a federal jury has a convicted can victim the former manager of kosher slaughter house in post bill ira were nearly four hundred immigrant workers were arrested in the largest immigration raid in u s history shillong rubbish in was convinced


on honey do lane was called in about seven fifteen a m and the fire spread on into the roof soon after firefighters arrived firefighters moved no more personal items and furniture away from the substantial hall the fire burned into


divided over whether the ballot measure is being pushed too soon marijuana is illegal under federal law but some legal scholars have argued to federal government could do little to make california enforce a drug federal ban


his execution and the music legend stevie wonder has been named the united nations messenger of peace wonders who is blind will focus on people with disabilities he said it is truly an honor beyond


minutes of comments on the matter but could not comment by state law because the topic was not on the agenda board chairman hank weston said the board will now have two committees look over the single proposal from library system of


suggested the county use their already established model which has brought in two conferences it's a good proposal came from john moore of the vatican city firm k and m marketing group morris plan would link counties events for


at the white house ceremony last night president obama praised the group's defiance of zimbabwean president robert roberta robert mugabe


was lost somewhere between car lake and kenner lake he said he was polite it had plenty of food and water but he was noted it was snowing heavily it was set up in a tent provided g p s coordinates for fifty six he reported he was still ok and was blowing a whistle


honor i have a few brief points on her but all first the state did not argue in its brain down at least testimony should not be considered as law enforcement officer identification testimony because he wasn't an


not proven up then the other errors that are in there the other impeachment why are those all important these are away from the state to be able to bootstrap in these statements that become


before you admitted that you administered the beating that killed this child so there's no you know even though there is no unfair surprise argument really raised in the brief that's coming up for the st time and arguments are would be for for that there isn't a legal theory that would support it because it's


timeframe to one another it's true she didn't measure the gladder have any formula to apply but she said it was an estimate of the time they would take to die from internal bleeding based on the nature of her liver injuries


in this case there was no physical evidence there linked him to this to this case and so understand me when this case comes down to the credibility of witnesses the evidence is


arguing closely balanced as well be giving the evidence here was closely balance and then the testimonies of the witnesses weren't consistent and they were incredible so you know like i said you had no


to go home and then came back to his own free will there was an intervening probable cause there wasn't any new evidence that the police could have confronted him with because we've seen everything they had they was at the motion to suppress it was at the trial they did not have any other


to paint the conduct at issue as a continuous course of conduct flowing from the already suppressed illegalities should be rejected the fourth amendment allows the for the poisonous cheat act and it's not a but for


send random staff into this room to manipulate or touch the floor that it does not use for its business in providing medical care and that it would not be made as a getting out not those towers service the


heaps deciding to take an under budget and making small little portions of fine but the ultimate portion the ultimate fighting was that because the arrest was without probable cause because the judge because the police officer couldn't rely


exact time period but it was a very brief it was very very finally there was a also of confession by the defendant where he admitted he admitted to having a gun and subsequently running with


we have no choice in we have a tell us that is long as there is a controversy a justiciable matter and that the court has the power to hear


years is that humans a fact it is the sum of all the parts together that is why disappear for so dangers it does not bring us a consistent belief that defendants get a fair trial and that's what took place here we acknowledge a lot of


occur so you have one person and shawn we have the credibility issues when you don't have anything found on the person that they stopped and the fact that branca didn't think that shawn and chris were impaired that really wasn't the issue before and


for your honor there's no evidence in the record as to specifically when the investigation deems the allegations unfounded we know there was a home visit on the th in anticipation she would be returning there that that would be her


house was asking about what you know what they asked for they asked for a declaration that the department lacks the authority under the and the constitution of the united states constitution to audit plaintiffs and there's nothing on the face of the ordinance that says


it was reasonably foreseeable to cosign t at the time that he discharged plaintiffs from his car to pontiacs conduct in five blocks away speeding driving drunk and hitting the


one has proven whether or not the i have a cd system is reliable i just want to clarify that now rat the issue wasn't whether or not the st of all the keys didn't hinge entirely on the fact that the call came in from the nine hundred


error when you're moving in a certain litigation strategy and you acknowledge the core that if you do not answer this cover the court has certain powers to to proceed and at


very narrow track which was this is a pure question of law the statute cutting people back and stopping pain is colorless for more than for more than a year is


invalidated a property tax assessment there the plaintiff said we're over assessed and there's another group up in lake county that was under assessed and the port agreed and so it's the same thing going into the future those


burden it needs to be prepared needs to be met councell mention that conversations are not part of the medical record which was frankly reminds me that you know once again


millions of dollars well it was honest dollars split ok i thought they were going to get an investment secured by the capital that would be released the assets that would be released by far right i don't know what they thought


quite sure what their argument is there's no apparent case law that requires separate and distinct acts or the acts to be combined in a particular way but then to constitute grounds for


will practice cases for twenty seven years two different sets of factors two different specialties two different times it's not the identical cause of action there are separate they can be found in the same place but you know


in it's an accounting says we don't know how much work oh we don't know if we're owed anything and specifically we need discovery and litigation in order to determine


way it was treated between us between rico and t l c was that a sale was tantamount to a commitment and it was a sale so when they receive commitments for one hundred thousand product hundred thousand items


advantage claim that we've made in count three where we say that despite the fact that you have been granted the right to terminate by the by the decision of this court because the contract was the aim to be one of indefinite


allusion to cross examination there as you know here it was a testimony i mean you know it's not like you're giving us the best record to make this sort of


would that mean this handbook is given to the students and this court has already decided that once you accept the terms and conditions of the handbook and accept being a student at the school you're sort of bound by those rules as to the rules you


is the it's in their best interests or else the let's say we disagree not everyone else for whom there is a lawsuit in which they are involved and they've been granted right to do so


rubbed himself on her grabbed her breasts and kissed her neck they're not minor differences that would be our position and the last part of the reasonable doubt argument the sufficiency of the evidence we raise and we kind


a motion to have mr banta sanctioned they also sought to enforce what they believed was a settlement agreement that's they brought before the circuit court judge meyerson considered rude one thirty seven


of this is just the space behind a building that is in parking lots and so sure there's parking and people also walking if there's a walkway as you say can you define for me what that walkway was it's not the entirety of the parking lot it's nothing


clause saying if anything here is not mentioned and it's later discovered it's to be divided in the same way justice which was fifty percent of the mill parish so that's the answer she would give fifty percent


a gated in the broader vision so he is now now to remedy for that for the claims that he is asserting here in this case and he's and which he claims were incorrectly excluded from the domestic relations i came in


secure distribution distribution


decide in the indirect criminal contempt proceedings he had to decide in calling officer sanish and telling him that her husband would be the heir the following day to pick up their son was she intending to follow


by they could have seen that gun and so i just don't think that based on the case law based on the definition i just don't think that the focus is on whether or not it's visible to the view of the public from somebody standing outside and if your honour's have no further


bad mr colossal was also a vice president of jamison real estate so was being correct to say that jamison just suddenly appeared out of nowhere at some point in transaction expected a brokerage commission and the three


eighteen must be accompanied by an adult


ultimately i believe that it was incorrectly ruled upon in that case the court didn't get past the point in language of this amendment in question which basically just as for multiple convictions for multiple types of


lawsuit but what if you look at this rise because petition to intervene in the cyber geisha action she was seeking for personal injury damages against the same defendants who were defeated and defended her personal injury


but is this statement made by the man whose boy because retirees are not represented in collective bargaining they get a standing to pursue claims for forcing the benefits granted under c p a they say several cases and they're


dad was on the way to the hospital he never testified that she heard him fall but that was in the message that he left my


spread to the safety of the officer or others and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flying an assessment of the force used by marvel necessarily looks at the events as one continuous act


operator roman are accurate and are not that they were part of the arbitrator's decision and go from there your client filed suit against wrong then claiming various


i would say both issues are mentioned in that in that area in the next paragraph however where it says that the issue of the alcohol or alcohol content are


most i think the court indicated in his docket that was brought his attention by the plaintiff's attorney myself saying oh look that remains to be disposed of here and brought his attention he then asked the parties to each present a proposed written


as something similar to the motion to clarify or plaintiff ever get of public review of the issue regarding this motion under one eleven say well what he would have needed to


case there is no history of violence and the difference now is he has reason he says he has reason yes a clear plan to rehabilitate himself he wants to open a welding business he learned how to


comparative measure he was there for an injury to his right leg but they wanted to take a comparative measurement on the left on the way before and i emphasize before


not on our back in order to measure the range the flexibility of your leg there's one point i do want to raise for a leave here that i don't think was made clearly in the brief


purpose of getting the agreement with the known men's but not doing it with respect to the amount that we're here to your honor i i can't answer what the reasoning of that was that that is what happened i don't


court's order was you know we don't have any definite idea as to where the boundary line and i know that this court as recently as last year in brighton ran horseraces johnson reaffirmed what has become more what appears to


claiming adverse possession there's lots of things that could be done there's no affidavit submitted concerning any of that there's really no genuine issue of fact this fence has been there for a long time it's been a division mine for a long time the


more and for the people who are actually at the meeting given a short public recycle and you know we don't mean this to come off as


must have been an order that he violated there was no word or secondly he must of been disobedience that order if there's no order there's no way for my client ever be disobedient to the order because there is no order telling him he could or couldn't do something those are the initial


in a situation where they are placed in a inability to properly administer justice if someone is breaking supreme court rules well we can do it see high in our courthouses and our


that but then event that evidence was not on the subs same subject matter as gambling and besides that from a strategic point of view the fact that it was


gambling evidence goes i want to put that in context this well and frankly i mean if if if i was the ruler of the universe i wouldn't this would have been a two day trial at most


age height bill rates tattoos things that would allow a jury to say that was the person at fault here regardless of any other information here we don't have that here we need each piece of information to build on itself


return home if you're going to be honest with parents if you're telling them the goal is return home then don't live with them don't tell them don't take the recommendations and not implement them that's not fair


would just like to clarify that the issue that's raised in this appeal is whether plaintiffs satisfied which the four requirements for planaria injunction and any other matters that may be involved in the arbitration proceeding are not at issue before this


would be a direct appeal issue is fish to the evidence kind of issue i've been i don't know why they didn't find a gun however that doesn't have anything to do with defended being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the


observation by the officer that saw the fit with the gun with a party that point to again there was no the jerk coming back in there was no prejudice there every cause that bitter and all the


are controlled by seven twenty five i'll see s five slash one fifteen dash seven three is for sexual crimes in sexual type crimes seven is for i'm sorry for is for domestic those cases as he correctly


evaluating credibility in part when he did that and the officer did testify that the manner in which stan from ation came out


because that could have changed charo the trial attorney strategy below as far as not wanting all the previous parts of that interview where showing detective kaylor kind of pressuring to mico hill at that point could have changed counsel


said that the statement taken in context was used by the prosecutor to improperly interject his personal views improperly bolster the credibility of the testimony given by the police officers the state can't vouch for the the credibility of these


i think that hines petition which is a very practical suggestion which she with group voluntarily wish of as a matter of fact wasn't


proceeded through this lawsuit and never mentioned those documents so they're now clearly not newly discovered evidence and they've not identified any other evidence that they are claiming is newly discovered out


think it was and i disagree with the acceptance of that i think i have to you know stick with that but when you don't show up for a noticed hearing in the circuit court you have to face the


opportunity to challenge the evidence in his closing argument not only he repeatedly stated that the state's vouches for the with this is credibility he himself


definite statement but in the record if you go through his deposition that's in the record the deposition a doctor going for you and i give the pages but every time the objection was


court to find that well here's an inference that is actually an inference of an inference based the conviction on this it doesn't work that way the state wholly failed to provide sufficient evidence in this case that lately was served with the


yesterday if you really look at it there is no i mean no case the stevens case i mean there is really no common fun as the senate recognize in stevens and this is a different fact pattern by and of course here they didn't do any effort we didn't request to do anything we didn't assert


terminology in the funds you know when when it suits their purpose they want to talk about the med pay and the under insured voters plain like it was just one big coverage that was available to mr watson under the policy however if you look at the


there is a lot of case law most of it involving discovery how does how does that apply here plaintive successfully managed to bar all of our testimony of causation claiming that we had admitted


threatens and can follow suit with those threats to cancel medical appointments for the child that he has me she executes documents for school without any reference not only to the father's address but the there even is


a custody parent case and it was in a motion to reconsider but the issue and concern was about the in that case the mother had put the child into into harm's way luckily the child had not been injured in many or circumstances in this


room specifically designed to accommodate her furniture play area activity stations even a special electronic toy all the toys are dear to her her disability it's her home and it's been or homes that she was born except for the six


statute that requires that the guardian ad litum testify or provide a report containing recommendations to the court and then you have a supreme court rule saying that the guardian ad litum some basically attempt to conduct mediations of


mediator and then later represent an individual involved him of the proceedings from being able to use information gained from the mediation which you have right that's correct and there was actually a case that dealt


my decision talks about the need for a broad disclosure anything that can help the court decide certainly the fact so that case were different than the facts of this case the words are exactly the say and the


it's it's not the jurisdiction over means it's the jurisdiction to enter the order on the petition to revive against the judgment that's it and i honestly think that the circuit court has an obligation to determine the jurisdiction was


don't have any employees and i've got coverage for this period and then he picks up a job where he has to have a couple of employees and your theory is after the audit they were going to say you did have a


he might say i don't have any employees and then during the coverage period you would have taken on a job that required you to have a couple of employees in your premium would be readjusted or assessed at the end of that


each of their experts testified was there a mistake now was their mistake you know their counsel that summary judgment from the court so there was no mistaking the


the judge is not required maybe behind on every little fact that the decision would be as long as the court record i'd like to talk a little bit about the standard review the manifest way


not for compared to sentencing but to simply show that this is an extended term eligible type sent so the century maximum was sixty years and he only got fifteen after the reduction and because that very wide


under their interpretation the statute says they're not an owner of the ought to be able to proceed with a tax to this is wrong i mean they clearly had an interest in a property of the time to try to take x and all agree that they were in an owner of the property on january first two thousand and twelve in fact they're not an owner now mean


it's set forth in the statute and in a scavenger tax sale you can't have an interest in a property you can't have an interest in any property that's a tax or you have to file an application to get a visit it's a much more honorific process but all of the discussion about the


defendant's failure to meet those burdens this court were to reach issue three then it would still would have to show that the prosecutor's remarks were improper and that they resulted in substantial prejudice to defendant considering the content and contents


ultimately requests this court to affirm the trial court's judgment as there was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt of the state doesn't understand your concerns with alternatively if you do not remain and to rescind this defendant and


statutory interpretation it makes sense and it's not just so that that's that's that so that's the best of any part of it so let me move to due process some of them and apart from


requirements is that an individual who has been disciplined you know if i say department so that's an independent requirement there is no good behavior or this is you know encouraging this type of behavior to to report that is already required


so however i've ruled whichever side brings it up you lose you mean you're just not going to get me to reconsider instead i think swining see him now i'm saying imply only or maybe i could say it directly i should not have said


evidence can still yet nonetheless prove that it didn't spin it was in possession of the weapon as is needed to support his conviction however under the circumstances it would now be the slightly unusual


position our position would require the state to prove and every case that the sex offender was not confined and i think taking that to its logical extreme could cause a problem however the way that the statute is written


i mentioned earlier that when we get into an analysis under article three and you take us out of article two of the new discretional immunity analysis we don't have to get into the facts of this particular case with respect to open an obvious


shooting this is a totally separate ancillary matter which i would suggest she really didn't even understand the significance of well as i write i believe that the police were aware of where


it would increase to one hundred eighty eight thousand dollars and that's what happened here and so if it had speier sitting at the sale or even thinking of going to a sale how much to bid or what interest rate knowing that this horror


course mail mr smith only resorted to name calling and accusations of corruption he never made any statement that he wanted to physically harm the the the judge indeed in this case


informed of the arrest from statements made after bracks was informed of the arrest and the supreme court ultimately ruled that both the pre


cautiously active in other words cautiously approaching cases cautiously looking inside cases having a heightened awareness because especially since there wasn't anything there having a


heightened awareness that something else might be going on somewhere else in the village again all of these don't rise to the level of an emergency as gappy requires gaffney again requires that you know here


also encompasses the question of the carriage of fault and that's why the defendants objected and that's why they tendered an alternative instruction which which stated i have here somewhere


it drives up unnecessarily the the amount of damages and you know it's it's an eight point seven or eight million dollars verdict in total and i just you know i


it's interesting in this case and we've heard it here the defendant is a power does not say you can't hit a motional distress when there's physical injury in a positive the argument advanced by the border when he


quite frankly your honor this had continued for in the court to look at how long this has continued and there's no question she allowed social workers into her home on a year by way up to every other week so every other two weeks the social work was in her home


things that he cited and i'll get to the other one here a moment but that of a positive nature being the fact that ms dunning had received an offer for and had accepted new employment here and sank so that was it then you


christian academy because of the incident with the father she was it was an incident that if i recall the record correctly or on or in a roundabout way yes well that


discussion is he shown on the video actually aging in the melee i don't remember exactly which on the video


this case it was clearly not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant this continuance in fact it was would be improper for them to grant a continuance based on the fact that they knew well before this well before prior to trial they knew that these three these two witnesses were going to


issue here is it doesn't matter whether mr bligh when a dead testimony or whether the pleaded guilty we we don't know if they were cooperating in fact the only reason there was a sentencing issue still on the table for them is because they won't


were i submit that some psychologists believe that it's the most it's the best way that we have at this time to measure someone's risk but there are obviously limitations to that instrument it's


that is that the court says the circles of supporting accountability are cosa program quote may eventually aid respondent i i was also dr travis is testimony that at some point because of respondents progress he may be eligible for a conditional release i think the


the circuit court took into account and incorporated into its reasonable conclusion that respondent isn't ready for a conditional cease and i do want to focus for a moment on the abuse of discretion standard which we all acknowledge is applies in this case and


the defendant is not the same person he was at the time of that prior hearing to the defendant who's conduct a trial wall not directly addressing questions sometimes and at the sentencing hearing being


in the parking lot of the model and then a toast run you on into the roadway and there is a high rate of speed and soon on the interstate the problem with the issue though there would be is that the defendant passed testify because he has


there was an order and under the parent it acted indicates that absent a specific ruling saying one parent has primary custody or one parent has petitioned that a child support order with one presumes what was then known as custody


and as a result of that his relationship with the child had to be a factor now and in an isolated world is she a good parent or is he a good parent i think the evidence is that they both have


explain what the supreme court wants now in that area i haven't seen it but i think when you add all these factors up any case where the evidence was so closely


better so are you saying that


four years five years of work a week's worth the trial thousands of exhibits and you know untold testimony pages and then turn around and rearrange it recalculated and redo it because somebody doesn't like the result i might


mr mackintosh the only non lawyer in this case you know like how only like jeremiah trying to get his speedy trial rights vindicated filing a pro se motion for this charge that the judge could never you know


here is what happened at the hearings on the motions and what was alleged in the motions and it's a low pleading standard and it's a very very low standard of bird it's a prima fashioned case based on allegations


controlled black and when we look at that map we see a very important aspect of the intersection that is we're street has controlled by the city and black township now where's the evidence supporting the


allegations of the complaint at her at page a c three and four of the record and then we look at the specific allegations at least as to my clients on page that beginning in page c fifteen what we see is a common


that well when you when you built the road you should have picked another location and maybe it should have been where stephenson is at a slow should have been at a high different spot so we did have this line of sight problem but interesting if you look at the affidavit that the city


because there's no line of sight the stop sign is a component but there is no allegation in the plaintiff's complaint that anybody should have that anybody failed to provide traffic signals or signs and that's what the immunity that


not the law section twenty is an entirely separate section of the act and start to go opinion you would agree you did not look section the section absolutely agree with that absolutely we didn't try to agree


with regards to it being structural air hope the right to a public right of the right to a public trial rebel oh says the holding is bolstered by the practice of presuming prejudice when the constitutional guarantee of a public


is that in the children's best interest does that teach them how they're supposed to go forward and try to earn an income of their own and attain a job it does not i submit that's not in the children's best interest


on if the the parcel that was in question the court found therefore that yes i'm writing sufficient to bind the party to be charge there is not any difference


health issue and whether that which in our opinion was devilish positive prejudice in regard to my client situation in this case the success of post conviction petitions


jeremy put on amanda the refusal to allow her to leave when she was sacked that apart apartment complex the jeremy that jeremy runs and was trying to leave and he blocked her in her wrists him restraining her grabbing her phone those were


understanding things that were appropriate and were not appropriate when they come to you when it came to dealing with issues that arose with her children so she was making reasonable progress i think where the courts and frankly where


seeing as a practitioner is of reactions to two sixteen requests not just in adams county but in sangamon peoria cook county we are getting requests such as the one here that says we admit the


requesting knowing of mr ramsey age retirement or whatever this is he had this plan that that would be subject to the future payments


the judgement was answered so i will leave that that just is not the way things should be i don't think that when maintenance is set based on and and then to act at all and say well


of the completion of the trial to say that the argument phase is not part of the trial or that you'd be iffy it only applies to cases that are tried after july one thousand and seventeen as is the


is not like a public sidewalk where you're walking around the building this is exiting the building if you look at the video she walks out maybe twenty feet she's still on that exit from the building part of it it's not like you're


the new law apply that you income average to determine how much child support is to be paid the court was wrong and its finding that this was decided before july


doctor from the second is irrelevant of testimony by dr fernandez regarding patients in general and the third is the highly improper closing argument comments insinuating that


ligament and release the pressure in a roma can form he would have seen it if that's what happened and that was his problem that's why it's different he only said that this patient had nerve damage from compression of


were published to the jury they were put up before the jury in those opinions stated in those letters were thus that my client had actually committed malpractise or that he had injured the patient's nerve cheesily


we've got to send it back to the trial court i'm not saying that every case that be the case i think that the court could have made findings and said there was no evidence presented on this or i but but then the facts are there was evidence presented on that well just take for example the vehicles


you also have the supreme court and lefever who talks about you know alternative route is not the way to look at the deliberate encounter exception and in fact they rejected the defendant's argument


ordinary care in accomplishing that task the employees of our recent eastland music condition was there was unable to remedy it well they should have had a policy in place as to what to do if this happened on a weekend


submitted his affidavit his story had changed legally and it was nothing to do with the dot i slipped on the ramble and that's what caused my fall there's also a site the wallace


condition or the defendant had actual knowledge of the condition knew of its presence or that the defendant had constructive knowledge of the condition that the condition would present for a period of time such that his presence


if you look at what is the nature of the risk of serious while he was sitting for flexed twisted it in a position where he really couldn't move it around which unless he knew that it was a


again once that is explained miss cox's testimony defense counsel can disagree with what she would say he didn't say no that's not what she told me he didn't say that there was any reason not to collar except you want to rely on the southern witness who


yeah our position is simply this the only clean obvious way to read it stand is the witness to state with all the trial is the person who wrote


very first of all we have the first side bar and then we have a lunchtime discussion at the lunch time discussion the judge makes a comment that he thinks that the jury is paying attention and giving heed to his instruction and


types of jobs that remain available to him and she mentioned you know security guard she mentioned because it was made in the background he might be good if it were combined sales das there was another one that she talked


to work would you and i think i've argued extensively here that way and he never had an opportunity to work with it respondent give it to him and secondly that there is


by resolution this should be a resolution not a bill just by nature of


the people going all i can take control of this is really it's not not accurate just generally and as well why have a constitution at all why not go to just bare majority rule want to go to a parliamentary system that's not our system as well i would


of a mile east of there there's four sections that come together there he started there yes you are going to go west of this walk to a section corner i believe that hugh would have to


argue should be given equal weight and as such a shortage of the block exists which leads to the necessary application of the apportionment rule however the of ellie's contention which is supported by the record of evidence is that there is not in


earth surveyors mark but he also funnels and blocks three which is the block that would be to the south west block one that we're dealing with here he found on the west corner the


again the size of the car has some impact on your consideration as to whether it's a two three four five or ten car garage i would suggest that it's the dimensions which may give some indication that it's more than a


place and those two cases take a very different approach by my view would be that also subsequent to the bill in the way it was the rogers case and the subsequent cases that all focus on the effect on the recipient whether


it is that the basis for that way was wrong and i think that and the basis being that you're saying was launched an aureole the wrong base the basis is that they relied on an x ray


files an action the plaintiff has to plead sufficient fast to show that the action complies with the statue of limitations they didn't do that and not only was there a complaint filed initially there was an


sorry i think you are mr manson feel free to take your time


how is this not an allocation of present responsibilities case both parties filed a petition asking the court to modify the decision making and parenting time we have to start with the


the complaint and we're going on the basis of the allegations but when i look at paragraph fourteen which is it c three thirty nine of the record i direction proximate result of foregoing negligent acts and emissions of


summary judgments are not given out as frequently on my research as in the federal court oh no i believe in the fight in the right of a person to be


capacity and that's also in the separate appendix at page sixty six so she heard all the dollars that she was a no no no all she earned what she was entitled to be paid she received more than


and impulse that would be consistent with the compression and be all by nerve due to the twisting nature of the injury cell and and there is no explanation like doctor to grange as to why


admissions deal than even the case if that this your case that you mentioned dunning versus trying to do that the plaintiffs do rely upon in this in this for this argument in that particular case it's a situation where a man was crushed by a


what happens next essentially what happens next is the statutory framework that has been put together between the electric suppliers act the electric service consumer choice and rate relief act the public utilities and use


that other person to buy the infrastructure so that service isn't disrupted to the consumer and that's really the underpinning of all this is is the public policy of protecting the consumer not disrupting electric service and having the city


cause of the accident it was a clear night and long was the same thing but then its car was parked one real protruding slightly on the travel portion of a road the road conditions were hazardous plato spahr lost control and


smith we do believe it is very very cold here because it concerns essentially a project that was too complex for the government entity to determine and so they decided to turn it over to the vendor to figure out the rest of the end and to give a price when they were done


provides a manner of attaining obtaining redress when you're forced to come into court and defend baseless allegations that's why the rule exists well we'll tell you we're back


wouldn't be any any prejudice at all if williams does not apply that's on that issue i'd like to move on to causation very briefly with respect to the causation issue this is not a flat


like in bor these comments were well exactly comest the trial court had already gone through the statutory factors and aggravation and mitigation been stated prior to this whole section that i'm going to make some comments now


probable this fact this act is far short of proving actual concealment nine hundred eighty one anyway and then going on page forty i'm sorry paragraph forty third jane argues paragraph five is a modification because of


how do you reconcile cause of action that claim with a cause of action because they're not the same thing and we recognize in that same thing when jane found out that they were trying to sell the house out from under her and not recognizing a life estate that's all


so that she had to have surgery i don't think that's that is the question is what was the causal factor for that and we believe that that based on the out the evidence that i've outlined particularly dr hockey acknowledging that it was not this accident were


again because this is the stage to dismiss all we we believe that every man for further posting pics and proceedings would be most appropriate before i conclude i would i would just like to know that that after miller


this court says you know what we find that the witnesses were credible there's an additional problem the state's case and that's issue two in the brief or very ineffective assistance of counsel argument because yes the jury did hear this evidence in the case


show that these errors were not harmless where all of the other none of the other crimes evidence went to the charge of which mr will was acquitted and all of that evidence went to the charge of which he was convicted


narrative in this case and without the testimony of these girls the events that unfolded would be otherwise inexplicable your honor next there was significant discussion about the testimony of william rivera during the court exercise that's just


could have challenge the constitutionality of the authority for admission of a blood test which is necessary for medical treatment they did not we are not as a state required to ignore


but that's a matter for the jury to decide and we're not disputing at this moment but we still need to realize that it's unclear as to whether nine and then he was not provoked by mr robson whatever the case may be in this case are


noted maybe some sensitivity to the scar tissue and then he noted that this was resolving nicely on its own and to continue to massage it and then when this case proceeded arbitration in april two thousand


of the cameras concerned or maybe the computer monitor either way it's obstructed by the view as far as for where it's laying in the best and it could have been as far as maddox's testimony being


public the more effective testimony in that realm where the two employees that specifically stated this office wasn't open to the public but already testified and one of them even saying that no one in her ten years that worked there


of a fight responded himself knew there was going to be a fight he sent his eight year old son as eight year old brother to the car he knew there that's that's i mean if you really was trying to protect his brother and didn't know there was going to be a fight you would have went along with the brother


with the first search where mr for the officers did not have probable cause to detain the search mr pettus third after the second search where officers did not have probable cause to arrest


given and implicitly that ruling was without prejudice now within that time period the plaintiff needed more time apparently and so they moved for additional time where again about a month


what's your response to them well your honor as i point out of my brief to it sort of a funny thing actually looking at the evidence to put all the eggs in dr cronus hat because those eggs and the breaking a couple years later when you have dr ronan himself


differently effectively are use it terminations not warranted because it would not more decisively sever her relationship with the minors where as she can see she's unfit she's got no relationship with a minor if she's left the country


disability you have to meet certain rules and you know procedures to get long term disability benefits you cannot get it at the same time you're getting work benefits but he's already five four in receiving while in t t t now he's getting


a sheriff over a fortune to do something we did nothing because they are already made the decision he was warned and so security he went on so security i don't know that i've ever seen a situation where someone has gotten on so securely a


the lack of training etc so in terms of that issue i would just suggest to the court that the institutional negligence issue is so


think undue influence cases by their very nature are inferential and circumstantial and that's why the supreme court didn't enter a the state of hoover sanctioned this kind of case you


here of knowing we don't know but i would suggest that a reasonable inference can be drawn either way judge writer and the jury heard the evidence reviewed all the documents reviewed the hospice notes which you referred to in my


complete miscarriage of justice because she did not participate and that's a requirement for finding undue influence those are just two reasons the facts i do not agree are in dispute i have said from the beginning given what they're asking for and that's why


know this thirty pages of documents that make mr heller look like a bad person can only go for it was motive that can only show his connection


the issues that animosity between the parties may consider the standard is something that i think that the court should have taken a little bit more the court should look more at what they ensure the best interest they entered would be and i believe that


which the statute talks about but the time of the rest wasn't clear but it was somewhere after three twenty and officer isn't contacting the mother till four forty then they don't wait a whole


demeanor and found great concern with the fact that in no point in time if you exhibit anything that resembles morris he did not accept responsibility for his actions so as a result or at that point in time said even though it has the


case was he didn't think a legislature did a very good job he can improve on it and that's how he improved on it when they really meant was that should apply to car well that's not what they say as i said the statute clear whether it's a good idea or bad idea is


along those lines it is just as holder white and and that's why i started by saying i believe the mr mauer's arguments better directed at the legislature this is a big government versus small government argument it's not a it's


requires the court to consider on marital property even where the non marital property to be received in the future and that case specifically dealt with the wife trying to argue to the court then you can consider my


factor in sentencing it is a clear era and it does affect the substantial rights of the defendant and the case of mr jackson would agree found that there was an exit there was not an existence of a weapon because they


that's certainly not the commonsense or the intent of the statute so if you look at section twenty one so should twenty one is the section that of that says that if you're subcontracted visions of section one else


surgeon that evaluations are necessary to do the trial judge any good had a pretrial motion for examination and made her trial the court could've determined whether it was appropriate to do so it could have


a prostitution all three children were sexually acting out when they first came into care which indicates they may have been sold into prostitution but a state israel


disproportionate to the nature of the offense and starting here with the nature of the offense this is one of the most serious offenses is originally charged was a class x felony the highest class short of murder and the statute of aggravated arson requires


there is a what the chocolate if you this very frightening a disturbing elements of persistence and the dangerousness this defendant presented was not only was he premeditating and planning this crime but he did not even plan


want conduct as opposed to ordinary negligence and like here the defendant argued that the allegations were conclusory indeed they noted that a lot of the same allegations that were used now argued by the mayor to support a later finding of


national union would have objected so we have the principle not objecting going along with the coverage determinations and this is the key to the whole thing you're ours and this is one of the bases on which a judge ordered all dismissed the tortious interference count and that


brief exactly what those details factual allegations are about about the return on the premiums you know we're sure it's reserves going exclusively to them the payment caps that i refer to the employee compensation incentives


show that this short hand remark in the polygraph examiners report means anything other than simply that it was a and a failure to identify the line what would be more specific was this brought out at trial really prior


that upon the state's attorney and the local county court to make that determination so i think the state's position or the department's position that they're in a better position to make sure that the underlying requirements of


an existing on the face of the petition holding a claim that is clearly contrary to the statute and in this case where there is


sentences the stipulation basically says if such a witness recall then that witness was testifying in a certain manner if you look at that particular


question quote i hate to private before that night and you ever had sex before in your life close quote the victim then responded without objection quote unquote yes the question then went


indicted by a purely county grand jury for acts occurring in peoria county and the majority of the evidence presented by the people were acts of other wrongs committed in another county


applied to each individual cases if they were built to the case and this is not an insignificant portion of the game which warrants some teeth ten million dollars


legislative or or i'm sorry for the decisions that occurred in two thousand and nine they would have been separate to legislative review now there were only a couple of cases from the appellate courts that really interpreted twelve of twelve point one


presenting an argument contrary to their earlier successful argument of which they intend the benefit of receiving their chosen point of view that is they filed a case that the only way it could


individually and then a negligent retention claim against the senate the missouri senate the documents show that the senate itself and some of their own documents recognized a neutral


and he or she was at the time seven years old referred to an incident that occurred and when she was five she referred to the fact that she and the minor


law that's exactly what we have here


evidence in the record vendors as famous condition bill being was caused by a cyst and degenerative arthritis correct dr venders opening in is very suspect in that first time in his deposition he


evidence we know that the husband in that case wants the business we know that he had the ability to shield his income by keeping a new corporation he could kick out what he wanted to and he could call it salary


owner and that's the income of the areas during the marriage was attributable to limbo making sure income marital property again that's not the point here the point is she holds fifty percent of this business she can't


state subtracting from his he gets zero his portion of the maryland state the


that that the children be raised catholic in that same paragraph and also a joint peer group agreement i mean it encourages people to talk to work


at the beginning i knew saying that he never agreed they should be rescanned like or he changed his mind and some point he changed his mind at some point and it was basically the record will reflect that it was based primarily on the


we submit that the absence of language stating that the majority is to be counted at that hearing date denotes a legislative intent that says there is neither requirement north already to count the electoral


he said that it was important to have the actuarial tests to remove the element of subjectivity from making this determination and the state has been arguing for years that these tests should be the


ninety six thousand dollars each year over a five year period you're woman we didn't hear too they had twenty thousand dollars to them here today at thirty six thousand dollars almost thirty seven so two years into it that


do in our brief that the issue of whether actual damages have been sustained is a question of all areas of all of the underlining questions we


an award of interest in the approximately seventy six million dollars that had been held in the protest during the course of that litigation and they argued that that interest to work to the horse racing form


close the door unlock it so that the public could be allowed to be in this little room is the empty room or call it whatever you want to call it the in the rape case which was


is why and it's a situation where the after all liability carrier so in this particular case probably when the beneficiary would be mrs no dad makes a claim and they refused to pay


reserve even to grant or for errors successors in the sign and then continues to talk about these people to the north for the free and uninterrupted use liberty


my clients behavior with regard to her actions on that day were reasonable i don't i don't believe that this was any type of frolic by my client with regard to heading over to the scrubs on wheels i think that she


the plate at one point imagine that someone told him to stay out and the other one says that he tells a new face in the office of the private area when he sees it but there's no testimony about that day this man knowing to not be in there he


beyond the fifty thousand dollars minimal jurisdictional so for that reason the ones i just i don't i don't believe that the pork utilize rule could twenty two properly


through two thousand and three was simply a year of corporations don't get the trial court though is incorrect when it determined that it was ok for the corporation to


not been able to prove an amazing honest to a carefully look carefully at the record watched the videotape look at the evidence and i'm confident you'll find that you will not share in a trial where his confidence in the complainants testimony


about least restrictive alternative i think this is an easy issue for the court to reverse there was no disposition report that complied with the requirements of a mental health code and this court can follow


mean you don't have to get to this issue out of ineffective assistance but i was here in october i'm and ineffective assistance case to that was rotten see and just it's like when you were one of the justices there and


so so i would ask the court to please distinguish between here's a evidence that a doctor can rely on if it's reasonable to use as a basis for his opinion but that was there still needs to be the substantive evidence to


but there were shots fired after that too so you know i think it's very feasible evidence to the prosecution without giving it any thought i would say that would be a basis for a jury to find him guilty under the collar stand considering the evidence in the high school like most of you the prosecution


that would be overwhelmingly helpful indeed perhaps necessary to your honor's to decide this case they she made of point that's very dispositive here she point out that each defendant was black


thousand and two there's no app engine so you can have it both ways you can't say well we gave you we found an application on time for two thousand and three but we really gave you notice in two thousand and two


withdraws and prevent the issues that were raised in this case a power admits that his mother mrs miller did not forge any documents or that she didn't have the right to ask sess the phones instead he takes issue of the restriction on


given the doctors you look what mr heath told the individuals i don't think that the control of the paper was one that was much worried about i think dr fletcher addressed that as relates to the study of the manuals in the hydraulics in the track system of the paver that


not for profit organisation retired at fifty something was making that five thousand as a consultant essentially to train his excessive went from fifty thousand to five thousand on early retire here mr lifton on the show you that i mean the reason i'm asking


do that question and that answer was not objected to i mean i later continued and was asking questions like you you live with her you don't know what she makes you know you started this company blah


time these g p s nada steering assembly units cost somewhere in the range of between ten to twelve thousand dollars and as a result they said this wasn't an option we negotiated we want more money and the


he had plenty of information whether there's an informed consent from the file totally fair argument but not just


just think again and i'm not going to go through all this i've documented it certainly go into it farther earth that the court wants to go into it let's address the outward appearance of the petitioner shortly after the accident


property was was useless and worthless when she always paying thousands of dollars to read the court the trial judge noted that property that generates income on the snow is not worthless it's


constructed agency and it only has the rights and powers that have been provided to it that are listed within the act and that are detailed in the rules governing practice or the illinois workers compensation commission part of these rules that's for the rules of


opponent justice holdridge roche determination of causal connection by the commission is a question of fact not to be set aside unless there's it's against the manifest weight of evidence meaning that an opposite


relationship and thus tended to establish the defendant's motive power in this case however there was only one prior incident which prior act was simply insufficient to show that mystery was motivated by hostility showing her


first issue presented in the state's brief which is that the post conviction hearing act does not apply to the defendants guilty plea proceedings prior to the date those guilty


pointed the gun at the victim he stayed there while the struggle took place and the jury on the gun over the gun he remained in the car after the st shot and as dr testified the nd shot came came about one to two


could ok but i want to make a point particular about that case because those parents were they were found to be gross negligence the equivalent of reckless behavior those parents were actually in the same position as defendant in this case where their acts


it take it out of the realm of a recreational activity and we come part of the order of business i think in this particular case it certainly does i think in our our district it certainly did and i suppose there could


according to some that right he says that he had two conversations with the investigators one he changes the timeline so but he's referring to one that does happen ten days after the shooting and another one that


a at the people opened the door is really disingenuous because that certainly wasn't the case and furthermore it will play out during cross examination of robinson


they she confirmed that he had been retired because he was asked and he said i i retired i retired from robbins responded certainly he was no allowed to go further into that but he did confirm that he had been retired which is the difference between him


compromised in the wake entitle their to is greatly reduced however those fares are considerably less importance with regard to the causal connection for work at


a majority and the concurring opinion in mclaurin ignored a crucial piece of how that it's in the sufficiency analysis that piece of evidence was after the officer so i defended running fifty feet away with this


clearly this defined it had no desire to keep guilty and know that your honour's have also made reference to the penance self serving statement alone is not enough to seek to establish prejudice under strickland there needs to be something more


whether that is a serious enough offense serious enough traffic violation to reasonably infer that bad driver was drunk and the majority said that yes no someone grandson assessed the road was us to reasonably conclude that the driver was


the the court found that that just wasn't enough that this was a rather remarkable thing to have happened and the jury just instruction is just not enough to cure the impact of such a weird thing happening in front of them


inches if you used to if you used the wrong if you're measuring now from the base of the plate but from some other point


cradle hearing that you've got there grima but my question for you as well can you give give us any understanding of argument as to why it would be improper for us to affirm the convictions and still send it


two blocks away florida from this case as jackson also out of this division two thousand and seventeen defendant sites have for two reasons there were four independent reasons in jackson this found to be reversible there


althea's application for workers compensation benefits and they actually did not the benefits they sell adapters were for that would be a different case but that's not what happened here


satisfies cause he provided an explanation that satisfies it regarding the shattering you're right your medical records were available i mean they were his records correct he still needed to get theirs from there in the possession


massey being denied effective assistance of trial counsel by virtue of various acts and omissions committed by his attorney both before and during trial now the essence of our effective assistance claim is that based on the evidence mr massey is attorney failed to


going to do is that actual question i don't think so i think the factual question was whether the provision of the r f p to the union without any additional information


now i understand or this standard the commission is due deference however i don't believe that constitutes complete deference the facts of this case clearly support the finding that the commission's decision was against the manifest weight


ultimately the plaintiff's position be it even if there was an injury to a male employee in that way in the form of a transitory change to his reproductive system


which relief can be granted because the record does not reflect rather the probation officer mirandized him before the p s i i interview completely misses the point on the trial court will build roads to participate in the p s i i interview because he


into an arrest and such type of seizure requires probable cause now again in illinois after people the aguilar the view of just simply having a gun is not enough a tough crime and the support


with your argument is it is this if a court would really do that after three hours then they'd have nothing to do after it six hours afterwards and no there has to be a point when you use that


having three i think he is argument was that the thread was never trained as you eat it is fine and that there was no there wasn't someone actually spotting for him when he this


handed down a case on june third which directly addresses leos and its effect on retired law enforcement officers and that's dewberry versus the district of columbia and opponents did file a motion for leave to file supplemental authority


discovery materials i think we are also entitled to take out our own work product our work product doesn't joy its own protections as recognized by hickman versus tiller and the long series of cases that have ruled in accordance with


methods in which and i documented attached to a no is considered to be a real proof in the record now that we don't believe what you're saying course but in the trial court is there a record of a paper it's the actual affidavit with


there was represented himself and i'm not saying we're going to cut this guy slam well i am saying is that this was a runaway train that was not held by the by the prosecution and of course was duty bound to instruct correctly our


simple matter back for a new trial and at that point that was the first time that the defendant made an s o g a motion and the trial court denied it first then saying it was untimely and the illinois supreme court sent it back saying that that was there


there's not a lot in the point spreads but again we don't know how the officers were motioning whether they were using pictures to display this but this wasn't really a legal or


as simply a question of law you told the appellate the commission to do something i say they didn't do it i said a lot of doesn't give them a real legitimate reason for saying what


records show no evidence that he was injured on the job or that he was employed by swift and the point of the arbitrator was making when she mentioned the monies and it was not so much i don't believe that she believed that he was definitely employed by in


in in his opinion that there were indications based on a range of as a scale a range of opinions that go from a certain to zero uncertainty


aware of the accident he investigated he did a work up and he changed that diagnosis changed the treatment that he was providing to address those different diagnoses and he then did this from the work accident date i'm sorry from the current date of august nineteenth two thousand


says this should have been dismissed previously there is nothing to this this so called point of actual innocence that we think pretty clearly shows bias as far as issues are we don't have a


so if there's nothing further to the first issue we would stand on our briefs and we would ask this court to affirm the decision of the lower court thank you thank you


period there's no cases cited the issue is forfeited and the termination oh t t d there's evidence to be reached m m i think that they suggested so there's no way you


examination it was just a videotape in a transcript that was offered into evidence and it's as important to look at the details of that we can take action and most importantly he changed plans to change the location of where the victim's body was found following the shooting and


short term there's this there's the simple second impacts in right hands is that initial concussion when i don't recognize and then the brain is subjected to further because of


is probably something


take it will get night work in the whistleblower case and met him to believe this was not going to be his only recovery counsel why did your client go see the lawyer for forty because he he mosconi


right down to ok and they have this they have a specific penalty in the statute that was not imposed to correct the fifty percent in fact i don't think she could have i don't think there could have been a fifty or whatever amount was i don't think there could have been a penalty imposed against her


live in the property and you only you've never been entitle to take to form owners exemptions for two different houses you don't get it for recreational home you don't get it or a second home because you can't really live you


opportunity to compel the production of any recorded statement or document and to compel me in the appearance of any witness including the two supervisors and its uncontroverted that they never made any attempts at justice hudson


let's take it further than this assume he doesn't employ card this permit for the base is not i think i'm by texas not requiring a permit for registration that is in essence giving him permission to have


municipalities and the district account for i'm sorry not the district but larger than this but the accounting of these defined benefit pension plans mister fabian well you know for sure you


states government prepared annually by the office of management and budget and treasury in conjunction with each other and audited by the government accountability office this hearing will set the stage for our oversight of executive branch financial


wide electronic invoice portal that will enable government agencies and vendors to improve control streamline purchases and reduce costs


administration believes it to be a good idea to accelerate the direct payments to governments we simply cannot trust that a foreign government will provide effective oversight of u s money necessary oversight tools are limited and accountability cannot be assured if the direct assist program is


places south obviously the agency has the same issue we also use as you mentioned in your remarks third parties other audit firms that we will hire local audit firms to go out and help us with our review


shah that is also why we helped set up the interim haiti recovery commission which is co chaired by the haitian prime minister and president clinton it includes as board members a number of major donors and multilateral partners


that said i need to say one more time because there have been good relief efforts probably the immediacy of what happened in haiti but having seen it myself having read this report having gone through it


one you are right this will go to the floor because it is the speaker's bill


this committee saw to it that the mayor of the district of columbia could not even testify because they knew he opposed the bill mister chairman may i correct your notion about authorization for this bill there is no


of the residents of the district of columbia full citizens of the united states is to be told we are the congressional laboratory we are just as much of an independent self governing


sixty minutes i guess i appreciate that and i do share your concern for local control but as you know seventy five percent of the district's residents support the continuation of


some consistency here if you care about every one of these beautiful awesome children who would grow up to be president of the united states the ones that you are looking at it might be helpful to take a look at programs like the


because of the issue of local control i am not sure that the role of congress because as was well stated by a number of people is congress going to go in and tell every individual school district what they should or shouldn't do we have always respected that is


warlords criminals and insurgents extorted contractors for protection payments to obtain safe passage a follow up hearing held by this subcommittee in september showed that the department has made little progress in rooting out bad actors who undermined our anti insurgency efforts in afghanistan


come to haunt us today one is that while we sent our military forces into southwest asia to fight two wars there was a mistaken belief by many of the civilian agencies that they


reference mister chairman a test mode that mode does not exist in the airport environment the machines in those airports have a different software package that does not exist mister chaffetz you said the same machines have those capabilities my understanding is the network that each of them are


testimony today that we are going to hear but that we saw on the subcommittees website we intend to file a protest against the gsas new preference policy in favor of plas on an upcoming project that policy has already resulted in a


understand it correctly on this the american college of radiology released a statement and it said it was not aware of any evidence that either of the standing technologies that the tsa is considering would present significant biological risks for passengers


tsa is not really gifted in regards to analyzing certain factors of passengers and actually noted something about border security isn't there a place here for interagencies to be


final report on the opportunity scholarship program did not report the results we are seeing in the district's chosen alternatives to our traditional public schools our public charter schools the department of education's report


resources to do it if they don't have the attention to the schools and the neighborhoods that need to get better and why it is so maddening for some of us to be in washington today is that while this is i think a very very useful debate in


negotiating here in public with venezuela or anything of that nature so can i ask you to give us a broad range of all of the competing interests that we have there when the balancing is going on give us a range of what types of things


here and participating with us and those of you that are watching on television today's proceedings are the second in a series of hearings designed to evaluate the status of u s airport security and the policies employed by the department of homeland security there are a number of concerns that have been


the ability to talk to those very few passengers that we find as highrisk passengers based on our earlier analysis and not just search them but also talk to them and interview them to a level that would


wants to do which the postmaster wants to do there are those who simply say we should withhold less from future obligations for pension and health care but none of them are willing to risk not having a federal backstop


believe that is important do we have a transition that primarily is going to be based on labor yes do i know that maintaining those rural post offices and some urban is important yes


example of the city could be denied one single facility remaining in that section so mister chairman i know that you have


i agree with congressman davis that we need to explore all of those possible remedies to this problem h r two thousand three hundred and nine would also establish a presidentially appointed commission on postal reorganization to commend postal


not necessary and that we could work this out going forward and now more recently under the new postmaster they are asking to abdicate the power of these people to actually negotiate


amendment i noted that you managed to kick a few more bucks into it but having said that even opms statement was really that there may be temporary amounts any use of this kind of legislation would


here some of the elements of the presidents proposal as part of transition funds since these amendments in my opinion gut the ability to bring real reform to the cost drivers of the post office do not bring a material


it generated the second largest positive impact uncovered to date moreover the d c opportunity scholarship program has proven effective at boosting the outcome that matters most educational attainment


program we also recognized the argument that some people were making that it would take money away so we held d c public schools harmless so for every child that they lost that went to the program they still got the per pupil funding


schools have to take every year mister wolf representative norton they did initially it was written into the law that we had to use the same assessments used by d c public schools at the year of enactment of the law and that was the sat nine


profession as meeting the criteria necessary for a standard setting body accrual based financial reporting standards issued by fasab call for recognizing commitments and obligations as they occur rather than when


impact the government needs to use modern technology to inform the presentation of that information and adapt to the way users want to receive the information and are much more likely to use that information thank


ever take into account the cost implications of your decisions both on the federal and state and local government levels or for that matter on the private sector mister allen can i go ahead and start


gasb and setting those accounting standards for state and local governments in addition to i think as you referenced intergenerational equity are there lessons learned from your work at gasb with state and local


wonder and ask the question why are postal workers singled out having served as a postal worker i personally know of how labor intensive it is to move


of the armed services committee or their schedule i dont know we can get into the judiciary committee and the financial services committees jurisdictions while we are at it because they have been too slow by our standard in marking up their respective legislation and


understanding it is my preference that if ed and labor can take up this independently we are happy to but we cannot tolerate the post office paying for a failed system just because it is not fixed and i would


and recapturing improper payments president obama's administration has put forth very robust initiatives to eliminate improper payments which is one of the key components of the efforts to


eliminate waste i am encouraged to see that we have some positive results in response to these efforts the president called for a do not pay list in june two


the privacy act or just the lack of an automated tool to pull it we don't always get the information we need to validate the second is the tougher we make the world for recipients to prevent improper payments it can create other programmatic challenges


related intrusions pose one of the greatest threats to our national security the intent is to obtain detailed information from various sources and from various perspectives as to what the current threat actually entails so the committee can later delve more deeply into


here where the parents are in one country and the child is born there and stays there until the challenge removal and we agree with judge bugs as a factual matter not as a legal principle that those facts are very likely to lead to the


our submission is those other facts are all facts the way in favor of italy because they're principally the fact that the child has been located in italy for her whole life before she was removed and that's not something that was relevant necessarily to intent but that's


back case in this case but why i don't think so your honor i think for two reasons one is the the inadmissibility relief point i think as i said before there were finality or cases that's your carty case suspension of deportation even


just you are released no your honor i got those cases a stablished a principle in immigration that the government would get the benefit of a new hearing that they didn't simply have to release the person and let them go that there would be a new hearing where there was a legal


are taking the death penalty off the table for offenses like that so we're going to say justice alito if there are separate offenses under the u c m j that could be charged in those circumstances rape as a war crime aggravated rape as a war crime could be charged under


protect service members to the same extent as civilians just carried out there were no caviar there were no qualifications and i think the government's reading of article fifty five dollars requires some evidence that congress didn't mean to do that and frankly it has not


evidentiary issue first and then i would like to come back to your question about section sixty of the statute as well if you look at the joint appendix page one forty eight the cost of the census bureau staff specifically told the


american population some twenty five million voting age people would need to have their citizen age imputed by the census bureau and so he was making clear that he'd rather go with actual counting than imputation and he pointed out that by proceeding with his preferred


effect because non response is an illegal act but that is an irrational and impermissible factor to consider on this question and he said that adding the question would help voting rights enforcement but that


it may be that some people find questions about gender now often civil maybe in the future that would be deemed offensive and that would undermine the accuracy of the of the actual mission we don't have any


circuit split apparently there are some circuits that say although you may bring an appeal immediately you don't have to do and you can wait until the end and you suggest that we don't have to think about that question but for me


as you listed those pieces of evidence they all seemed to me to go to credibility so let's just take the di case and one of the pieces of evidence that you cited was you know he started stammering when he talked about


there well i think that and the idea has not made an explicit adverse credibility determination and then the the court needs to sorry then the board needs to determine whether their


persuasive not because of credibility but because there was other evidence that showed she was not in fact in danger it was the u p s delivery man so i don't think the e c m to be leaning heavily on the fact that the statute uses


which is hey as long as you've got something that might implicitly be read one way that's enough i mean that's not what this court ever expects except from the ministry of walk context you want to accept it by the f c c or the p a and i certainly don't think you should accept it here


are appealed they don't always have to right it could be the situation could be implicit from the record that they assume that it was robot it the lower courts or the agency


trying to protect my daughter and then on the other hand you have a probation report so it comes up to the board and because there was no find an it comes with a presumption of credibility but the board is


you're going to have to call them and saying on the director's granted rehearing he's appointed himself and two others just don't think the same way he does to the panel he's issued new guidance saying in a so called hypothetical case that looks like ours it should


word of the executive for the case they decide not subject a p j s to on scene behind the scenes pressures through its appearance could evade accountability how to fix the statute is for congress solutions point in opposite directions


sufficient for you on our st not off course one of a multiple options and put in opposite directions but it wouldn't even fix the problem even if the director would somehow give the director the ability to grant a rehearing despite


know you said you're not going to take a position or if the government is not taking a position on whether or not we should get to the federal common law issues but do you have an opinion on whether where the whether or not


pleased the court according to petitioners merely referring to section four hundred and forty two and a removal notice yaron tease the defendant and appeal as of right of every ground rejected by the district court even if the one


record of confidentiality go out to that now but have truly been fixed thank you justice sotomayor counsel if we were to apply the type of narrow tailoring you advocate i don't see how the public disclosure at issue


off and understand more clearly your thoughts on why officials challenge is appropriate here yes justice course which i think anything short of facial relief here will be a pyrrhic victory for charities and donors that are counting


reasons and now i guess to why the i r s does but as a formal matter regarding the constitutional analysis we agree with the united states that it's different because the i r s rule is a condition of a tax


why is that bad because it's the same kind of race conscious activity of subordinating certainly is it maximizing participation more or equalizing it in other words that only comes up when you have disparate


then you haven't established the threshold requirement to look at the disproportionate outcome in other words the state has not done anything wrong in a time place or manner of case if you ask why didn't this person vote the answer in the literacy test


they say all they're asking you to do is evaluate a couple without reference to whether they are same sex or not you've read that it says your objection is to being required to evaluate and provide written


religious groups have been doing this prior to when the city got involved we're going to exclude you you can no longer carry out this work unless you take actions that are contrary to your face that is something that the free exercise clause prohibits that's what philadelphia is attempting to do here


respondents urged the court to decide some other case not this case they claim all kinds of harms but religious foster agencies continue to serve in most states and multiple states and even protected those agencies by law without negative results longstanding


any is again wrong about the way that it behaves even worse they've clearly have the authority to withhold content we frequently allow for a right of way which is why this happened at a problem for other industries and why new jersey itself granted multiple rights of way to ending at a gas pipeline project


is if the answer that you really think that it would be a mistake it would be it would be wrong as a matter of law or it would create anomalies yes we were to decide a case based


creativity segments of code that are necessary to preserve interoperability it may be that in particular circumstances particular interfaces can be copied without authorization but that's not a basis for a general rule and the rd thing is


unanimously eight years later respondents arguments are not anymore convincing in short there is no reason for government to get in the business of teaching religion th circuit should be reversed counseled you say in your briefs that


has as holding the same degree of positioned in in the church hierarchy and turn it into in the church leadership and remember justice alito i don't think there's any possible way to distinguish the general curriculum teacher who teaches religion forty minutes a day


better by using better numbers that were corrected for the problems in trading but as i said they also did cross sectional analysis so taking a snapshot in time showing that the more consolidated the market the less


percent indian in the relevant territory council you have time for a very brief comment to i'll just say very briefly your honor after statehood the eighty five percent of the indian territory remain in indian hands immune from


power over the indians while of course giving state power over non indians to the states and there is nothing in the enabling act or the five tried to act that suggested that the status quo the normal way of dealing with it was supposed to be departed


council there's been a fair amount of discussion so far this morning about the oklahoma enabling act and the suggestion that it's inconceivable that congress would have bit a new state of the union where a significant portion of the state would have been a federal


aligned and made a treaty with the confederacy confederate states of america in the treaty language in eight hundred and sixty six said that that had on the settled the treaty relations anything you want to add on the eight hundred and sixty six


recognized that when a government officer inflicts physical force on a person with the intent to restrain them that person is seized within the meaning of the th amendment regardless of whether that restraint is successful as had already explained this is because


insurer this was an individual who had drawn drugs away and then was later tackled right correct on so i don't see how on those facts the the the some of the


than a decade of the litigation i think what happened is that having secured rights for us sense of ease they decided to ask for the world but there is no basis in this court's prior decision or any other source of law for that for that holding it would invalidate a provision that


st indian tribes do not have inherent police power over non india especially on non tribal lands nd congress addressed this issue by giving the executive branch broad authority to cross deputized tribal officers to investigate police federal crime in


not an indian let's say the person has a european union driver's license and shows plane tickets showing that the person arrived in san francisco two days ago so as pretty close


fingerprints but i think that it was only been doing half of my job i mean it's not nearly as powerful if i haven't actually questioned the agent about it because those jurors didn't reflect well why didn't mr barth stand up and


referring to the commentary well the commentary actually going right thoughts of there was this new act that was passed by congress which has about the identity theft and prevention act or whatever the exact title was and what congress was concerned


sure that it really matters but the defending himself is actually from guatemala his wife was born in el salvador and so the defendant's family is one last wife's el salvadorian and in their declarations the mother


tests and am i correct in reading paragraph eight of the plea agreement that had the district court imposed a higher sentence than thirty months which it was entitle to do the defendant would not have been permitted to withdraw the police because the sentence was within the sole discretion


strobl which is a different issue because now we've got an acquittal in one trial the jury hangs on other counts and now we're looking at whether this jury could logically consistent with the first acquittal convicts on the other counts


the aliens who crossed the border were arrested and they were the people who were interviewed hope with this owner franco identified the three mexican guides by name witness


you know i would appreciate something for your time that you address the sanction issue i understand that you you've got a challenge to the discovery being proper other words you your position is


head on the back and shirt now one things i want to clarify about the facts is that the testing of the victim's t shirt there was a cut and several samples that were taken from the teacher most of them were to the victim's blood not the defendants there were


defendant could she could cash checks there was in addition a photocopy of a credit card and a driver's license belong to another person all this was found on the defendant's person at the time of the arrest and what it


hearing that was twenty five years old so he had lived here just as long and it doesn't matter that some of that time was spent without documents his family was here his life partner children brothers and sisters parents and grandparents he


california has a long standing history of allowing your citizens to take their government to task when they don't do their duty but the compact here says there's no private right of action but i'm saying that the compact cannot be used to waive the right


through because it's the government's burden so that you just wondering about it and to me that's helpful to your client i just don't see how i could possibly be prejudicial this is not because then the government comes back and says


that an english speaking officer saying i gave the warning in english and i always read it even though i have memorized i always read it here's the card and until until your client puts into question that he didn't understand the the warning but that's a different that's a different


off first and then probation and he paid money early he pays for five years he's done paying doesn't matter what legal aside it does very much so because he was just voluntarily making those famous no of course not that's why he gets credit for them towards the ultimate five


a bad rule it's the rule and i think it's binding on this panel and again there's no there's no case that there is approved anywhere near a five month gap the only one that the government could argue i think with either a good thing in this case which had i think a longer


you're saying it now and the district judge made it very clear that that's not what he was doing he was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying i have seen some other agreements


voluntariness but yours you have said under general intent it's at least open to the defendant to prove that it wasn't voluntary so my question again is if that's the situation why isn't it open to the defendant to also


deportation proceeding but because as judge nelson has pointed out you're making a step which is a subsequent act of a different crime you come back and say because of that prior deportation


think and that was the negotiated previously condition that they entered into what's part and parcel the plea agreement is that there is no there is no term which requires the government to bring a motion for substantial


asses application it's very clear that they were applying for temporary access during the winter of two thousand and three zero four if they get the february did they well what would happen was they they they waited so you submit a


case he was contacted early on after a decisions were made concerning the motions that were file that took place in march of two thousand that the defendants motions right there attacked the that's right


what is a nothing on peculiar ery harm what even constitutes non pecuniary harm they have set out a separate upward adjustment when it's when identity theft is involved what we're talking about here is we all have information out


involved in having these seizures can mean investigations than this person particularly called and the person they happen to call just wasn't qualified enough at least according to the judge and according to my argument as well


it was prejudicial not to have it before the grand jury in other words they argue that it could have been a scope of jury again not necessary and finally the medical documents they argued were also scope


jury could find beyond reasonable doubt that jonathan had the specific intent to defraud or to commit any criminal wrongdoing as you know there are specially three types of conduct that issue here on a service just check kiting and false statements i'd like to begin with the


cannot you don't have some of those because the way that the internet provider profiler who provided the information they're artificial did not provide that information but again he's got a direct connection between him accessing the


the court that has any additional questions the government will say that


record twenty round the clock care it's a different issue than having medical problems i think that i mean the brother himself recognized that christopher saying


if it was inclined to bring in the fire on the issue of credibility was to use the five step forth in cook determine each of those five prawns and perhaps most importantly determine the extent to which this is too similar to the charge defense to be


that there is more than enough evidence for the use to for that analysis to court sentence for the use given their their pleas in this case i understand your position you really think you plead guilty but the scope


range the two other objects in count one should have been the basis of that calculation which was the possession and distribution of chemical a quip meant having reasonable belief to know that it was going to be used in the manufacture of narcotics


didn't know your honor and i would ask you to look closely at bronston in the case of the come under it the issues of literal truth and intent to deceive the video's elements are completely separate and i think would be very improper for the court


away that is what the court found that there was probable cause from the moment that he drove away from the stash house and therefore the balance of the testimony by the agent was irrelevant the


twenty thousand something like that so i think that's part of at least i think the quite a concern i do that that someone who had a storied career would really risk all that for what in relative terms is not a great deal of money when


that he understood the processes of making methamphetamine that is that the reference to black being i dine i done being a chemical used in that process so that that transcript does not support the argument that he knew


he did that really your honor after i addressed that with him if you look at the excerpt pages one fifty eight to fifty nine steve basically asked well what was the purpose of your cross examination and i tried as best i could frankly with getting out into a


a three point adjustment he got the adjustment it still came out higher than the max so we got the max and if he thought geezer nothing entered for me pleading early i may as well roll the dice on trial and roll the dice and that's probably what he should have


come up with an additional record mr burns i will reconsider it other than that in approximately four weeks we'll have the sentencing that's the beautiful thing about a transcript we don't have to speculate if as i've indicated if you can show me the context of the court will reconsider your motion did you bring


said what we're talking about is that that's one of the factors that can be considered and at that point you can sort of see the collective sigh of relief of the jurors and of course that's one of the factors the judge is reassuring us it's not some outlandish thing like the kinds fassel is trying to tell us that we're going to be


a plausible one maybe that's really what the judge is thinking i think the difficulty we're having is going to be doesn't it make sense to just send it back and if you're right in terms of your equities back where you are


because they were assets in addition to the five hundred fifty thousand and the government admitted that they might not win at a monsoonal hearing that's respected five hundred fifty thousand dollars and that was the statement made


says and usual traumatic the facts and circumstances show unusual problematic circumstances for this mother and child and an unusual relationship between the two this mother has been the sole parent caring for the child at home and after school


the defendant was caught on the street with a firearm on his person the gun was concealed in his jacket pocket the gun had four rounds loaded and at the time the police caught the defendant he was attempting to evade the police


continuing continuing to quibble with you but they say physical surveillance and they lay out all kinds of surveillance by the sheriff's department and everybody else and then they say here's what we've got we didn't get and here's why those don't work your honor just because they


amendment barque the government from monitoring public policy debates selecting and branding certain speeches fall in seeking to incarcerate speaker we rely on the crucible of


lords returned to the car they yelled at the defendant's cousins to come out of the car they wanted to fight the cousins refused the vice lords then proceeded to attack the automobile one kicked it was still to


i don't i can't imagine and the judge couldn't imagine i don't see how rational folks can imagine why these guys would come out and come towards where this conversation was if there was any danger or any imminent threat at all i think that's very strong evidence that they're the defendant


had approximately four o'clock in the afternoon she left the house the car was on the driveway she it was snowing there was snow not ice on the ground the two sure husband both testified that she had to walk on the public side way


touches on the vagueness argument as well but the permit doesn't limit him to that radius for gas you know maybe at first but his testimony is that he needed to leave peking because stations in pekin didn't carry the type of fuel that his vehicle required but