president working and maria has been the basis for reverse i cannot say that it's ever been the basis for a first or ever been said before this was so bizarre


possibility that operation may not require more


narrow back prohibition down to where it becomes mean but we submit that it does it hasn't yet become meaningless because there are still there are there are similar offenses that are traffic regulations governing the movement


i'm never serious responsibility for fixing the roof but you did assume responsibility for putting down slick proof proof mats and warnings as cones and things and mopping up whenever there were leaks were water were slush or whatever tracked in from the


still a go shading this policy for a long after it's issuance and the record is clear was on april twenty sixth two thousand and five when some underwriter over it ace finally said we approve your request to change eight and to issue forty


they could have done of the other way they didn't and so the percentages don't matter right thanks


sentencing hearing for the defendant to try to whom the mitigation and for the state to try to disprove it and there would be then an additional universe of facts of a horrible for the sentencing


mind on this issue before he even testified i think we have to take the judge at his word we're listening we're not going to make up our minds until she does that i appreciate that your honor


car could have been a taxi cab could have been a civilian car it was speeding toward him about twenty five or thirty miles an hour across this field when you give him much time to look at the license plate say oh yeah that's police car the second issue and say just about the force


is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have reached the same conviction that they did even if they had been instructed now that intent was misnamed sole defense the defense counsel presented a trial say that


associated was at all why the two items that were just brought out by justice court why doesn't that establish as a matter of law on a parent agency between the two or at the very least


error affected the jury's verdict there's a way to avoid having to you know do that speculation that's to present special interest to tory's to test the verdict now understands the nat'l of matter of trial strategy here plaintiff had reasons for not wanting to do that and


government attorneys the corporation house of this case is more problematical than in the private sector so there's no reason to question the application of the story client privilege


submit that that authority is included in the provision that puts the corporation council in charge of all of the city's law business and charge of representing the city's rights an obligation in any well


mean that the the facts themselves underlying facts are not privileged so the inspector general like any other body that investigates or prosecutor does anything else can talk to witnesses can get documents can


recognize three categories but if it's a good investment if it's a


problem at that point with the cross comparative analysis because of markets and the illinois supreme fork when confronted with the issue two issues one of them being the variance issue the other issue being whether or


i'm not challenging that that's correct yes the point though on if we look at the record we will find that treating doctors indicated that she's only capable of doing said terry type work


with her family she reschedules or for three or four days later to come in for an appointment she she wears sloppy clothing and she wear sneakers to an appointment for a job interview fact of the matter is if she got a brace on a regular and she could only wear


fact incorrect incorrect she could not be making twenty dollars an hour working for united airlines there's no evidence of that there's her statement that she was making twenty dollars an hour and that's what council sites will


was asked about these types of procedures and he gave them interpretations and they made these findings i would lose i would lose that but based on one where is the evidence in the record to support these two fine and by the commission it's not in there he talks about the opinions of dr glacier what opinions


three two thousand and three again february march april two thousand three there


international treaty but going on to opposing counsel's argument that there was a final determination two thousand and one we're talking about the original august two thousand and one order and he argues that that's law of the case if that was


we didn't really get into was the the medical ward under section eight and it is this panel knows if a person is an injury


moments reading between lines in the breeze of certain kinds of treatment now we know that this overhanging was created by levy owner who was a policeman who


courts of canada the u k the e u australia and others have in fact rejected it we have said one of the important guiding principles when interpreted the convention is what the other countries do why should we depart from that


it is instead an informative defense but that did not wipe out the preexisting requirement that you must know of the presence of the substance and the state supreme court confirmed that in an opinion in two thousand and fourteen in re standard jury instructions in criminal cases this is one hundred and fifty three southern rd one hundred


enforcement officer and none of the cases that i've found have relied upon an officer's understanding of whether or not a registered owner is for going to drive or rather the courts of indicated as a matter of common sense and ordinary human experience but the registered owner is a


that has that has a lot of you know kids who will drive their parents car that's fine and if it's an area where you don't that's fine but reasonable suspicion doesn't depend upon the kind of showing that you seem to demand where the just statistical


constitutional a different unrelated statute or maybe there's some others which perhaps none of us could actually think of but we could characterize them generally or then s a s doesn't say that's wrong it's


final and unappealable well a couple key points are on our am going to tell you that it says under the section but i do think it says that for a very important reading at reason and under my friends reading that phrase under the section has absolutely no meaning you can take it out of the statute means exactly the same


it be possible for the director to institute interparty sort of you under some other section of the director say i don't want to invoke three hundred and fourteen i want to institute intra parties review under some


is looking at subsection capital b when under your understanding of the categorical pro choice when the court is determining whether an offense by its nature involves the requisite


tracking device on a person's vehicle or consent to an officer scrolling through a person's cell phone if they happen to be stopped now this court has never approved a search on the theory that a search that consent can be deemed by operation of


i consent to have my blood drawn that's actual consent is there anything wrong with that yes there's something wrong with that i mean because understand cause we analyze consent under


liability for destroyed violations under the code all sides to this case now agree that the ninth circuit was wrong there is no per se rule that courts can never provide relief when a creditor violates the discharging good faith but response in the government now


what we're saying is that the prerequisite that this court is set out in cases like international longshoremen california artificial paving and the others that i mentioned just hasn't been met and something you didn't do which you could easily have done is get get a ruling in


that could be still reasonable meaning i understand your answer to justice courses which is that somebody doesn't do research and just says i don't want to pay i'm just going to do this and it turns


one set of incentives and other is subject to an opposite set of incentives but they're all trying to do the same thing which is to deal with a complaint that has not pled sufficient facts and telling the person go do it again


article three standing are met but it won't be destroyed because they have a twenty eighteen c a well the fact that as in military in which there was an exemption seven argument pending this court took it to decide exemption two sure there's a twenty eight hundred see argument that


public despite official yes i think that's right and that is certainly for years general goal but in this exemption only target a particular type of information not general it is information that is private


well i think it's one that has it and if there is some sense of it why isn't that since cynthia's with the concept if i let it out it's going to hurt me well again i'm taking the side the quantum of her


would be revisited and properly upheld as a valid exercise of exercise of congress's article one so basically you're asking us to overrule florida prepaid i'm asking this court to follow katz justice alito where i think florida prepaid was overruled in relevant part and certainly you think


pass copyright protective laws nor could they under separation of powers principles vest view of copyright claims in the senate judiciary committee and likewise state sovereign immunity limits congress authority to expose state treasuries to the copyright acts exorbitant


is that willful infringement is when the the the defendant has actual knowledge that the act constitutes copyright infringement now there is some dispute as to whether recklessness as to whether constitutes copy right infringement is enough but i'm not aware of any court that it's ever said


to legislate under section five i think that what city of bernie says is that the remedy has to be tailored to the scope of the constitutional violation right so if there were thirty violations then congress could say well here is a proportional remedy to that level


remedy the same remedy that everybody else has to pay because i mean once congress has decided that we think that there are loads of constitutional violations going on why doesn't the state have to pay what every other actor would


think anybody could have reasonably assumed that docket was going to remain in effect in perpetuity even putting that to the side here the agency considered the reliance interest secretary nicholson did so quite clearly and explicitly the


the persons and this is helpful to the agents in the field to identify which individuals are going to be subject to enforcement and which individuals are not other statutes provided that benefit you're correct that it triggers that


quartered a moment ago said dock what was on lawful thus we had to terminate it now and it does and it's not contemporaneous and then that is the basically the policy decisions are saying we understand people may have relied on this but that's just


that was very likely correct and it follows from two different companions of this would warrant it if i'm going to it's a similar question to what exactly you're claiming because you had a malicious prosecution claim in the original complaint and that was


evidence in order to convict what is the closest analogy come


that's the most prosecution for former fabrication evidence and fabrication of evidence caused a deprivation of liberty the tracks very much what mr wall had and said in his presentation to you and we agree very much that there is a difference


abnormal weather or other occurrences is usually how it's freezed in the american pieces i'm not aware of an american case that actually applies it or in american arbitration for that matter that actually applies at the arbitration point if i might it just loops back to something that we


if you believe that what you've done is moral that would revolutionize com one and the only element that you are adding to that is that this is caused by a mental disorder so it becomes important to


is is that the good and evil principle of right and wrong principle as applied to the insane it's the application to the end saying that has is deeply rooted in our country and where those people i mean in today's time those people wouldn't be


not that many but there are some we have them in our brief in the footnotes from the courts of appeals but also when i'm think about that question i also think that zipes in our bar in this kind of case and so it has come up before in this court i think it's zipes that was


make that much of a difference so is your approach focusing on who is being regulated or what is being regulated it is focused on what is being regulated as i said at the outset our test is does


obviously the other side has put heavy emphasis on travelers and you would say travelers does not apply here and does not control here because most just leave you to fill in the blank there so you know travelers does not apply here


that and then go to the to the on preserved errors but i guess the point i would make is courts of appeals have found a way to deal with it they haven't just said oh just because you know because we had this problem we're just going to assume everything is preserved and and go on to to consider a


to amend basically to add a claim something like what happened in the one decision in those fifty years that did say that adding the due process claim was an abuse of the


just to receive a judgment but


i mean if you if you if the motion is deny then that that disposition murty into the final judgment and you have one


any of these arguments over the entire course of those twenty two thousand cases that burden is going to outweigh well the fifty nine ease not wildly successful in any context so your argument is really an argument


responsibilities to their clients to move the case along to the court of appeals and so in our view that's what congress was doing here congress looked at hevia slid a geisha in prior to the an argument of at and recognize that it was flooding the federal courts with


emotions in some cases where they don't actually make a b s claims but just to be clear our argument is more modest it's not that because section two thousand two hundred and sixty six doesn't mention rule fifty nine emotions they're categorically prohibited our argument is that when congress looked really carefully at


and i don't think the government has put forward that case because i think that many of the context will clues that apply in the nearby statutes also apply in a stop time rule or at least there isn't a sufficient reason for construing those statutes differently so st of all i think it's


insane judge is going to pick up these exceptions and transform them into actual grounds for disqualifying somebody from removal for the exceptions would remain the exceptions you don't need all this


it's only logical to read the rd provision which doesn't mention section i mean to a two as doing the relatively modest role in that every of just picking up the things that are referred to or render and you know i will before you leave this think about the


sector title seven that specifically cross references portions of the ninety one civil rights amendments that apply the motivating factor test and if that's right your honor this court has never addressed it we haven't we did not contest that below but if that's right then


people destroyed by war


to get a photo pass for and do the shooting for the cynic training at the time was one of my favorite musicians and and i remember being up on stage and i mean like right by the speakers and it will to get some really awesome


we're speaking with rebecca bowman another candidate for the peters township school director position i'd like to start off by asking you to describe the strengths and qualifications that you would bring to the office well thank you i appreciate the


experience working in multiple governments and multi county government to the table to push washington county forward we lag behind in a lot of areas as far as technology so i want to make sure that i'm bringing my work experience in my youth to make


having a hard day yes it takes like three to four and five weeks for you to develop new taste but they grow back so for instance if you just use eating mcdonald's and oreo cookies francis and soda i


ok maybe we could do it this way today and really start looking at making some step by step changes that will be lasting in the long run so my colleagues and friends who are participants with me and you in the insight health fitness


so we can decide to toss it but i like to toss it when it gets to the table ok over it was i like any family going to make it pretty by adding the little pieces of you and that's a very nice way to start your dinner


i play with various combos we form combos quite often so you know you do play with many different times we need to bring a combo of the play here now yeah yeah we have a beautiful studio where you say that on your own reward


foundation for the you know the last twelve years one of my favorite programs is one we created called girl god and it we take a hundred girls to harrisburg many of them might be listening and watching the series now we take them to harrisburg just out of their state legislators so they can get a


so when i've gone to harrisburg to advocate for these kinds of things one of the things that's broken my heart is that too often the person on the other side of the table will come back and talk with us and it's like talking point you know they are talking about they


i've always had a love and passion for community and and for working with people i actually started off so my bachelor's degrees in biology and chemistry


that so that's that's coming down the pike still with us thank you so much for this conversation and for your work in the work of you and your train your colleagues at north point health and wellness and i'm excited i believe you


started i created everything for the show with and like a six month period but what i wouldn't do if i was in a good mood if i wasn't happy i wouldn't pick up a thing because i wanted to really for love and goodness i believe everything


put on a have a when i walked into this room and i was like oh my goodness when you tell us hats i didn't even think about hats like the not these are facts you know you go to some stores and it's just low regular hats


know because people that yeah i say that all the time you never know like you say what they're going through and that's what people have to be careful with their word is why you know just because you have a problem this need to put it on somebody else that's why and you might say that one thing and puts them over the


at this time we would like to welcome deputy chief grimes to talk about consequences of bad choices


it's a combination of a film and a musical performance i am going to seem bad to know i will be singing no it will be somebody quite a bit more famous than i why why well this is somebody who's traveled the world


because it was calm and peaceful and bringing people together as a right but it didn't impact the fact that it had it had a huge impact on the community so it started from with and and it was only through doing that that work charity work through those


tea time so today speech actually we have a belgian chocolate pleasure and i actually mixed in some chinese spices and some coke in it pieces so i hope you love it sounds delicious and what i tell people is to taste it


a school of some sort but i found that working with adults was something that i really wanted to do but not in a classroom setting so after i graduated from northwestern i moved to new york


ever says well how you can invest and make money well so i know really you know love that this is a really unique company that not only sells your home but you're also investing you know the time you have here empowering us and learning how to grow and make money


do that hopefully at the end we will have some time for questions but we do ask that you all listen respectfully and that you really take this moment to take in what our speakers have to say some of them traveled a great distance to be here


into n h l dot com and stuff like that that's what i care about but this morning because of doing this i want i just typed in records for pennsylvania like arrest records for pennsylvania a couple different sites came up i clicked on one


department is to protect consumers throughout a lot of financial industries we oversee part of the banking sector the state banks we oversee insurance in minnesota we oversee the real estate


next you know we haven't got to the second or third you know it's but but we could do that instead of having one tag cover all topic for the year and have individual takes cover aspects of topics


i'm learning every day what is how to how to get there and know starting to bring people on into the right company so i'm not the only one yeah what are some of the things that are holding you feel it's kind of


my what i was my what you want to look at i was always an entrepreneur always had a little business on the side proud little side hoe yes and it would become a full time in between and then you get called in by somebody to do something for them yes as they called


football team big gotta get out i see my young men to see and so i didn't say who wrote this who put this together so i went on facebook and i had someone that was a friend also that's my social media is good


festival and it was just one of those agreements that jay and i had because he knew i was a huge jazz fan and i just always wanted to be a part of the festival so yeah so i had been there i think i've been working for the festivals my fifth year so really second year as director


talents going to services it was nurtured and encouraged at an early age had a great relationships with all of my art teachers males females of different diversity's artists just such a universal thing that


so i like the question i'm going to ask that question to the directors and find out you know what would be that incentive and ultimately you know from a budget perspective you know if we can help reduce some of those costs


us and they have helped the county in many many ways by the way i mean with regards to these electric chargers that we have the targeting on sale so they're out there they're x they're accessible they're here let's use them all we can but don't we are looking at


you know other types the types of uses that they're you know using those vehicles for this change to the culture the organizational culture when it comes to these particular assets


example in the can we've invested in kind of the wind farms of course that has elapsed for the time that investment was only a five year after that that company who was i guess managing the counting or however they


i'm assuming every department is looking at it from there they're eating and where they are because it's kind of a two way street it's not just you looking at applebee's or where you could employ men we know their use of renewable energy


rejected captain hamilton is a good commander it's true that he has quite a temper and that he takes a little too much personal initiative but i'm convinced that while these aspects are negative on earth they are very useful to a commander in chief of such a very


the rest of you remain on board


minneapolis so your district your ward might ward were in fifth board right now i live in the neighborhood as well but we have been beset by a series of events that have the community you could see


like ours black youngsters you get dress take a bath go outside stand in front of a house you look to the left you look to the right and there's absolutely nowhere to go because there's nothing in the community for you to do there is no bowling alley


what we are testing is it due to a council damage or or is it due to something else and if it's due to something else then it's not because it was a council manager and we should disregard that kind of that kind of thing so we have to take it so we've got to attribute the values that


you know you become a city normally you incorporate you say you know what i've grown up and guess what i don't need you stay right i really don't need you fell government i'm a bum i know that you and that's kind of scary to me because you know you do transition that


of music you know there's something there something gritty about the attitude of the music and you know it might be the life and times of that era and generation but


and invited us to come in and i got my first opportunity to sit in on a drum set and so i played on this guy's drums and i loved it and then after that my brother went home to my parents


you know doing a lot of that to actually just turn a place into a musical education center said so and instead of you know stores that give lessons we're more of a school that has a store that sells gear on the side so we're going to focus


it sometimes you've got to do with the feeling you go with which you feel like you're supposed to do something that you have to do just like you play the game when your kid for a blindfold on the play hot or cold if you get close to the


please the court the only damages theory in this monopolization action is rooted in a thirty percent commission that apple charges app developers and which allegedly causes those developers to increase app prices to


here the first step is the maker's pricing decision because the respondents the consumers are injured if and only if the yet makers decide to increase their prices in order to recoup gen and i have to say i find that a not intuitive


that they're saying the developers may have their own claim their damages likely have to stay within the thirty percent but we don't measure our damages by that so respectfully disagree with that and explaining


over charge based on what they've been are police is selling the app for versus what it would be sold for in a competitive market the antitrust scholars and i would direct you to page twenty three of their brief they go through


theory which maintains that the thirty percent commission is a monopoly price it's called the monopolies price it's elsewhere call the super competitive price it is the root of the damages theory not just in part not just on the periphery but entirely


ginsburg's question which is brick and mortar retailers if they choose to operate in any given jurisdiction have to comply with that jurisdiction there are lot of retailers that have to comply with lots of different jurisdictions rules why should we favor


percent but it's still not responsive council you're just merely pointing out that more an internet retailers are moving toward brick and mortar fine but again why should this court favor those who don't


barriers to entry one of the inevitable effects is going to be that those small and medium sized companies are going to be deterred and there will be even greater concentration by the largest retailers again i think that is


can't show or even allege prejudice i think it would be very difficult to get a remedy but that doesn't differentiate this claim from any number of hundreds of different decisions that a district court makes throughout the course of litigation which are very


cases that there might be a decision with respect to use of restraints against a particular defendant and then there would be no opportunity for that defendant to get immediate appellate review this court already has authority under the rules enabling us to twenty eight u s


justice kagan raised earlier between major and minor crimes police officers can't have a taxonomy in mind of what's a significant enough crime to arrest for and what's not and moreover even some seemingly minor crimes as the amicus brief of the district of columbia numerous


respond the alleged animus was on the part of the city council but in order to have a complete violation it would need to be carried out by the officer which requires an inquiry into the officer state of mind in the officers intent more moreover there is no basis


it's a very deep and fundamental due process problem if you've never had an opportunity to obtain review of the agency's decision making never could have the idea that you are subsequently barred under the surface right right so there must be a holding on that


independent cable operator is going to be the party that operates the public access channel unless and until the municipality in this case the city of new york appoints a third party to do it the other the franchise specifically says that the


to decide who would have access to a facility in central park would you say eminent is not and is not then a state actor in exercising that authority so


administrator leiby on the ground that they're not administering the world first come first serve policy or in a state court so you know what petitioners of suggest is that we turn to the public service commission and the docket forty nine to destroy her we explain that our clients


but i think that you didn't reject all of the legal reasoning that led to the liberation horse results i mean you rejected the equal footing doctrine holding you rejected the temporary precarious approach to characterizing treaty rights which was a premise of the second starting


what you can regulate under the conservation interest your honor there are significant gaps that can do what it would give me some examples so we can understand the practical consequences the most important your honor is safety hunting seasons


we would create a chilling effect as to the border patrol agents and conducting their day to day activities but i don't know not only a chilling effect you would be the lower court


act but that's not what the court was doing in villains and that's not the way it's conceived to begin its leader cases it was implying a special rule not for everybody but for federal officers directly under the constitution in the absence of any statutory authorization from congress that's


is not based on whether someone is a federal or state employee states have a credible prize the nub of this it seemed to me that is it the case that if the state never thought of this it wasn't against the marshals


so now the judge as i just read to you in the second sentence of section thirty five fifty three e directed right back to the guidelines and the guideline range and it's in one other thing i want to point out while i'm talking so that means that departure is


does that count under florida law as robbery it depends i think it would a few more facts but i think i think the florida cases do focus just on this issue and if i could if i could illustrate


not at all section four attendee provides that the effective date of registration is when the cop the application fee and deposit have been written received in a form that is acceptable


first answer is i think there are these two critical exceptions that deal with the problem quite well my second answer is that in the rare case and i think frankly it is rare where you would have the him an incentive reparable injury that


the register of copyrights the second thing to notice is that the second sentence says that when you refers to delivering to the copyright office your deposit application in fee and proper form you might recognize that's in it that's what my friend says registration has been made


records by registration number or by title reveals the document the second is that registration has been made and i think the the obvious implication there is that that too is going to create a public record of when of the working of the registration of the work and that's


to you know section seven zero eight it as the government has acknowledged was adopted in one thousand nine hundred two has nothing to do with litigation rights and remedies and therefore really says nothing about how the provision should be properly construed in


fractures given that your proposal talked i think in six different sentences about stress fractures so let me address the stress fracture language because i think that may be causing


either would or wouldn't take america off the hook my real question for you is suppose we're not in either one of those worlds suppose we have an ambiguous letter who should decide how to construe it i think the court ultimately


sufficient to support an addition of some warning to the warnings of precautions section thank you counsel because


interest perhaps months later why doesn't that tell us exactly what it was up to because the standard is lower and if you look at that press release in march of twenty ten when the f d a uses the phrase causal connection that's not what


increase in this risk overall of at risk in women using these medications so there are indications in this record that they thought that it is more dangerous to put the route the label to


someone like me or common person what you do is you sit home you go to your office and one day this complicated letter comes and it says there is a class action being filed the due by some pencils from so and so


thing and under the no inquiry rule that's not enough so you shouldn't worry about the fact that it didn't harm so the answer to that question is we have multiple multiple concrete injuries here and the things that we're seeking flow from the particular injuries


the entirety of the trust corpus and let me tell you about history so the rule for present beneficiaries with a contingent interests has been settled since at least eighteen thousand and eight dollars according to the english courts of


percent these petitioners will never get any of this is to come regardless of whether it's zero or fifty if i understand your argument you are acknowledging that if they have an equitable interest then they have standing is that correct if they had a property interest and


flow to the individuals can they sue if they're not harmed so it's at the contingent beneficiary analogy that we've been talking about if you go to contingent beneficiaries either of whom could receive fifty percent might have a fifty percent shot at getting the trust corpus


a majority of a reasonably drawn district we knew in this case that that was true because of course between one thousand nine hundred and two thousand and ten republican voters had formed the majority of a reasonably drawn district that's why in this case we had focused


might add that i think today that as the campaign legal center laid out in its brief in this case challenge to maryland's partisan gerrymander in two thousand and eleven would likely succeed under the approach that they've taken conversing i think the


expressly rejected a lower standard rejecting some metaphysical could be burden in favor of the plug for cause test in this court you seem to now be backing away from the but for cause requirements best i can tell in


gerrymandering case the plaintiffs have to come forward and show that electoral outcomes have been changed in the past and will continue to be changed until the map is altered and that is not what this court that is not a position that we took in the district when more


to achieve here but actually i have something more here i have the f l s say of which the eighty e a a is closely related and the court in the congress made exactly the same decision in the f l us would you say something about what your


general matter sure if they're putting up crosses in every courtroom every d m v window and all the parade of hypotheticals we've got on the other side i can certainly understand why somebody would believe is that they're trying to convert you to christianity after all the hallmarks


in the order i want to write an invalid application but it was no six in down well in fact there were there were communications that were intercepted from a


two fellow paramedics one of whom paramedic cost who documented in the day exactly what had happened and the fact that mr sure puharich first of all when called upon to serve this patient who was in a life threatening situation actually had


bernstein gave some of the best testimony because he mentioned that although there's degenerative disc problems in mr and mr schwartz spine the l five s one level actually was not very degenerative


truck driver he then went through a series of physicians in terms of care he was seen by doctor to draw and at that point in time he had no radiating symptoms into his alarm's he had a normal


more than five of them i believe you're driving privileges in illinois or suspended that's a deal that simply you don't get the other problem that they pose and


virus contract if there are equities involved ok i'll grant that and if this court finds that that transaction is illegal unconstitutional in some major faction factor


fifty five or sixty days at that point my duty under this provision ended unless the union unless the union agreed to prolong the period and the union that only


with the issues in the case and the facts so you don't need to spend a lot of time on the facts and i would like to reserve a couple of minutes for a bottle all right and same


facts prevention act came about at that time congress wrote for ways to further enforce provide additional information of the statute it's not find that class actions were an issue


not out to protect from what i can tell the class how to generate additional litigation and he's certainly not out just to get his damages because if that was the case he would have accepted the twenty five hundred which he admitted covered his expenses and moved on your


limited itself to the narrow set of facts in their case the defendant of the anderson was accused of attempted murder and monday and the instructions in that clarified between which bit dumb and so the jury in that case could have reasonably assumed that the attempted murder charge


but we've also led now we have the written agreement which is between sloan and and the and silver myself i excuse me my programs we've got the issue with the trade secrets that if they're putting out an identical product to those in telling people look we've got these products there's


was not i don't believe it's accurate as counsel stated that this stay was imposed on the defendants in the lake county action it was entered into by the agreement of the parties


fair interpretation of the statute section six g addresses a particular option that was made available as a result of a compromise between man some manufacturers and the dealers


a permanent photo of you then it was settled in one of those it before the commission that's right that's right so we're looking at a compensable accident resulting in further disability which prevents him from performing his regular job and let's not forget


i'll rest on our brief signs on other issues in clear associates this court affirmed dismissal of a legal malpractise complaint in that case claire associates was


handfuls of paley's in recent years we've just based on the cost of an actuary which isn't much it's about five thousand dollars but for the smaller towns that's it it's a big hit what they've done is they've agreed to


in this case as to the presence of the persisted for more than two weeks the uncontested evidence that the standard of care requires a persistent lesion in the world cavity in this case the tongue to be biopsied if it's present for two weeks or


at the forms they filled out you look at dr mae as next records and they're all consistent with an insidious onset they're all consistent with an onset december twenty five two thousand and ten if you look at dr bernstein's report which the commission


day on a case that our office refers to as the forty year old support case mr samuel sneer else the appellant in this case testified in court without hesitation that in fact he paid no support


periodic installments the statute of limitations does not begin to iran until each installment becomes do so in one thousand ninety seven when you had the new the new law in effect anything


discretion that's the that's the standard we have to look at when you're looking at the second reason to affirm my client's system so you don't support


so it's not just not a three month the way actually one could argue and one we might well have argued if we had an expert that would have supported that there delay the delay varies a lot lot goes farther back than eighteen


try the trial court found as well that there is a provision of says even if you're beyond your stature if you're sued when you counter claim you have the saving stature so i think that's the that's the answer that


materials that he brought to the court and also something what does it matter for the purpose of a motion to quash awareness does not matter if you could be perfectly well aware they could be sued but if you have been served everything the judge does is void


and i would submit that that argument misses the mark the defendant here was only charged with criminal drug conspiracy he was not charged with possession with intent to deliver he was charged with conspiracy the state had to prove that he entered into an agreement


presented no danger to himself in the school she's not she's opposition to it to make medical diagnoses but what she did was within her role as the school psychologist she made these terminations and then actually did follow up with the teachers now


discretionary act and that's attached to the immunity with respect to the supervision this whole claim is based on a failure to supervise the child the failure to disseminate means it didn't have an additional supervision over the


the agreement was formed between the parties on april fifteenth when there was an application to buy a firearm from blights the state wants to have it have the leon proof we need a green mentor rose but it's actually the


making it clear that an application is when a buyer and seller wish that agreement to purchase a firearm and that's well grounded in the language of contract law in this court's decisions interpret in contract law and that's not to say that the u


loosely to terms but if under illinois law the minimum is nine transactions as far as the case law goes that after nine transactions or so you have an established course of dealing such that a simple meeting of the minds would suffice to give you one oral contract or a wooden


agreement to procure power for areas customers for other companies customers the stature descriptor clear that the commission can require con ed to procure power only for com ed own eligible retail customers and that's a statutory defined term which


sourcing of clean coal the tricity is a legislative mandy this is what the legislator want legislature wanted a source when courage the use of advance clean coal technologies that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions to advance environmental protection goals they


the right for the defense to bring these issues out during the trial and there certainly can be said cannot be said to be any surprise or any abuse of discretion in the judge's rulings on this issue and if again i would also want to point out


so again on the two thirteen issue i feel that judge goldberg made the right decision and not only the right decision was well said if satisfies the discretionary his discretion and making the


three and a half months after mr nor dhoni died there is simply a substitution of the two existing notes as of the date that third note was executed which by the way had the same wrong number with zero zero three at the end the amount of


says that standard will not disperse the loan proceeds until it receives the three guarantees that dug into the studious and nardone guarantees and why is that a conflict it's a conflict because as you know mr duggan


some time address the the factor but there the cameras were not doing a direct life feed but there were they were doing my flashlamp still shots so it was like three seconds every


style uniform the reason they wanted the police style uniform as mr riggs testified to is because there were occasions where within the various units in this four story building syntagma his personnel would call for security the security officer would


whatsoever and were actually discouraged from even standing in the lobby and standing talking to the receptionist in conversation because of the way that we retire they did not want patients to be discouraged from coming and seeking


same reason why the borrower's affidavit in this case that she did not receive notice of sale or or that she was not that


record it's contradicted based on then briefing that was submitted at the trial court level but indicates that the power hadn't established and had submitted a completed application had


application was submitted as i indicated earlier that the borrower submitted the file to detail that if it's attached to which were


it should come after the fact that's not what the rule impatience and i don't i just think there's a problem with this plea because the judge didn't do what the rule says i don't think there was substantial compliance when he didn't


rudeness yes and that was satisfied here patient and i believe that will satisfy their ideation it's being told that they're lying and they're faking when they have actual injuries told to get out of here being forced to stand up and then drive this is ground


doesn't look like their library situation is going to work out for me at consulting with friends i've looked into different positions i'm not qualified for them and now she starts going by our side where as a pastor parent not knowing that she has been has such a


that subsequent acts create new claims and that's also consistent with acid tekken patent law in this court's cruel cases like m g m versus the trial on the copyright context where each act of infringement is a


granting our motion to dismiss which led to the appeal in marcel two and what it means is that in exchange for six hundred and fifty thousand dollars my client locky


unfairness to the party so i thought we were here to decide whether that was the law and i thought that they were the only ones who've ever said that and i don't know where they got it from i couldn't my law clerk couldn't find any case that


d risk corridors provision the part d risk orders provision contained express language that it states an obligation of the secretary to pay for medicare part d drugs and it


unilag contract it's accepted through performance and then the government has to pay but if for some reason you think you don't get a contract unless the statute says the word contract then you just treat it as a statutory obligation to pay my friend said that all those cases of justice


know what i mean they're thinking about a method of execution as applied to the general class of people and deciding that it's appropriate and what of course makes this case very different is that it's not engross it's a particular person


or information harvested from the form or information attached and submitted for the purpose of satisfy the requirements of the form we don't think expressing preemption gets them their nd with respect to the benefit question which i think goes perhaps to i'm not sure if it goes to conflict or field i'm a little


i just want to make them in force make them arbitrate with me because dot dot dot because it's more convenient to it seems the fish in it seems fair whatever rules you know the local jurisdiction might invoke they want to say that those local rules