agreements had all expired prior to around the time that jeff price stepped mister price you arranged for him to receive a nd opportunity to invest in the company and that those shares


commercial entity but let me ask you about your deal with c b s i mean that was many years ago it was a contract for i think three thousand two hundred dollars or twenty three one hundred dollars i don't remember exactly but i'm trying to


customers one one retailers anyone in the market and the th circuit how that is the latter but it's not limited just to current customers and it said i quote it is


incidental to the vast injunction they originally sought or we would hope jury trial for that reason the court correctly identified findings on the library got to bases you know to quit when asked about reasonable modification the district court said when


categorical distinction between class c one class three depending upon whether it's cervical or harass the lama oh let me ask you this then if if we were to find that the plaintiff adequately alleged that


it seems to me this is the weakest part of your defense that this is the strongest part of the relator his claim that they're just that there is enough here that is was of all at least go forward with


pursuing that since it's already they've already gotten attorneys fees on that well they can claim it been raised three has never been decided it's never been tried we know where the murders are concerned regardless of what we


that if they didn't agree with us they would be sanctioning a fraud so for mr ford's lead to say that our claim should be disallowed that's just not true our claim was for over five dollars to two thousand and ten no one else knows about that claim


cannot use that terminology and it sounds like you're saying that you would not agree to that i mean i i i don't want to i don't want to cut


to twenty five two to twenty eight it gets at the burdens of identifying class members on a prescription perspective bases and one of the key points is make it makes is it's not so easy as having somebody who is on a list come


except exactly the same as what occurred my understand it and they may have had a separation but he was coming out of no if two bars headed if two bars had charged him a nd time this might be a different case and your honor in this


attorneys fees i r s there's unsecured claims there are secured claims you know the secure claims i don't think was there but all of those been paid out everything's been paid but after everything was paid guess what there's fifty nine thousand three hundred ninety dollars less


step that this was the most invasive search possible how do we link that back to that well it really wasn't the most invasive search possible sort of a body put on a literal strip search they could on a body cavity search they could have done it was somebody who wasn't the school nurse i mean


ok there's been no bar question about trust in twenty years when what i want leads you to believe that


keeping and indeed the record keeping is the only part of the regulations which are in effect new but if you don't allow the agency which supervises the conduct to decide what conduct is


only can be determined in one of two ways the first allows the defrauded party that would be the person who bought the home to recover the benefit of his bargain that is the value of what he would have if the representation is


given two hundred thousand a month you know at the conform we probably would have either are looked on or give a contract we would have overlooked the management approval requirement


prove good moral character so isn't the burden upon him if there's some ambiguity here that you know the government puts up to have what would appear to be some serious charges concerning his character a for him to clear this up and show


a naturalization case where the alien is looking for a benefit from the government the law clearly says that the burden is on him here at the dock immense on their face show that there was a conviction for an aggravated felony and to the extent that there was any ambiguity it was his burden to show


to recognize that the forest service took into account one very important aspect and i mentioned this before but i mention it one more time is one of the most damaging impacts to spotted owl habitat could be a catastrophic fire and the whole


thing but it is the factual inquiry whether that staffing shortage in the emergency room or a case of emergency which required a volley to float outside the intensive care unit no that is that is controlled by the collective bargaining agreement


be the case but opposition here is our this case is different because it is not a standalone case it's not a standalone case because to proffer our legitimate nondiscriminatory reason we must rely on the language of the collective bargaining


don't think i did but if an attorney gets it wrong as long as it was the call was not me to frustrate the the court that


reasonable mistake to be made when she received the order dismissing her case without prejudice she understood the dismissal without prejudice allowed her to bring to bring her excuse me on to her claim again the only reasonable reading of this day


well more than one person with a weapon yes they all did which i think i think is one of the reasons why the introduction of the tapes was heart was harmful and had an effect on the jury's verdict the


no written agreement whatsoever they were oral out of the fifty eight there were these five or six that were the generic contracts but when the district just reached an agreement terminated so did those generic contracts terminate


to mr parent in favor of mr favor he says he's concerned about what happened how it happened the difficulty in trying to ascertain issues with respect to solicitations how all of this happened at three o'clock in the morning


fact it was approved by medicare then there would have been reimbursement but they chose that the assignment issue for someone they take that assignment route as the eleventh circuit rule then in fact you have to assure yourself because the stat the


the pressure on the supplier to try to second guess the judgments of the doctor so that the doctor can do what the doctor supposed to do which is to to look at the patient and say can the patient survive without having this device in


medicare reimbursements is simply doing reimbursements at this time and the other cases that the government size the mckinsey case in the gulf coast medical case those clients are out of business they're in


had something like a ninety one percent reach which is enormous you don't mean reach twenty percent ninety one percent reading rate you know and physical obligation and yes in the ninety one percent you know not only a question of you're too good at this you're absolutely right


which is what we're going to do in a giveaway and we're valuing them at the same price we typically sell them to consumers who you know you're getting values and we never put in the record for a lot of different reasons why what our absolute cost is that's confidential also as a


person was like go because of illegitimate reasons and let me show you the next that is judge thomas that's the hard part i think what you're getting at is the is there evidence of pretext for the jury enough evidence in the record for


kaplan and he came up with the story that supposedly what mr replaceable said whether ms kaplan was going to be denied a job because they would not accommodate the days off that she


discrimination in this decision and if i meet mr ms forbes mr harrington and i do to get rid of her in this pattern of concern i want to be sure that i dressed


nineteen hundreds where men and women never lived apart so i mean he does give you know he does he does present a lot of evidence but the question is if the court


and to require the eighty's to the department of corrections to make good faith efforts to acquire especially items in the spirit of the original consent decree he has never once


said she had had a fight with her son and said get out get out what we don't have is anything more concrete even if we looked at that inadmissible statement in the context of the fight the same morning that the


than the parents verbal consent and the handing to them of the key but whether they had to have their written signature on a form along with their presence during the search and that was not necessary also the while the


finally actually i will reserve the rest of my time for a bottle


does it violate constitutional rights when it clearly does not because no one participating candidates have a choice they can either and accept the x funding limits when not opt in and have


qualified school of the parents truest your honor what i believe the supreme court was saying was that any parent is permitted to apply to any s t o to attend any school that is funded by that as cio that's


you wouldn't be able to guess from that question right well your prediction is correct i hope you will allow me a minute or two to talk about the merits of the


and if you take what she has played as true which we do for the purpose of said my judgment and for this argument and you will correct the facts that she puts on her complaint certainly you


you get to this particular timeline then you realize that right temporarily of two thousand the promise that she claims she relied on is not coming to fruition that counterbalances going


leave act does not preempt state statutes but i'd like to move on to another issue which is issue of pretext the court granted summary judgment in this matter and


it was a new hire in hawaii it was in two thousand and four there was a new hire yes and they did not offer on the spot the kind of job but page sixty five of donna pay six deposition i asked her when did reliant hired new


and the regulations specify that you cannot segment one army action from another in order to avoid the reach of need so when you look at their own regulations they didn't understand them in the way that point nine five acres


prejudice i believe that the shackling cases go as the court is well aware and just recently indecorous is missouri the prejudice analysis


to mean both a natural person and a corporation and that definition is generally applicable throughout the nevada revised statutes let's point out that that definition was inaccurate in nineteen eighty five the same year that the current version of


aggravated felony that was a decision that now could lead to his return to guatemala and could literally cost him his life the degree of burden which a retroactive order imposes on a party again in this case the burden of applying this


i see a particular request here in any event but you comment on a little bit about preserving the record and i have good thoughts about that where is evidence in this case of any significance of harm to the


there's a lot of strength imposed understandably by judge hagen because he was implementing this course mandate an extra target area ali i understand that's what everybody was focused on the question it seems to me is whether


get anything more out of the instruction if the dollar amount is put on it than being told that the players were fully compensated it absolutely does for us now you're going to argue that the jury has to be in structure that it


contract you can't ok and the state statute says the state statute required a public hearing if she requested one if she requests and the way she gets requests is they give her twenty four hour notice that they're going to scratch an executive session


then that incorporated the the regulation interpretation advocate do not know of any cases since the regulation i know of cases prior to the regulation there cited the wall case being the leading


sixty six using an atlas of gina de launch vehicle photographic reconnaissance will be its prime tatts and there is considerable flexibility in the way the photographs can be tied together


budget it gets turned in hero in february early february of two thousand and seven is then as the baby did in the congress hopefully passed late in the year and we spend that money then in two thousand


including those that are on some of which are already in the supplemental but you would have had basically a full time equivalent growth of ninety two thousand people and that was based on the satisfying the projections


scepter thank you mr chairman welcome mr secretary manchin we'll be seeing you in another subcommittee at some point along the way i wanted to just go back to make sure i heard you correctly on page


credit what it means is we have to recover the cost of what was damaged sector understand that ok and let me let me pursue this how long do you expect this war in iraq to last miner standing the joint


places the plate the places where you can phone where you can register etc so delegation i don't think is in this case the question is what is the legislature and if your question is well you know now we know that


exercise eyes rule right to rescind that is to initiate the on winding process that constitutes rescission by sending a timely and valid notice sending that notice does not accomplish


lender says no that's not a valid right it's not timely the bar of the statute gives the borrower not only a cause of action for damages under sixty forty but a cause of action for an award of


traditionally by organic acts of congo and it is either northern marianas your honour's they are in an interesting position that is generally more analogous to puerto rico in the sense that they are a commonwealth of the northern marianas


against their peace and dignity two can enact laws without the interference of the other and three draws authorities to punish the offender and this is the one that you've been arguing from a


hundred fifty s cases they said territories which at that time were creatures of congress that was considered to be a separate sovereign for double jeopardy that's the historical antecedent but in the twentieth century particularly in wheeler and the more recent cases the


europe which was the tradition that applied prior to nine thousand nine hundred and not the common law i don't see when you put all those things together if you're looking at the facts of what the law of puerto


you i mean we told the un this doesn't sound like we said it was a municipality your honor un said the puerto rico has been invested with the attributes of political sovereignty which clearly identify the status of self government


deny double jeopardy effect to something that that would be double jeopardy but i'm talking about a statute that says even though it might have double jeopardy if we say you say no well i write in what i'm saying is i think congress is


that with respect to these other statutes that deal with other agencies of the government that administer lands it is generally true i can't say that it's exclusively it's true across the board but it's generally true that there's a


case it was a white line in the military said once somebody crossed the white line that's where section thirteen eighty two begin and if if your colleague is correct that the green line marked the edge of the easement


at the risk of repetition the reason i'm asking this question is the record is not developed i looked at the google maps it looked to me like you syria is sort of a suburban house with a lawn in front of it and


preview the evidence that the state may present and the arguments that may be made this court has recognized that potential tactical advantage in other jointer cases of course it's not had a jointer capital case like this but in other circumstances that's a factor the court is


it leads to whatever outcome the jury decides but the jury was very clearly told to consider each defendant individually and that's what they got was individual consideration i would


as just the sort of my or alluded to it's also part of the statutory standard that states by and large are applying but we think the constitutional question is just was this person deprived of a fair trial by the evidence that came in and that's the constitutional question you said it the first


dr cunningham join appendix pages three twenty four to three twenty nine explain how john king looked up to reggie and every time they would get together they would they would do drugs have we together that


provision but you're right before that point you wouldn't necessarily be able to and that would be a perfectly lawful lawful conduct and it's also important to talk we were talking just a fire about it before you go on i want to get back to the al capone hypothetical as i


i'm sorry transferees applied only to licensed dealers until one thousand nine hundred six it didn't apply to two private individuals so the kind of straw purchase on behalf of al capone as i understand it under petitioners would've been perfectly legal from one nine hundred sixty eight to one hundred eighty six


fools we don't doubt that he did hold that opinion as his sincere but he had no basis for that whatsoever that's what the complaint


statute has to be read in favor of the staff of the taxpayer and that's because of the candidate this court has recognized that tax penalties are strictly construed in favor of the taxpayer here at a bare minimum there is ambiguity as to whether the


must find it's appropriate to regulate means that the other well the illusion that they didn't that they didn't look at the availability of technologies is that what you're saying that they thought that the bill of bill or the of technologies was itself


to mitigate certain dramatic or onerous costs on certain segments of the industry but that's not an unknown provision of any kind and indeed it seems to me that the provision very much cuts against your argument because


consideration ok then they take it into account so there's no problem if it's within it's a reason now they didn't like that so that's why i'm looking to see is the it's really the s g but i mean is there really a


what i do i think that i can i do think that if it's it's going to be based on differences in technology in operation i think from what you might be able to infer across but that's hypothetical in this case because this is not a case in which he needed to confront that question


is this something new and well function it does it through it creates the shadow accounts because of the concerns for security you don't you're not going to allow somebody to enter into central banks own accounts use it you create the shadow


that said i thought i'd obviously believe that all of our claims satisfy want to want and should go on to the next stage can i give you a hypothetical mr phillips and you tell me how it's different to the sample let's say you know thirty years somebody took a look around the world and said


and mayo holds that running such a principle on a computer is quote not a patentable application of that principle those two propositions are sufficient to dispose of this case if bilski and mayo stand alice's patents failed


well i think it's for the reasons that i gave earlier which is that this goes to the purchased sale mechanism and that we know that people have to have confidence in that order in order for the securities markets to work it may well be that people also lack


functional answer and historically and so i take your interest more to the functional and yes i'll start there there is a big difference between a single creditor single debtor situation inducing of the debtor was just trying to stop a foreclosure so the dead a could


deficiency within the time that's permitted or if they don't think they've got a problem they let it go that almost never happens that what the statutory notice of deficiency or the f d a will come out you usually don't get when you're nearing the end of the statue of limitations a raft


brief deliberative and that statute the provision says a reach may hold and dispose of legal title to property either quote in the name of the trust or in the name of the trustees thank you


and so all of these cases none of them said legal issues are reviewed deferentially and all i'm saying is that if you look at the legislative history if you look at the textual change of the statute those cases in between were


indiana to there looked progressive forward moving full of good sound enterprise and their homey and friendly hoosier town with all that that term implies even the big industrialized


college oh nothing much my father lost a wrestling match with his bank balance and i to send him some money gee that's tough you sure deserve a lot of credit pleasure putting yourself through college taking pictures with


i gather from your works are the sentiments of stephen decatur my country may she ever be right but right or wrong my country mr president i'm


have arrived at a very important decision concerning your career you are going to work with your brother donny in cincinnati don't you think so maybe i will not discuss the matter i have


what he's doing isn't the sort of thing i want to be a part


of course i beg your pardon it was somebody else


hotel well it's all right that they


distraction much as i dislike physical violence i can't allow anyone to strike me without returning the blow


the petitioners entitled to twelve independent impartial jurors who never really had a hearing in the district court about what has been established as misconduct there's no dispute that there was misconduct


i believe this goes to the concept of an agent for all purposes those judges were raised such that if a person indicates if the if the principal indicates that the agent can act without conferring with me and exercise their independent


miller was with pyramid there is a back and forth with the court as to just that there was an exchange a collaboration of what we're going to do with the specifications and in fact there are two memoranda in the supplemental excerpts of record that i would


drawing inferences in favor of t r w when all those differences should be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and she makes for example look on this whole business about the judge's order page thirty five of the record when she


five grand of your point eight three three years of service in which you work one thousand six hundred eleven and one thousand three hundred eighty two hours respectively i noted that in the i think the plan that was in effect when she


i'm sorry on the question with that i was talking about the language of the plan at the time he was laid off i think the five year language was the


hands in her panties looking for whatever they were looking for that's what i mean by strip search it was a very egregious restraint a very egregious violation of their rights and the problem is that the city has testified to by the police


so the room where they put the panache croup the banquet style more than the current main group and so you're looking at this fact again that they never


to not match the terms of the offer in certain circumstances under naturists that circumstance was the holder of the preemptive right subtractive the broker's commission knackers does not stand for the


as an investor on of the cases that they cite it's not enough to even show up even knew they had to have direct participation or be in a position where they're actually directing at preserving control of other workers who gives no i'm not really the straight secret you are


extensively i want to highlight three of them but before even i do that i want to touch upon one of the issues that were raised in that was raised in the previous argument and that is this whole consequence trucked of their


don't prevent that's one of their safety arguments the other argument they made and i don't quite understand is that expedites the recovery of vehicles after they've been towed that's nonsensical it's over that point the written authorization doesn't have anything to do with it


and we're prepared to go for the trial in fact we have an agreement that we're going to pay through trial so this issue that this is going to happen again and we're not going to be able to proceed that was gong so this concept of culpability i don't think is


examination was truly frustrated by the not letting them out of those additional questions i think it's somewhat similar to the lord's case in they grab say gonzalez case on their facts they said it was improper to strike the testimony when they were


and let me explain how that how that became an issue on the radar screen subject matter jurisdiction it was actually in connection with the motion for a protective order that i had one could filed in the underlying litigation and made a contention as


appropriate a pro choice by the judiciary on review is to examine what the court below actually did and as we said before and i don't think that i have heard a response to


and i'm i'm going to count them one two three four five six seven cases and i can recite them in a few of the sites or wants that many cases which hold


of someone that we're trying to bring back and that foreign governments are spies well if the united states is going to admit x or gaieties to bail then we're going to do the same thing and that may make it difficult for us to actually bring people back that


we're dealing with american citizens who are facing ordinary crimes where at the time of right person tanko we dealt with people from other countries with sort of on an extraordinary crime that actually


cannot say that the court's findings of direct benefits were clearly erroneous we so conclude even though some of the services e g discussions with the broker regarding valuation and marketing of the downy property appear to be services reflecting trustee


would do a check on him they did that records check in which was current perm that mr bill had no criminal record that that completely had eleven o two am he wasn't released until eleven fifty seven so what you


rendered in favor of the respondents so that really has been the thrust of of my argument so any procedural deficiency or any merits was waived at the time mr gill stipulated


continue to set up your distribution of not infringing works that's the balance here that's the balance that sony mandated and that's why so many is completely different than this case


one of the four petitions was denied on the merits while at the court look on page forty eight of the excerpts of record that the california court of appeal division five denied the first petition that meet being a third petition


now why can't the judge accept you know if if you take the context of that when the jurors in the courtroom and he's listening to her and observing and he


declarations come into play on the reasonable factors of an age right so if we get to that point and i think i was asking the question of the appellant saying if we got to that point and now we're looking at the ninety five what evidence


have identified the reasonable factors they haven't shown any other factors and they haven't shown in any way that those are unreasonable just as in some that's it's positive but if you have the affidavit of somebody from


based on his original application he would have to make some modification to his development to comply with the ordinance but once that application had been decided on a different basis there was nothing


a very famous case good night circuit they found a science fiction convention company as specifically sufficiently related to the dream works the movie corp so when they find the united states patent trademark office


twenty four one that's the statute that says you have to file your claim within two years when your cause of action accrues the second is the six month waiting period that's twenty six seventy five day and then the third block is the other half of twenty four one


thirteen as he refers to finding by preponderance of the evidence not any kind of legal conclusion and it maxine page where he said he would does not want to see any findings of fact inclusions


than on ambiguity it's a higher standard in the winner of court cases and there statistics the court found defamation alleged where the following allegations were served that the members of a particular condominium


is must didn't do anything didn't even talk to these guys on the day of the killing can he still be guilty of aiding and abetting the murder and of course the short answer to that question is yes


panels that ok we have evidence of intent we have evidence of actual confusion and even with that we think that the remedy needs to be quite fully and carefully fashioned to


illegal unconstitutional punch card machines but if that alexion had taken place california would have had no representatives in congress in violation of article one section so all the states executive officers from the governor


that the registration lost as they don't have to register they just filed an operation or do they have to register and pay some lesser amount but still register my understanding of the law


has issued the injunction or the general lawn handbills which is don't hear it's obviously in the middle and what you're saying is don't defer because it's like can't go in and the board is saying do differ


correct the banner bears were stationary with hands i have two questions about that one is about the verbal content of the banner and the others about the people holding it being stationary on the verbal content i look at these


quick turnaround verdict what sitting in our position are we supposed to infer and terms of the reasonableness of the state courts conclusion that was that


for your animal or company is thinking about using this program and product for some other use in tracking medical products or tracking breast implants or anything else and you


process because in the voters themselves have the right to participate at this point in the process because a recall can only happen if register voters decide that it will happen this is a very important part of the


moot even though the election's over because they're capable of repetition yearly baiting review and we have a whole bunch of electorate cases where they come up on short notice and we review them get them all done before the election and i can tell what


competing facts he resolved them in favor of the defendant the best example of this and we submit is the smoking gun is in that very letter dated may fourth two thousand signed by the prosecutor mr


and what that contemplates is that mr rubin will return millions of dollars to focus for the stay and that the state will assign certain claims to him that he can then pursue what happened to that tentative settlement


alluded to has been routinely upheld by this court and other courts and in fact other circuits have upheld time gaps up to twelve days now the subject matter as this court has noted colorado


partiality and second circuit said in the skin any reinsurance is one of the most owner's standards in the law and this court said in the locomotive case that the deference standard is one of the most limited you getting the


client and other things so i mean there was testimony about what state farm and there was some testimony about what happened before and going to eat you know and in it was some testimony about the rape the


it doesn't stay i don't know that has a specific date if we had been allowed to go before the court we could at least have said and shown that the and just in august of two thousand and eight mr mays gave mr fabian


the one thirty eight figures were less than that amount and i have not been able to see anything in the record will be pointed out that supports that figure of three thousand


have let's put that aside i'm looking at page one thirty eight the two thousand and nine census data that is in your report provide and it shows a distinct discrepancy between


the booth where the security guard stand to check people in out and he was talking to the guy and as most were ago came up mr cruz was standing there was one guy had to pass by since one incident two


she tells her that she's tried to commit suicide before so she wasn't trying to hide this from anyone she will repeat that she was not currently suicidal right well i believe she told she may have told two people that


answer accurately especially when you know that they're bipolar and that they have a suicidal history you may very well not feel suicidal at that exact moment whether she did or should she didn't is quite frankly unclear but if that seed is inside of


stereotypical view about how a person with a mental disease or defect or it's supposed to look you said by the visual observation she looked what are they what are they trying to look for well again these intake officers are


the issue was in the demise of the business in mr b dunes view it was occasioned by the economics of two thousand and eight two thousand and nine in our clients view it was occasioned by the mismanagement of the company by mr


certain things should have happened maybe they should but nowhere does even your client claim that she was actually under the influence of any of the medication that was discussed two months earlier at the at the arraignment proceeding at


agreement is the or her competency and her voluntariness to enter into that plea agreement well let's say that one magistrate does the arraignment in a different magistrate then takes the plea on behalf of the district judge


complete compliance he immediately pulled over he immediately and readily admitted he didn't have a driver's license at that point he was taken out of the car he was patted down he was arrested


means only above both fifteen and two million dollars excess in insurance law and in plain english refers to an amount more than fifteen million dollars it doesn't matter whether the insured is the first incurs


well before there was a pfizer payment xcel wasn't liable for the settlement payments and so the trial court said i'm going to treat you as if as if the you know you were actually liable for the payments and charge you with that


briefs the penalty interest but i would make two points judge bell correctly said that under the statute a settlement is not an award the statute only allows a an offset for the same interest


and a pillar of smoke


planned knowledge and identity you must not consider it for any other purpose did you did your trial counsel agree to that limiting instruction and as a cure of the problem i do think counsel by not objecting and certainly by reviewing


and that is the severe limitations that the seat places on the arbitrator with respect to his authority what is what was the arbitrator empowered to do here's a hypothetical in this all policy


appellee can't try to enforce an agreement that it breached first and there's just a little bit of common sense with that too why in the world would minix even think to pay severance under the phoenix corporation receipt


relationship with his client that they have that if certain fees are disallowed that other property of their client will be used to pay his fees but that really goes beyond the twelve b six


you're you referring your bridge brief to the cellar service guy regarding whether a service or a real estate agent can collect fees on a short sale but that's really not part of the complaint it would seem that we would need further


says that the supreme court's decision in the canon about after the fact evidence is really applies only in the employment discrimination context and if you are outside the employment discrimination context it is appropriate to


recently by this panel i believe in a similar case that is long as the question is one of law and application of qualified immunity to a record presented questions of law application of the issue of clearly


dismissed and ops and out of the workforce in two thousand and six that did not apply to our finance so you're saying there's a fact question because my understanding was that


is in encouraging and incentivizing creditors to be more actively involved in the bankruptcy process and these creditors here who were before your court


the witness who would say i have seen him on other occasions in possession of a gun then i think the relevance of their question becomes she's not saying he doesn't carry a gun


zero far far more so and it also is the fact that that minimal time period of notice literally informing the family of this when they showed up to the hearing gave them absolutely no opportunity


this is a fourth amendment excessive force case arising out of and out of an ensign valving my client in the water for township police department and essentially were requesting this court to reverse the trial court's opinion in


not that it's constitutional to kick someone who's down no absolutely not a matter of whether there's enough evidence that he did it right exactly there's no personal involvement and to establish nine hundred eighty three claim you have to have that


the united states you know dealing with the sentencing claim that the defendant has raised i think it at one point during his argument he said that setting the ineffective


reporting not just chest pain and shortness of breath but also no anja dizziness tightness in the chest and by that point is that the interview with nurse pope that is correct the twenty eighth that's correct


on it for a medical reason that's the point of this he is this is a man and he knows at the time was in serious enough conditional eleven days before that he ordered a stress test a specialized stress tests because he was worried about heart


bellwether community credit union was permitted to withdraw under the operating agreement but they were not compensated for their interest in the company which c d c had booked as six hundred fifty five thousand two hundred thirty three


the statement was that there was a department of education investigation and coolly submitted evidence clear evidence that there was no department of education


in this way the cable act was meant to promote competition and to remove burdensome franchising processes your opinion and community alliance for community media explained that well the provisions


reversing the district court's holding that comcast has no franchise it all is whether there was a uniform franchise by operation of the michigan act and we think that that at the very least is established on this summary judgment


secondly the only individual that was asked the following question and that information is available to the defendant nursing staff yes the only individual in this case that was asked when does alcohol


put in affidavits all of the arguments we've heard all of the other issues of mr reed's sanctions and various other courts were he has been an attorney where i've not been an attorney with him all of that was before


ket issue here about whether or not the principle hugh are arguing are not too high a level of abstraction and too far removed from the


today and how the supreme court's dealing with it today including alex in one of the court said we're not going to rely upon legalized formalism we're going to do a realistic pragmatic approach realistic approach that's what each and every one of those cases cited by the government says


rises to the type of error that should be disturbed with respect to the issues in the cross appeal i can only i can only say that i believed that with this particular case by filing


problem before now i think you have i think you i think you have but but there's also the issue of there was procedural fencing in this case i am on that yes of course there is this so i made


five he was a hospital director from june two thousand and six to june two thousand and eight the position yes it would appear that we have to qualified candidates one with clinical


lie there now i don't know if imposes a duty on service providers to provide answers to employers because i think you're on a point to the issue here this is a


approval what's your answer to the reality that that particular some permission refers to goods and not services and this looks like a case about services and in fact earlier up they have won on


testimony that one of the defendants stated that my client's van came to a stop passed and then would have had to walk past them to get to the overture but the other victim


up on these calls and get the treatment which is exactly why this was passed because it's effective form communication there are three reasons why you know a record was required here are real exploration of


is questioning two hundred years of what not just eleven amendment but article three is all about if they are truly seeking a declaratory and injunctive claim not only would they have to come up with a new complaint but it would have to be aimed at the adequacy


nature not that extreme major but there was still a health concern what dr rebel testified to was that the object could be passed naturally again without medical intervention and that by using a spectral speculum in an attempt to


we previously discussed there was no warrant and the methods that were used were very severe the defendant was partially paralyzed and intimated for a significant period of time in order that for them to perform the search


and so that should not be a consideration here and your your ability to remedy a wrong should never be contingent on what some other party may be doing with their rights that they have the fact of the matter is all have a national has


hundreds of victims in this case including a number that were obviously not identified pre sentence report calculated loss amount as just over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and gooden did not object to that amount and if we


even assuming there is deliberate indifference the sheriff's deliberate indifference based on the overcrowding actually caused the plaintiffs injury and it's not butter one that seems more facts specific


americans and the nd point of that when there is no questioning the distinction there is that there is no question on the specific purported reasons of course the strikes it's not the


follow up on jack murphy's question does it matter what what purpose well as for why the purchaser got the drug because in the typical case when you say when we say that you cannot have a conspiracy from


and we have this calm that that the quality care new supervisor has an event that he is now expressed about women in general i would think it would be like any other


not at the stage well before arbitration but at arbitration itself and it also said that the sufficiency of the adequacy of the consent in the form of the case that is a question for the arbitrator to decide and rejected the


current and retiree employees are in and served by a health care plan that was negotiated in this contract and in past contracts as


drug weight is not sufficient it doesn't tell us the whole story drug weight alone is not what captures the most culpable individuals it's capturing individuals who are less culpable so congress drew a line they drew a


state truancy law in the state of tennessee what we're here before you today is the denial of an injunctive relief and basically what that's about is that the school different defendant appellee has


highlighted that in our brief there the fact that a threat of criminal prosecution this court has said that is enough that is enough to constitute not only just immediate irreparable harm but actual harm


motion and here there was no announcements of what the decision was on the three member motion no acknowledgement of the motion and it was actually a contested on opposed motion so in super surprising because normally the board says you know what


part of the world for law enforcement these are the tough cases that are indeed assigned to the immigration judges and board of immigration appeals and here petitioner did receive two levels of administrative review with respect to his application the immigration


realistic to assume that the jury could and in the unique setting of this particular case where it's a very thin amount of evidence against my


that statement and that in this is on page sixty seven of the court's order it said this order and the accompanying memorandum are not intended to serve as a precedent in support of or opposition to any motion


in class the only reason he gave for this invention was the need for the defendants to have a fixed class at the outset to negotiate with but that's accomplished all the time through litigation class so what's wrong with that the district court didn't give any reason at all and you


suggest that i've been down it in my back and i'm sure many people have you don't move very well you are and that would be consistent with a back strain and you could not it would not be admissible


all internal that's all within the company i mean she doesn't reported outside the company she's she's still within the company doing their processes maybe it's a little long usual to go


as we all know subject matter jersey stiction is not label i think if we start entering into in arena where the arguable basis test or whatever argument you want to make goes to a place where individual


because as we all know the federal courts are courts of limited as we reviewed dad and analyze that you know peek came obvious to me that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist at the time the complaint was filed which of course is the time of


opportunity for him to leave the cash in the van where he got the drugs or something of the like but returning to the detractors in addition to there not being an established method of payment there was no standardized transaction


conspiracy here the object of the charge conspiracy was the importation from mexico to california to ohio the four point four kilograms of methamphetamine and because we're not seeking to leak individual street level transactions


conspiracy the jury could also infer the existence of conspiracy and not a simple as applied cell transaction based on rose out of his involvement with the drug supplier and also involvement in financing


the extent of her training was being told you need to make yourself available once a week which appling confirms that would be insufficient additionally


it's wrong i'm saying that i don't agree with the way i don't agree with that there's there's much more pretext in this case and i can give you a litany of it i can keep going with it that didn't exist in alberta but it


expertise and master's degrees so that so that it then becomes a factual issue whether that was sufficient no your honor the chair of the department was tom wakefield and he happened to be the chair of that


which is empowered to said the word aside if it finds that legal error was made focusing on the state sponsor bit and dubai for just a nd mr french is right and we agree with him the d i s you court is a state sponsored by


especially in areas of medical uncertainty so i do think that there is deference that's given what is the findings that you're saying the legislature made that to which deference should be so i think gonzales talked about deference into context


because everyone in this case agreed all of their experts and i think kentucky itself agrees there is no procedure without medical risk and so we're necessarily talking about layering additional risks on top of that the statistics i just quoted to you from the record about the risks


statutes for the past twenty five months now and as you've explained that detention is both contra to study torah scheme and the fundamental due process principles before i begin i want to clarify quickly where this case stands because it's slightly different than


a jury question because your honor it everything is happening so quickly a reasonable officer would not have realized brett had hands when six shots were just fired at the officer when you look at officer rosen's testimony hears


development plan which they agreed to and they claim i met i go back to my questions about the development plan because for me the case inches on this and i still can't quite figure out how this operates supposed all phillis wanted to build an office here only covered by the development


clearly erroneous because a lack there was there was no evidentiary basis support the element that requires a finding with respect to the speaker and the coconspirator hearsay rule also


that the issue in rosemont was that it explicitly limited the crime that had to be assisted to only the underlying crime i think it was more it was unclear and as the six are going to sell it since


from intermittently from april of two thousand and seventeen the month of purchase there june of two thousand and eighty and the trucks were purchased on april th and so an admission that there were defects in april shows


you know that's where this emerges there's no connection where he can demonstrate with the with the record that he has presented significant probative evidence that the proffered reasons offered by the men were not the actual reasons


lester leach we did allow to some degree the timing stringer's did you have communication what was your involvement the record does not exactly say what what was being presented here today the only thing counting stringer did was provide information


lester leach and that's impermissible his assignment to d c three days before he got the sock the assignment to d c inspector stringer gets a email from constable he says i'm fixing


no insurance nothing because of this but he would if if this court were to rule that the lower court was wrong in the holding of not manifestly outside the manifest trying to remember is that both of the duty to defend and one is different than the other


amended her complaint in this particular case she did not rather she filed a notice of appeal and then after the briefing in this appeal was complete she filed a new complaint in the southern district


this is his objection down below it's in the record at e c f one hundred and twenty six dollars dash one page four here's the bald headed class counsel's fee should be limited to lodestar was the crux of his appeal down


record at all so that's all the sudden it's a safety concern i can understand it but the safety concern if you're like one of the cases you've got to climb up this or washington who knows washington i want to annul our paper she's washington aluminum where it's the coldest day of the


thank you judge good morning mr callahan andrew for ish bond on petitions should be limited but this is an extreme case and i want to start by pointing out what the government said about the ninety six million dollars on the


in person will be able to do use video conferencing technology to owes him and for him to appear at trial so there's this again this concern about cost with physical examination is something that can be explored on remand so there's


and cost to the defendants of having to arrange for the plaintiffs to be undergo a medical examination in the dominican republic my understanding it is is it costs several one thousand


is since there is no point to it there is a potential criminal investigation pending i will not be terminating troy swearing as recommended by david wise esquire but will act in accordance with the disciplinary procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement all of


whether in the defendant's view the c d a left open the issue of whether the union employees had bargained away their right or pre


real property vehicles and curtilage utilized by the subject at the mention location so it's a list of parents position that this description is overbroad because what they were looking for was a


factor said that the defendant lied on the witness stand we said there's nothing that precludes a judge from doing that so that's the legal point but on the factual point the reason the judge decided not to give the enhanced it was on to that guy no longer required certain not


supposed to in return your diplomats cannot be in commercial activity that structure reflects both the text and the reason why it is that commercial activity is decided after the person as the only


continuous it's not one off using the concept that somehow p r lobbying might there's a case in point the case was a p r campaign by a foreign country that was not found to be commercial activity you look for its common


please the court martin to tar on behalf of the united states jamal bent on maher he's entitled to diplomatic immunity and dismissal from plaintiff's lawsuit because he is currently an accredited diplomat and plaintiffs have not shown that by them are


that anybody who is entitled to overtime in your view under new york law would be working more hours than is permitted by the motor carrier


not sure your honor trace isn't involved in the account well but that's what well i'm saying in terms of materiality well it's mis information led to a two misunderstanding as to what the statute limitations is that might be material but if


increasing the five gallon multiplier may yield a decrease penalty i mean it's an increase in the penalty and it isn't that only really read it says before the secretary may make a decision to paragraph eight we


claim an indorsement claim in the lanham act has certain particular required and the requirements of that are of confusion so that what there may be any number of


dealt with le bron james tattoo in a video game one minute one minute and the th district went through a thorough copyright analysis never once questioning whether the


dangerous items as opposed to cataloging every particular item that might be found pursuant to an inventory search so i think that the exception is somewhat misnamed


is that this court has multiple bases to resolve issues but if it were to keep this case going because its fundamental basis the proof of claim is invalid the record you have proves it so i want to


without probationary period i disagree your honor for for the following reasons the exact question posed by counsel was correct starting in fifty eight i'm sorry


trial everybody expected it to go to trial and it came as a surprise could you please this is such credit could you please clarify something for me when your client st attempted to withdraw


nearly two million dollars fraud with respect to the pre colloquy the government doesn't dispute that there was not the verbatim following of will eleven year but mr bailey has not the same his


power to prohibit statements that incite violence and then the nd question is can it be done in a way that is sufficiently specific to give the supervising notice the


regard to the evidence now i'd like to move to my variance and constructive amendments arguments if i can there are really the government has constructively amended the indictment in three ways st by saying they're there indictment alleges a single conspiracy


are different from those provided to the new york venture fund but it was defendants burnette summary judgment to show that that comparison is apt under jones defendants provided zero as it regarding the


argues for the st time today that all the nonparty testimony about his alleged managerial role related to the end period of his employment mr lew however clearly testified that from


but if you do that you've got to pay it back over to the clinic and that just makes that fits within the commonsense definition of the clinic acting on behalf of the clinic they're the ones who have control of the money maybe they do choose to assign it maybe they choose to partly assign him but they're the ones who get it


that precedent any particular means of delivery of those dates just crawford line of cases is never excluded inferentially conveyed statements from the category of statements that fall on the confrontation clause and the bruton line


that methods of identification such as canvassing and searching you have on one minute for surveillance footage have proven fruitless but nevertheless the police knew that mr de hayes was a suspect by about four o'clock the prosecutor didn't


the confrontation clause problem right under your theory of the confrontation clause jurisprudence yes i think it would be a problem your honor i think that you know for an officer is simply to throw out there when this


price because amazon had attributed his purchases to his wife's account instead of his own it was no direct benefit in his own contract with amazon it did not get a benefit even if one were to look at even traditional


after this lawsuit after your client files of declaration november of two thousand and fourteen stating that he was aware of the terms and conditions he then made twenty seven more purchases on amazon with those terms and


those are still the operative position it's well let me not be too glib in this so the district court relied very heavily on whether or not his wife had agreed to a modification of her agreement based on her subsequent


highlighting the difference between something like the n c a a and santana felix and the one in this case take the the language of the statute that your honor quoted if the government wants to say you are a movable


shoes have known or not known or perhaps better stated to bend certain is really just what would mr stevenson or someone in his shoes know beyond debate and here because it's a constitutional right not


agent of the of the police and that the walker holding was enough so even if so the classic brady claim we don't intention doesn't matter so i'm not sure why i mean intentionality may help make your


definition of planning and finally because dutch and you started with this in terms of multiple threats the freeman case st circuit talked about a single instance connotes temporal relationship and single purpose or scheme these are both directed


what you are arguing today well of your honor's are aware that we have renewed our motion for certification of these questions to the new york court of appeals because in this case the criminal usury statute represents a


to find that there's a standard policy it doesn't the policy doesn't writing as i mentioned but it also doesn't have to be comprehensive it doesn't have to listen every officer that does the search who makes the decision what parts of a car search


applying that past would be and where a whole is a medicaid regulated home they would have standing to bring a medicaid challenging basis and to the extent they also are medicare home and are challenging under


circumstances what what might make it difficult in terms of individual claims and this is kind of i guess where your hypothetical crosses paths with the situation here is that again


purely medicaid filippi they're not governed by the medicare so i i don't see what the basis would be for for klein the claim channelling provisions there but if it's a duly participating


but that then leads to the question if there were no specific challenges that you were evicted from raising how are you prejudiced by the district court's not following the procedures in section a fifty one


which reject the tourism argument in favor of the argument that i'm making that massachusetts interest in the providing safety for its citizens when they have a relationship with an american resort and providing a full remedy


me on testify he did not know it was a letter and so we don't know why shouldn't really we don't know she didn't know if she didn't think anything of it or she didn't think she thought it was just you know some kind of thing of noxious who knows she also provided inconsistent


look she calls her brother and the brother doesn't say well go down see the police and the brother's a policeman the brother says well change your telephone that's the only way to deal with it


seeking reopening i'm not sure that's really right it seems like she had a problem anyway and maybe a misunderstanding she had time for that we were the regular outside the united states


doesn't isn't tantamount to cruel but putting a child in a situation that could result in serious bodily harm or jack is karate and so really i don't know how to sleep in the backseat


he was interviewed per the procedures by an asylum officer in custody in june of two thousand and fourteen there's some officer found him credible found no evidence of persecution within the legal meaning but did find that there


fear any any kind of merged the social groups that he's talking about to say look he's similarly situated he was also from the united states and came back to mexico this court has said on several occasions that you can't refrain the social group on appeal you have to look at what was presented


attacked and five remain that's a forty percent chance or something like that but i do think that is that is relevant if the question the court is asking is does the record compel the conclusion that to your question judge fletcher it is reasonable for a person who has had four


a the board of immigration appeals iranian's lee denied the petitioners attempts to seek redress for the fundamental ineffective assistance of his former counsel from the years one thousand nine hundred nine to two thousand and two and then again after discovering


that to petitions filed but other family visa categories and in that they estimated that it's about a five month difference according to their statistics in july twenty fifteen when they published that proposed rule they said that


statements and that's why sentencing begins all should not be used to support an adverse credibility finding because it's not a transcript we're not sure exactly what the context was of the questions that were asked whether any follow up questions and


some other great reason exists to prevent the court from recognizing the state courts determination sort of a catch all phrase so that's the that's the scope of


that is one type of client who filed a complaint against me because i didn't conduct forensic audits of my clients i believed them when they told me a certain set of facts and i


court ruled that it was an error that the trial court did not allow the defendant to present jury instructions regarding defense of property there are more circumstances around


understand your argument that it's ten days and no pre deprivation hearing is needed because these emergency situations we have to act quickly that's an argument on the merits what i'm resisting a little bit is your exhaustion argument which is that we can't consider that argument


if you were to use this statutory day correct but if you look at eleven fifty one and two is where the naturalization day comes then and one is where the statutory date comes then under section one it specifically says except as provided in


the claim that well we really didn't know and the commissioner didn't understand until twenty eleven the something missing here your honor i am i understand your question


i was responding on my opening argument i said there would need to be no additional fact finding with respect to that ninety five percent completion prong and if taxpayers want to raise the use prong armory man then they would they would they would


two thousand head more land than they had before and business it is and argument was before that they were landowners and that was the basis for this one edition the two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and forty kidnappings beatings and extortion


that is just whether they may have prevailed on that brought relevant facts of their silent claim to the i j s attention i understood your honor that the standard would not be that they necessarily would have prevailed but that they could have prevailed


but as the board i add i apologize if i'm not answering your honour's questions by the board looked at what they came forward with and said ok you're coming forward in this motion to reopen and you're saying that


into a life of drug abuse and misbehavior serious misbehavior all of those things


no finding of fact with respect to the claims that we've made the court court doesn't address our specific issues other than to say he thinks in total


oath we wanted to talk to the f b i agents because i think they would be very helpful on this claim but they declined to to to be examined hundred am i correct that we don't


tuesday sentences the st sentence says in order to find torture or mutilation of a victim you must find that there was torture immediate mutilation beyond the act of killing itself would there be any change to that nor your own ok


then structures is removed well what the jury had done not it's not whether the jury actually relied on that wrong instruction it's well the standard is whether or not with a properly instructed jury would reach the


you know your state petition that successful that prevent your execution so he was aware what he was doing he wasn't intelligent this is a lot of discussion between him and the referee about what the effect of this will


the violation whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency's overall policies whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action that all i mean those are all things that the board is considering it administrative


piece of clothing clothing it doesn't necessarily even have to get the act itself doesn't even have to be lewd and we look at the jury instructions for example there's but there's the child to have to know that there's some sexual intent on the part of the perpetrator they don't have to


probably when he did that sixteen year sixteen yes and then he went up through the system by the time this court in two thousand and he was over twenty one so he wouldn't of been he wouldn't have been required to serve it sixteen


he is required to serve as an adult in his army and eritrea so he still would have been required to serve if you returned back to his country and he wouldn't serve because he didn't


the public mexican you're saying these are big government institutions ok so then the government institutions are acting through their own employees of her and then you have to show that the employees have the intent and the government


would be tortured that he would be persecuted or tortured on account of a protected ground for purposes of withholding removal with specific intent of the government for purposes of kat he must


back to this idea that you're you certainly would have found that there was reasonable doubt as to the robbery and and


no your honor so the addition didn't suffer injury result of being shot at because the shots missed him but the the potential even the potentially lethal force would seem to be different than hawks you're right your honor i think that


and to fight back against really what works to ordinary ops obstacles that were placed in her path and at this point time this final point when she her brother ten years later when he and her brother can fade this


waive our position before the b i what we did was we agreed with the immigration judge's decision below so when the immigration judge granted her petitioners withholding every move and denied the batsuit her with running


so based on those findings i think that this court and i circuit has decided that what constitutes materially affecting an alien eligibility for asylum is the ability to submit evidence that changes the status of


good morning your honour's may please the court then we center i just one second because we're still unpacking over my time starting but we'll start now after he gets his papers ready it's just you can't see


and i shouldn't say abandoned because all of those that i could refer to other lawyers i did the ones i and find a lawyer to take those are the ones i sent a letter and i said i can no longer represent you you need to find


went to the hospital ways and sometimes in the hospital it's got all these problems he he believed that there was no question in my mind because he wanted me to take his medical leave them absence but he sold


in the case of mr thompson he made it clear from the very beginning that he was interested in one thing and one thing only and that was getting his money back he had paid me two thousand dollars i


some cases on an emergency basis very few but i was doing as i'd been instructed by a medical doctor until all these tests


error when it concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on the merits because the petitioner never raised any challenge to any type of issues during his removal proceedings and


lot he's developed further opinions and also affiliated with venice once in exile which is part of what we tried to submit which was not considered by the immigration judge on remand here so we respectfully request


b five eight gives this court the authority to decide naturalization issues citizenship issues in the first instance so you know no party in this case has has disputed any facts nobody is asking for it


super skinny and like it's not just those people affects everyone whether you think that they're the most beautiful person in the world or not so pretty like everyone everyone is affected by it and that's something that some people may not understand that like it is hurtful and


me a little bit about you sure dr joy i was a high school teacher and football coach hillsborough hundred central an immaculate high school and i went to law school at night i got my law


made and quite frankly none of the presidential candidates are even talking about that you don't hear that mention you know we don't eat only the thigh though and that's meant to thighs it's going to be a huge crisis so how does one protect themselves is that where the


so i think that it's hard for maybe our parents or people that care about us to think that our child or our son or daughter are getting to a point where they need professional care and so it's more


and so they own it they put their own rules and that's why they're in the way to successful farming


we also promote region all those projects partners meetings we called the farmers our projects i we're partners because that's one of the partnerships but on the


so basically radiation at least in the field of breast cancer you should think of it as actually added insurance right so the surgeon has done this amazing surgery they remove the cancer and for all intensive purposes that patient is now cancer


form based that's one of our schools of function way people in china would look to how they would cite their homes so they would be safe from the elements have a clear view of what's happening have the crops get the sun and be supported


coaches sometimes the coaches make students feel that their sport is the only sport it's the only thing that's going on right this minute right this time in this semester and that's not all coaches but sometimes students want to be pleasers


put like extra activities like students participating and they do look at it they're not necessarily always asked for a resume like a typed out formatted resume but on the common app there's ten sections where you can add different activities they


now we're starting to see just a shift in culture and then maybe by the end of the year we'll have some data to say whether or not it's made a significant impact so why did you bring it to beat or township i think it was just because a lot of people were talking about it and we felt like that


public so it may be the most visible one out there right now because it's so new but a lot of the other neighboring schools have honor codes in place thank you for joining me today i had a really good time talking with


find that they really love it so they all find their friends and is it one particular village i know i have three now and where always growing and what are the three villages in india you want me to say the name absolutely


shaw and then i'll talk a little bit about what you reference to just before about the care of them yes please so i had knitted sweater is has no machinery you know it's set than you need it with two


to again avoid fried foods and then also incorporate some of the more healthy fats like in nuts and i'm cooking with with healthier oils ok childish your body used the food and like the


every every part of your brain gets focused on that chart until the the piece is recorded and then


talk about focus every note he plays is playing that perfect and you know he's just amazing he's the pinnacle of chance of a jazz musician and it's you can't you don't work that mean that's as good as it's going to be it would


it what does i mean i have my own definition but i want you to tell it love so that what what does unlock mean to you there are so many different answers to that and i think that the thing that that really comes down to when the thing that


stress and worry and everything are an inside job you have to say what's really going on right now what am i telling myself what is my you know sort of crazy reactive mind you know telling me and keeping me in this fear place right and


prosperity you have to start here that's right and believe it and internally embrace it and wake up every morning maybe even know it and know it right yeah i think all our beliefs came from us learning something but when you know something right it's


that class and if you aren't then are there things that you could be doing differently so i think students need to move away from always seeing their classes as success or fit or failure or better or worse


whether working in something office or organizing the p s a t is we need lots of help and so we reach out for all those our colleagues to help us with those projects and it's also good practice to for your post secondary choices that you decide to go to if you decide to go to college you have to be able to seek


why are they so worried about that and how can that be addressed i think that if this is something that you guys students strongly feel about start to have a strong feeling towards


and you want to see a change then be that advocate be the advocate for change and i guess that you know that's sort of a loaded question if you think about your life as a student within a class


want to be able to be absolutely see what your personalities like and and see how you can benefit them so last afore we run out of time i want to ask you just in general the transitioning aspect of going to college or going to


it so now let's move to environmental sure already let's see you are more likely to eat better which therefore will positively affect our environment by what you know you're maybe not eating so many


know i'm going here in a week or i'm going here in a month you know it can make you feel you get some to look forward to and having fun can help decrease stress laughter is amazing oh yeah laugh yes it's awesome gatorade it is decrease you release dopamine as well yes also time


of us is responsible for bracing the challenge and so you have to look at it as what am i going to give because the truth is is that there is psychological research and darrell scott her father who spoke at


places this past semester he smashed you know i travelled abroad i studied in london and when i went on we had a little fall break and italy was the most i travelled i went to the netherlands through italy and to greece


different ideas how i could help people through my products through my designs through my inspirational quotes whatever it takes to my classes so do you ever feel one gratitude gratitude buddies i know you have a gratitude kit and i would like for you to


i learned is if you no matter who you are if you could get rid of doubt you if you could get rid of doubt you automatically connected to this amazing energy


camera she's got five children now flora you are going to stand out later on because we're going to do a live demonstration but when she stands up you know i'll check check her out you look fabulous they're all i have you is ok so i'm sorry my


seen that happen and maybe in running our evaporator out there that's one of my favorite things to do and we get lots of crowds out there at the farm in the month of march having ice cream with maple syrup in twenty degree temperatures ice cream is


lady in my company i kept a really big sort of social calendar how did you do that so for me going through cancer i looked at it as in chunks so you have your chemotherapy your radiation or surgeries and every


now you're embarrassing me but thank you for that i think half of it is attitude because i do have a what the fuck and a tude when i when i go out it's not hard in vermont but i travel a lot and i travel back to


personally without that increased pressure of not having good grades and not be able to get into the right college that i probably wouldn't be working as hard but at the same time that you've got to balance that with how much stress you're having where do you think the positives and the negatives outweigh


at the same time well everyone needs to be able to communicate and he's kind of pursuing something that if he wants to pursue it right after high school he has the ability to


early to thousands there was a dr mark penn mintel who is a gastroenterologist at the time he was working out of the university of washington in st louis he's now at cedars sinai in l a and he started doing research studies where he sent people with your tip about conditions


you click on that you know little magnifying glass and you look up vague tricks there's a million of them out there so i feel whenever people see them they see you know how they can make circles and all the other tricks that i've seen you know in the


tell majority of my students is you know learn how to cut a straight line before you start learning how to make a unicorn are making a three d eagle or anything of that nature so you know we start very rudimentary a


pumpkin and different there than the ones i don't pick because i'm looking for a very heavy wall pumpkin so i'm looking for some deformities deformities are and usually give you a thicker wall so something is bulging


wow thank you now we're all queens and each queen fixes each other when we see that something is off so sharon would you please pull up lauren ney's yes thank you so then that way the viewers can actually hear you


pageantry when i was younger i retired and i figured i'm a more confident woman now at thirty than i was at twenty so i figured let's go for it again and you meet such amazing women and you build such amazing relationships


games this year a lot different activities we have hung in painting which has been really popular with all the kids and we have some really unbelievable creations made by all our carver is that came up from the ohio my business is based out of columbus


outside the building is going to be the same thing and i really wanted to begin the story mainly how music came to the us it was at the beginning of the


and more directly in re the marriage of blair which is three seventeen eleven thirty eight fifty three and that's a first district two thousand case which unequivocally stated the effect must be given not only to what


for prior to the petition for relief regarding marital contribution fishing for relief regarding child support essentially order to pay one thousand dollars a month child support to join


another issue that's with a serious background that i was precluded from getting and that door was close as he ever earned more than fifteen thousand dollars american oh but he was only here for summer months before he was t bone so without me being able to paint that picture for the jury and you


the fibrosis i just don't see it and you know touch on these arguments from counsel and go to my own arguments but there they are spelled out in the brief but i just don't see the confusion


and one of them was in college well that's what he testified to but but what what grievance said is that they had no knowledge because he was accepting peta i mean peta is that public


by the firm and circulated to all the plaintiffs that settlement statement set forth the amount of fees that the firm said it was owed pursuant to the agreements which said upon recovery or settlement


that the court out of thin air gave them it they can't take the position we didn't signed a final settlement statement and then take the benefit of it because those credits the two hundred and


who would be perhaps committing crimes to obtain drugs and therefore because he had not yet internalized the substance abuse education the economy both as an inpatient and somewhat as an outpatient he could


there later and we'll all get one so the lack of a building permit wasn't an issue except that the contract itself is silent on whose duty it is it a building permit


there was no there was no terminations in fact i think you know there was no terminations there was no you know bright line that said this you know the old contract is dead the defendant refused to continue work under the st contract


it was a this was not something that was aid directly to the employer he for work that the employee performed but it was a collective bonus for the entire department in which he worked the entire


of a seven page brochure that's handed out to its employees but with regard to that specific question the fact is based on the totality of evidence this program was discretionary in name only this was nothing more than a


was withdrawn on april th by an oral motion correct correct so how did it how are we challenging a motion that no longer


is he outside of i think you need again to look at the facts of the case and see what is in a farm hand through his working hauling grain there's a guy who was just hired to be a truck driver but back to this case though


these assets were in the possession of i read and fantine could not you know although they are not i read which makes them rd parties are in control of irish bank accounts so i you know i


case for trespass trespassed is unlike malicious prosecution the deceptive practices act which cannot be interpreted as a strict liability crime by anyone the police or person making the


an estate asset and intends on paying it back because he's repeatedly lied under oath regarding the true source of the funds he's lied in a probate litigation is your count i read your briefs and i couldn't find the


entertain any additional questions that the court has otherwise bruce asks that the courts reverse the trial


therefore is the very person who has the ability to each pass things going on here and their life as normal or abnormal was healthy or unhealthy and in this case as romances instead of


more credible but i think for the purposes of our argument even if we assume that that the daughter's testimony was one hundred percent accurate i think by her own statements she said that she was ignoring her dad


testimony hitting on his head in an attempt to get away all right i don't have any other questions thank you thank you mr russo do you have any brief reply


incorrect the lease in this case is the critically the most important factor it is a factor that actually enhances this case relative to the other cases that have been


clearly not the record but i can tell you as an officer of the court some subcontractors did not like this but they just didn't have enough money at issue to pay a lawyer to pursue our clients obviously this is a huge number and i would say the same thing with hill so


year sentence under truth in sentencing thank you your time is up are there any other questions thank you judges


was providing prisoners in this situation which they believed was in compliance with whatever filing rules they were in the evidence as to here including the fact that


thank you mister conway are you ready to proceed yes your honor thank you may go ahead good afternoon sean conway behalf of the defendant the city were dealt this case involves the administrative


is an attorneys and he's a real estate agent doing business in the city plaintiff made it dependent determinations upon review of the city zoning regulations that the property retained its legal non conforming residential status


and additionally he will affirm the decision of the trial court to deny plaintiffs motion for attorney fees thank you thank you


to the payroll system configuration as as was indicated earlier on i don't think that that issue is germane to the analysis of whether delta was knowingly violating the order at issue


look behind the language maybe they should have written it this way maybe they should have been a different light and i don't know maybe the court is cracked clearly i'm i'm raising a position which i am i think is supported by the


constitutionally valid as an exercise of its home rule power under section six of section six of article seven of the illinois constitution there are two specific reasons why the trial court's analysis however was flawed st


in the context of this case the subject matter of the ordinance does not pertain to its quote local government in affairs as required under section six a and nd it was not inactive for a legitimate purpose as described in section


rules suggest but a motion to modify if granted due to new information although it wasn't brand new information are still


record the biggest contradiction in the records the day that is of course defendants plead guilty which i argued extensively for the trial court and here is the basis excuse me as an admission of his guilt the defendant pleaded guilty the court system treats that as


did not have to produce anything because the burden of proof is on them so even if the plaintiffs complaint was entirely based on conclusions and the affidavit submitted to the court


actually doing the ministry but the defendant who's who creates i guess the structure to allow that to go forward and that's a lot more to get and finances the structure to right


is the significant factual dispute between your client and the plaintiffs and maybe some additional parties who may be named how can bat issue be decided on a two


is in fact that argument has come up and it was actually brought up by defense counsel defense counsel actually stated in the initial motion strikes and maybe


which i cited for general reasons in which the court held that if the right of kind of mission is that being abused the court cannot deny the right to condemn on the grounds that the exercise of power


proposals for the property even if they were in rudimentary form none of that was offered at the at the hearing was it in terms of revenue projections there was not evidence of that but there


that there is just absolutely no evidence that this was some sweetheart deal solely for kaante or that the city awash a cargo abused its discretion in determining that


signing of the property is going to be which shows what the development of the property is going to be that there's thirty seven dollars acres that are going to be under development for a business park thirty seven acres of development that could use this public


can mail sent on april rd which completely changed the tone of the email and most egregiously in that e mail mr dickey offers to forward that email to gary does sick who was the finance officer who was going to


circumstances we've heard unstoppable doctrines ought to be applied to med pro and there is ample evidence in the record to support that many proactive inconsistent with an intent to have its silver cross pay a


charges and the teachers fitness to perform as a teacher that's what that was that was the holding of the burgess case that's that's why the the the the court reversed in that berg's case of course


was just exercising his constitutional right to trial he did go to trial i've read the transcript in each piece the return to say well i was just there i had nothing to do with it he disclaims and minimizes everything and that's why the judge


departures if mr nessa's argument is true there could never be an upward departure based on a misdemeanor criminal history and i don't think you can look at mr best and this or bad marriage is the perfect example for why that should not be the case


surveillance although they don't know it so are cases full that they cannot be found in the united states right and the reason is that they are under official strength but that only applies if in fact there was the surveillance and they were


away no i don't think so i think both of those cases are fully consistent with possession of the united states in this case and both of those cases the individuals arrived on a commercial flight and


conduct about why someone would do that it doesn't make any sense and you take that together with counsel's conduct of the app actual trial itself where he can simply says i don't practice in federal court you know how to do this i'm not sure with the rules of evidence are he can't


not the focus of the presentation the jury but obviously in the context of the defendant's conduct with his multiple lanes schemes multiple equipment trades sort of a shuffle sort of a card game


stronger for the defendant than his proffered instruction that says if any of you considers him not to be guilty you may consider this other one in other words no requirement of unanimity of acquittal and also


at the very best for the defendant i think those instructions state sanctioned the same thing and i would argue that even says it more strongly at least the part that he's concerned about is more strongly offered by the courts given instruction so unless this court has for the questions


ammunition for a rug or m seventy seven to twenty swift he also told me i'm taking this gun out to see how it shoots indicating that he had purchased ammunition for this particular rifle


that what we're really doing here is deciding when the person should have a legitimate right of privacy that the court recognizes by requiring sort of for the sorcery and it seems kind


come take a look this is a different circumstance were actually the officer had conducted an investigation to a significant extent and determined that there was a sufficient probable cause to get a search warrant so that's the difference the distinction between the cases that we have


severance that we have argued we have argued two issues of severance that the court improperly denied appellants motion for severance of couse under rule eight and our analysis of that is that trial


held this together in the government's view is the notion that if the offenses are connected together but connected together means something more than simply overlapping proof what as i read the cases the cases the talk


that you say they didn't the judge didn't take the child away he just made the custody subject to department of social services supervision and then i look at our graph nine and it's


approval of these two departments i am not clear on what notice whys had beyond the judge reciting the condition at the time of sentencing could you tell


budget problem and for us to come out for arguments for montana i've been told is one of the factors that is really causing a great deal of expense problem for a district and that's the


transcript and the phrases due process and equal protection were buried about and i should have in my opening brief also throated separation of powers judge the lawyer obviously consider the constitutional divergence of the


and officer goes reaches in all of them correct correct the officer took the steps allowed under terry he did the first he he felt he even went inside the pocket but each time he said


will agree with me that in that fifth amendment context the rights of a defendant is waiving are much more important than the statutory rights present in the immigration judge


pornographic images not at the search warrant stage what shall we have to show whether there is a reasonable probability to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime


in the hospital he didn't report to probation for two months so mr ellis the government needs breathing argues well the probation violation would have been invalid if you accept the facts proffered i don't think that's the case i think that once he was out of his


in this case someone with a warrant was inside the house and then at that point you could get a search warrant to enter the house but the fact that a person has a warrant for his arrest and he may be in a house not necessarily his residence that some of the cases


it was seen in other anything that can cite that campsite location previous to this so this this box containing these chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine did not always accompany the firearms


to if i can back up and go into somewhat the booker issue and how do we know what the judge would do we don't quite frankly know which edgewise or any judge would do if they had the discretion to move


the rules text fourteen issue where he didn't call the witnesses the court didn't but question the witnesses and ask them some clarifying questions they knew of haro case that i submitted to the court by letter brief on august twelfth squarely on point with this


would not be the way to go that's correct your honor the only possible difference in that case is the age of the victim and i believe there's maybe one or two years of age difference to the


courtesy of the court allowing us to do this in this matter the united states believe your honor this is an extremely narrow issue when you look at actual questions that were asked by mr hoover stall and that was stricken cross examination by his honor


where i think the court is very clearly indicated that you have to have some evidence of the actual possession that there are any number of ways the f b i could have done this it's not as this is a situation where the information it existed


court and parties became aware that there was a problem with the with the interpreters there were multiple discussions there were alternatives that were discussed the court acted very deliberately and consciously each


regardless of their ability to read or understand english should receive notice at the time since the war is their home at the outset of the search for at least when they asked know what is going on


doubt but all those cases read together and the proposition i'm trying to set forth that of the court is a defendant can plead guilty to an indictment but contest the amount when he has a police remit if he


zero quantity indictment or something less than the jury will find but whatever the nuances of that might be


the potential problem that i think i see here is that the judge's instructions wasn't purely legal he didn't say unless somebody has the authority to sign a lien


the statements that mr crawford made to law enforcement on the day he was arrested about his i believe one of the statements was that he started selling


conference situation like this i was planning on asking for two or three minutes every battle time but if that's kind of i'm not trying to let you know when our clock shows that you have an amount of time left we'll try to come


apparently no experience as a civil litigation apparently never represented by an attorney before it's not clear he's ever been on the inside of a courtroom ever those are things that we should have found out in an initial colloquy and they were never developed


the first legal point that we want to mention is we think that this argument about the magistrate judge's jurisdiction is really a red herring and the reason it's a red herring is especially i think for the reason that judge lester suggested which is that the district court here reviewed the transcript


may be bad acts we instruct you that if it relates to only one defendant it goes to his state of mind keep that in mind with these two defendants the judge did say if you think it evidence relating to c


refusing to follow the conditions of his lawful court order he must refusing to do anything that she wanted to do unless it was on the terms he wanted to do it and that's the problem with this case mr antelope says he wants treatment but we've


the biggest fixed now i think twenty seven years old or thereabouts did make it did connect two fundamental factors that i think are important fairness and reliability and there's nothing in the law nothing and


susceptible than the other your honor i think the way the court could divvy it up then if they wanted to look at the spot you could talk about the physical size of those boys but you have to find another factor besides ancient order to talk about the vulnerability that's what i believe so


and where the supreme court held that police may have her size discretion to one pound a vehicle quote so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criterion and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal


yes you started this off with an argument it seemed to me that the government was raising issues on appeal that it never raised in the district court the governor what the government suggested in its place that said there was never a suggestion


immunity and so these witnesses were not able to do so to testify for the defense with respect to entrapment that's not the case these witnesses testified at trial and they never invoke the fifth and they never refused to answer questions it's this case is not like the morrison


discretion to do that with clearly what the judge threw the case i did yes clearly what the judge was trying to do was say look the bribes themselves are like a contraband you got something


whatsoever that i can find in this record that would suggest that she said i think it is a forfeiture it is plainer there's i mean we argued that in our brief there wasn't objection it is a plain or standard but this court has has indicated that when there is


have the employee and the plaintiff using it who concluded the load was stable and had no reason to believe anything would occur we have the only expert testimony in the case testifying that this was a reasonable and customary


itself going back to the miller versus the kalar case where we dealt with this court dealt with a house that had been used for personal property and then converted into a business property at the time of the collection efforts this court it's


two that were observed by the defendant no other there were any bad interactions reported by mr look back and so again we have to look at all the circumstances of those four days leading up to this


met all the criteria for an expression to the golden parachute in a situation as to the change of control issue all assets were transferred and


that any complex surgery there is at least a reasonable inference from which a jury could find that that's not what they meant and when you add all those statements together i think it's pretty clear at least for the