honor i think you may be referring to in two thousand and fifteen the international association of chiefs of police came out with a potential and suggested model policy which comes into play two years after this incident in the first place and that's a model policy that is being worked


what was the question haha was with the u a w international yes he was not the only u a w international person involved that the primary player here is johnson who is the one who had all these contacts with all is not hers


be held liable for and that is discrimination that happens within the context of union activities and union privileges here the harassment is alleged to have occurred as they were processing grievances go into a group it sounds like you may take a


illegal corporate contributions the access to the corporation's payroll to its employees is a thing of value this constitutes an inclined contribution they're given they're being given something that other people and more specifically other separate segregated funds do


district court said well the michigan people had nothing to do with that that is expressly refuted by the declaration of mr pre nup and mr du dec who said they were


it and this is all that's needed i don't see why we shouldn't decide the issue once and for all or your honor i mean that that really can't be your position is certainly we rather not lose your head but i believe


point in the german we move to add the german verdict to the record in the key point is simply that the court there rejects the theory that mr acted in his own self interest in


that's what your purposes i mean other than locker just say it's kind of persuasive in the sense that another group comes to the similar conclusion that you want us to but it's not it is not something that directly influences our outcome


extraordinary he gave them a tremendous amount of weight more than any other factor under thirty five fifty three eight if he had done the same thing taking that enhancement off then and done the same thing he did in this case which was given the low end of the


sentence the government did not have any cooperation from mr jamieson


the crime but let's accept for the sake of our knitting what crime every time there's a wire transmission well by crime you commit securities fraud because it has the wire element as a requirement but let's just i would i wish we had a


that was a complaint filed or an information file which


what he thinks is going to happen in a jury trial based upon what happened in this prior jury trial and i think that alone is enough to make it unknowing not voluntary not intelligent because he thought what happened in front of judge one would happen again with a new jury and he


different in that he acknowledged that he checked the truck over he acknowledged that he opened the back of the truck and looked inside ok and then we have testimony


consistent with a verdict of guilty so your honour's viewed in the light most favorable to the government i'm sorry to sustaining the jury's verdict the government presented ample evidence to support a guilty verdict in


before going to get the dog immediately he then asked took another minute to ask some additional questions where you coming from where are you going to and then when those questions they didn't serve


not even taken into account in the criminal history five but could have been which is part of the reason i guess or not the party so bottom line function is that we should be reviewing


seven hundred dollars to get her car moved her car was never moved for a loss of seven hundred dollars there are a whole lot of other people just like mrs smith and when you add up all the numbers in that column it comes to six hundred forced out that's another way to do it would


was made there was any intention to fraud at the time that statement was made or that i just there which isn't ok but that's statement was not false and the government can't show that this court can't find it no one can


away and there's a hearing on the stand the judge says i think the government's right there's no lawful right to be here you're out but that's not what happened here you know your honor it's not but at the time of the


no i have not listened to the entire tape that's the words of the prosecutor as to the tape that was introduced and by listen of course it's in arabic it means three that the english translation the transcript that's just an


where where there was a moment where everything changed what what the jury knew and what they had heard was that mr delaney and the cole thought that their car that they


again at your three twenty nine he said these things are going to explain why what was going on and who was are i'm sorry what they were doing why the region certain behaviors the defendant himself the saying these are statements that are going to


for the vehicle called addresses that california vehicle code addresses that indicates that if a person appears and moves the vehicle with the officer is to do in my recollection is the language of that section is shall mail the the ticket to


and that was the legislative determination which we're all bound to follow but they didn't say police officers couldn't enforce well remember traffic ticket they did promulgating are parking tickets yeah they did promulgated specific section that tells law enforcement


only one furniture which is what path did and then he came back again and then and then he comes back to see if there's something behind itself you look at the diagram there's no way a person can be behind that salsa that was a rule to go back


the accused and because i don't follow what you just said it's a whole bunch of language here the jury has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed is not talking about the subjective state of mind of the defendant that the individual is


they don't that's in their reason for the amendment enough


it survived all of that scrutiny and i believe in one of the cases is that therefore stolen or obliterated firearms in the hands of people recognized as irresponsible pose great dangers and the guidelines here reflect this


was that that he only relied on that and that's not what he did because if he had it would have been a criminal history category six what he what the judge was very clear about was he was he was taking this on the thirty five fifty three a and looking at the


not convinced in my own mind just as i believe trial counsel was not convinced in her mind that he was deliberately withholding anything i think it was more a question of his not understanding what her i mean he knew that something with the legal


on every every ground there are seven different categories was defective an overbroad and i won't go into then detail because we've laid each one out in the brief but i think the most important issue is the issue of forfeiture by the government the issue of


important finding by the trial judge a finding of fact in this case now the judge also said that this is the case of credibility and i believe the ranger you're under stress etc and what is the significance of that funny by the judge


case as it relates to the landlords as opposed to the tenants which was the whole focus of the the proof until the judge told the government what jury instruction he was going to give her soon your client really was


that if the intricacies of the distilling process are understood and if you even if just looking at the different positions the government has taken does it weaken your position that when we look at the record we see the government's


and the government has not discharged that person the government hasn't at any time in this case tried to introduce evidence of last they've had no occasion to because it's


a notice here but again there was notification prior to driving in the checkpoint that this is public land and that there is no alcohol to be but still others with response to an earlier question to the b l m has adopted regulations or done something with


court in this case made a conditional acceptance of the plea now i know what your position is that really what the district was doing was conditionally accepting the plea agreement subject to review of the p s r but the court didn't use that phrase


that and we enter into impermissible territory here i would submit that the questioning of the passenger on the questions about the money and the questions about your family relations all exceeded the scope and as my last point if those questions are impermissible the


an inherent tension between thirty five fifty three factors there is a factor that the court must consider the guy like range in this case the like what makes the sentence unreasonable i mean to be blunt about it your your client's record's pretty bad and i


and the excerpts of record at page fifty five the judge describes the the burglary as the failing the base defense level as eight articulated earlier when he goes


was put into the jury room so the jury was able to read it hear the damage was even greater the jury was permitted the hear from the witness stand over objection that the mother


vote not guilty there are also told other jurors i'm voting not guilty and then one of the other jurors complained to the judge she won't deliberate she just says she's voting not guilty no matter what your


a bar lines where you know are the lawyers who practice before you're going to be there is a little bit different thing in a trial situation where there's a juror and i agree that it is now give me the verbal formula to use to explain what the differences well the verbal formula


instruction the court never proposed it or i understand that but what i'm suggesting is that under present we don't have to put your honor i would just say it's not invited error because it's not there is a strategic giving up or recognition of what the correct


case and they noted that it did not preclude the use of detention as a way of getting a defendant to accept responsibility and to further his reveal taishan and that's what we have in this case is a district court determining that purely probation or supervision would just not be


tariff and the protocols in scheduling electricity into the control grid one of those protocols in this case was the marketing the market monitoring information protocol the so called in


conspiracy ran for six years from ninety one and ninety seven actually over six years the testimony was the james roll started in august of ninety four so less than three years so in the same although i don't know the specific facts as much


by clear common sense reading of it when you look at it does not talk about richard for example if the heading in this is on page one sixty eight of the volume one of the joint excerpts of records


thank you thank you all and if i may just one question you asked about the three thousand versus three thousand grams that my understanding of the trial and i was i was not the trial attorney on the case is that the drug quality and the


report have addressed it because i don't think anybody thought the count too was down there the judge kind of was the only one along the lines that he might be right but i think the consensus was first what's going on here then the


that that's the meaning of that phrase there is no more significance to it and in the vast majority of cases involving controlling their holdings of course corporations including this case until we got to the and back part of the case


and vice versa the fact that they had no knowledge of him which is illustrated by mr leave us may not carry the day as it was showing no connection but certainly evidence that there was no connection there was one incident for example that


but there were no findings by the district court that there was a business necessity as to the job in long beach he simply said the there wasn't discrimination and they needed somebody right away and so they didn't need


employer is not required to put on blinders to what it learned before in its previous interactions and here but we knew that your client had had had issues and ran with it with the type of job she had there was every reason to


applied to long beach and in fact the district court did not apply it to long beach the district court said you don't win long beach because dung tran the decision maker down there only knew that you were on medical leave and that misses the point entirely


previously supposed to be in and they called this building the trailer trash because she was working there in the silence isolated location by herself and there's there's another reason to consider this a demotion too and that's the reasons why they did it


section periods of time throughout the period that's at issue here and so that inability to afford medical treatment is the reason that she could not follow through on all of those things but there's also evidence that she attempted


jail presumably it was some part of concern that there could be a shop instrument there could be shifts that could be made from some of the loose metal in the kitchen or other


five and ten inmates initially and then once the privacy panels were installed it was five in may it's for something in the record that justifies that sort of group search


four which provides that the discharge releases one party releases the debtor but doesn't release other parties from those debts so we're fundamentally talking about the subject matter of the bankruptcy the debts that are to be adjusted we're talking about exculpation


and upon review of this foyer request that was submitted it's clear that miss bramlett was acting on behalf of a better way and submitting this request to you i ask you this so the case at this point is just about attorneys fees


what i just read to the court and from the plane as motion for judgment and from these e mail exchanges that they clearly believe before more than thirty days before removal that there was a federal question being raised


information was confirmed when the truck was eventually found so in order to disbelieve mr bennett the jury would have also had to believe that agent lassiter was lying as to what he told her in march of two thousand and eleven before mr post away he was implicated


supreme court we have oral arguments scheduled for one month from today all of the issues that are raised here for the federal claims the equal protection remove expression and


we went directly to the hyper technical aspects of the of the tax of what taxes are within the expenditures of state legislature and step and quite possibly just step right by the first the first


residence and they talked but even if we accept that somehow they met in ninety five and detective surely just neglected to include her name in that memorandum which was an inner office memo for the police department that does not


had this prior knowledge well i mean the fact is if the university had an obligation they had it at that moment i mean they unrelated to the other rape they would have an obligation it seems to me to


victims and although she's not faulting the counseling she's faulting that she couldn't go forward given herself her emotional state as she couldn't go forward and enjoy the university so i view that as her claiming that


were the court allowed the procedure the claim yet the person got a benefit there is not been any case that said this is controlling and in fact this court has subsequent to johnson has said the third factor military


to support the conclusion that the claimant is not completely disabled from any work at all what we don't have because the judge didn't seek any information from the doctor and he didn't seek any information in questioning kevin


the central question i think the court has already has already grappled with here is whether the bankruptcy court either committed clear error or applied the wrong legal standard and in approaching


on the date the releases issued exactly but


that was the great difference between being a litigator and a business moire litigator its history and you can't change history but a business where history dissipated we don't have we don't make the facts we deal with the fast exactly so going back to


after the change and no i don't believe so but for the reasons i was talking about earlier i think it is clear the washington legislature adopted the meaning of impairment now another point we make you would agree with you that any decision we make here is not binding on


that they perceive morbid obesity to affect the endurance system because they believe that morbidly obese persons are highly likely to have diabetes it proves that they perceive morbid obesity to affect the respiratory system because they believe persons with


weave any rights under california law that order says simply that she won't take the position that california law does not apply right this gets at the concern that we are to kill a bit of it has never been resolved for the court or anywhere else about the


calculate so that's why i asked the contract question because when you read all these complicated things that get paid for this and how many cents a minute and all that you're kind of left with your head spinning well that's right and you


created a production minute and detailed in a rack or a production minute isn't something that xerox created is something recognized in the call center industry is a standard of production in


consumer protection act would there be a cause of action so no your honor that's what frias from two thousand and fourteen washington decision for you says there's no action for wrongful foreclosure is a reaction for violation of the deed of trust act well


wasn't didn't want nothing to do with it and after that litigation they then went back to state court and said we want to forty some thousand dollars in attorney's fees for mr taggart for litigating with the other folks after he filed bankruptcy


procedural error in terms of the johnson claim the defendant has arguably has one conviction that can want and endangerment that would arguably fall under the residual clause the government's


successive twenty to fifty five's whereas it would be if it was an initial one i wanted to clear that up if it's not a new role then it was how it should have been interpreted all along correct i mean in other words you don't have any new rule you just have clarification


kinds of losses your honor what's seen k suffered by damaging it's own building was first of all a loss in the building and enjoyed that as a leasehold interest as the less sore it now has a dam as a building that's worth less and the second part anything


summary judgment you may have a lot of affidavits that will be contrary you may do a lot of stuff but i don't see anything with this affidavit which would not allow them to go forward well your honor i would submit the devil's advocate i understood your honor i would


turn of the only problem that i really have with that argument is you're the one drafting the complaint you knew you had personal jurisdiction and you knew that i was going to give you every and ten mm and the fact for what you drafted but if i look at the complaint you


be extended i would respectfully submit that in this case this would not be the case to extend to the residual clause of nine twenty four c and this is why because a residual clause


discretionary well then that's just going to swallow the exception in total the other here is that you know it helps us kind of figure out the mandatory nature of the duty with regard to the money money issue if we look at a case like


discussing at least it pointed out the fact that it was part of the reason why there is bad actions here by the employers and continuing on into this third phase the litigation was how they continued to fight this issue of grossing up ok so that skirmish about that particular issue


oregon constitution because you keep you keep using the term repealed or i understood it to be just a normal regular process and that the end when the voters were voted no


consistent with what the medical findings are that's that's that's a nail that's part of the role here in assessing the entire record and here when we have findings from a doctor that about that a claim


she lost consciousness right after her fall and she wasn't able to give anymore information after that and before her death so she took she told the paramedics that she didn't see the step and from that we


add an incline that would demonstrate that she needed to be aware of that so those are that is what clued summary judgment in this case is it correct


that's the remaining habitat under the agency's own finding that's an enormous amount of habitat and there as other habitat and the rest of the world as judge thomas questions earlier


to the danger of extinction that seems yeah no no no doubt and the explanation that your honor just gave is more than the agency gave in its own record it never found that one study where they observed one hundred percent mortality meant that every single


did not find that thirty percent of the habitat would remain concluded that there would be a few remnant areas of suitable habitat and those are in the canadian arctic archipelago


defining progressively narrower subsets so that the broadest possible category is you know anything that you might find on or under the ground so you know gold sand and gravel potatoes whatever inside of that is a second


i think if you look a little deeper what you find is that she was directed by the mayor to go find the answers the mayor told her fix it let's let's make sure we're in compliance and then left it


to you in june two thousand and fifteen it was the same as well the one hundred and sixty two lists acquisition loans and it doesn't list this one and it didn't in two thousand and fifteen either but we had information that there


attention to the trade dress n p r primarily focuses on these pocket brochures that it says was handed out since two thousand and seven with all of the the relevant products but there was ample testimony at trial


you've got evaluate you gotta do something to evaluate whether mr mickel can show up to work forty hours a week that was where paul revere dropped the ball they never got to that and until you get to a point where you have some information in the record that justifies paul revere's


thousand and thirteen and that's interesting historical context too because one of the main subsidiaries of washing apartment pascoe processing is a company called national and washington taito was buying national simplot wanted in on the deal and washington


to ask the district court for rule under fifty four b c and if that is granted by the district court then it could come back and with the same panel with briefing on r t done by the during this whole period mrs watson has never filed a motion under fifty four


the variance you're honest correct if it comes in for some other reason even if it's not part of the charge scheme it's not a variance it's also not even if it was a variance in this case would be completely harmless because the court's instructions ruled out any possibility that he could be convicted other of the


went to one account and it could be traced as it left those accounts and i think it was like for other accounts i mean i'm not going to say there wasn't some movement going on but whether it was creating highly colley had it or his allegations was phony documents as i understand


to the overall mission of making sure the car was safely picked up your money where did things leave off in terms of the conversation between your client and the officers about how the car was going to be you know somebody was going to come and get


have any bearing i mean should you notice to raise that issue at that point i don't believe it has any bearing your honor because the issue was preserved below i don't think that changes the out analysis is far from a


cases are all technically modified categorical cases because of the list of controlled substances in california if we were to look at the shepherd documents in the case could we tell whether or not these defendants were prosecuted for


definitive simultaneous especially since the raid or court is clear that they don't need to know exactly what the specifics of the assault are as long as they know it's assault of con conduct


may have please the court michael garone for the appellee pillar sheet metal as recognized by the district court below the result in this case is dictated by this court's decision in westlake development in that


court had broader discretion than he does today he still had to make findings and give notice and in rodriguez the district court did not depart upward that was not an up or departure case it was a guideline sentencing case


saying that he could not have done i am not i am saying there's a mage you're not saying the opposite ok i'm saying you know position i'm saying that's not of them taking a position it's that as a matter of state law i'm not confident i'm not confident or too


intent to harass intimidate or manned at septra which is the the point of the statute doesn't just broadly say well if you walk around using


can't remember for sure but i think this record said well notwithstanding the nature of the conviction it would have been relevant to an assessment of her credibility and that cannot possibly be right it's hardly relevant the question then just becomes ok this person sort of suspect believability


minutes thank your honor so i'll try to make three points one is the point that i think judge statement made for me which is that another piece of evidence that the government failed to introduce even if the detention whether or not the


the case in strict scrutiny cases so in terms of whether this is content based and those industry scrutiny is is one exception for


information and the pump air declaration makes clear that statements by foreign government officials or the media or even the european court of human rights are not sufficient to equate or constitute or overcome the need for official confirmation by the


determine that the information is privileged and then with respect to any unprivileged information if any remains whether the need outweighs the burden whether it's unduly intrusive and burdensome and the other intel factors and the other factors that may come into play but here


him direction or instructions the picture the picture that's painted here frankly is there's two types of punishment or two sets of punishment being doled out mr silver and mr elder beat the victims and they do their


montana's broad six part equitable stoppel test to the question of whether a non signatory can be bound by an arbitration clause we don't believe that the court needs to decide whether arthur andersen completely abrogated the application of federal subsidy of law


variety evidence of a delivery and it's not as if the giving of this instruction would have overwhelmed the jury's ability to take a look at the evidence and come to its own conclusion about it and again this is


arguments federal questions stiction and diversity on the federal question question as the th circuit said in a decision to blossom that we supplemented with recently it's not even a close question on this set of facts the class claim here is based only on


by definition incorporates imbeds a federal question if you look at the actual cases that's what we're talking about that's not true here this has to do with the particular circumstances of what went on here but it's not an inherent in the state claim in any way


convictions it's the double jeopardy clause and i think that's a real one right there and you have to read it but even with the constant with other you know with constitutional rights you have to look to do a procedural mechanism otherwise at any time you could go back in and vacate a sentence and that's not what


deal with supervised release revocation so that's not a distinction this court has unpublished decisions they're cited in castro as well that had to do with supervised release revocations also the


the you know half a dozen factors that the bank might consider and deciding salary and assigning a bonus and there was no particular actor that resulted in the bonus that can be linked to a particular deception proved in this case we


leaving evidence in the trial show that everybody had an accepted understanding of her the way you you create criminal it's not written down anywhere and it's not fly by and what's on the piece of paper and i


thank you well this is an ideal case globally both the hearing officer and the district court concluded that we failed to timely implemented we disagree with that conclusion leaving that aside what brings us


record have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency action in this case that is the case the statutes do not provide any meaningful standard about how to weigh the evidence in this case is it your position that we don't look at the


i guess attempt by her to to minimize that she's very clear and unlike a lot of these cases this record is one that withstand scrutiny normally these types of cases don't


for the corn funkhouser said that washington state common law that there are likely to do that are likely to delay recognition of the full extent of inflicted by the perpetrator of sexual abuse are also quote likely to


to tell a more full story as contained in the calendar entry and she never did it and in fact as judge noted she denied ever writing the calendar entry when she was confronted directly with that post


the what the district court did in his order was something that the united states government advocated and i think the answer is no but i truly want to verify that so i believe that the we had argued that the plaintiff failed to allege that the plane just had or that the


good morning maybe it's a court charlene kosky for the united states is there anything you've just heard argued that's not responded to in your brief i would just emphasize one point i think every point has responded to enter in our brief


contract but i guess that's not that wasn't raised at all by anybody though i believe that was discussed it and it should be in the in the record and my recollection is that the court asked if that's what the parties


i'll let you go on if you want to but i kind of interested in the last milk production ok so you guys had an expert who testified about the last no production that's correct your honor and that expert was challenge on a daubert motion pretrial


we were reviewing for error for legal error reviewing for plain error we were reviewing for abuse of discretion well what is our standard of review here in terms of whether or not they're trying to get out of should have said or directly your honor in terms of determining


insure the policy holder has submitted or complied with all conditions of the policy and three then it's reached its agreement with the policy holder final judgment or i think there is a filing of an appraisal award


took all these things at the same time took the money and loaded it into the car and hid the shotgun but the shotgun itself doesn't facilitate this because the


of selecting him for this particular position she i think she was a decisive decision maker she was she collaborated and discussed it with another person tom jones i believe but i think she was the moving force behind


binders is going to be a significant reason to find this was an adverse action and the fact that both of them in fact got to serve in the position they were rotated in and now we're talking about a two week period that he that he sidestepped from


reversing the the prior appeal reversing the preliminary injunction plaintiff's board the burden on remand to make the required clear showing with specificity as to three primary issues first that specific individuals or groups of individuals are involved in particular


eight people who are in this were brought this lawsuit as class representatives and actual advocacy work for those individuals instead the district court really went more this report went to add the research as the generic


g statement he says that the claimant did not satisfy either listing because of the lack of inability to emulate effectively and then did highlight the use of the single point gain however the discussion


benefit of the doubt not you making your best argument for your side you know but their side is these are the representation that you put out there and they were provided and it didn't happen and so therefore they were


good morning may it please the court lawn mcentire appearing out on behalf of the appellant and defendant ages senior communities in this case with the courts permission i'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal please watch the clock thank you


combination of the summary judgment standard in the requirement that the behavior be worse than negligent that it be sort of advertently mistreatment then jury could draw inferences from the evidence i suspect just seems that this is just pregnant with jury issues what europe your honor i guess


finally obtained you can clearly see such discrepancies that reasonable minds would differ about the necessity then to cover so is a perfect record absolutely not judge black and i fully take the point of your many questions on that point but arizona law does not hold us


crucial piece and there was there was other there was other evidence as well but the other crucial piece is the fact that these declarations this testimony discussed the exchange of confidential documents between both parties that


under this court's precedents that is simply insufficient to defeat it it didn't happen like that though to give some facts as to why the didn't happen like that i don't think so your honor i think the brief says we didn't meet with investors full stop unfortunately that's contradicted


davis said that he said himself one to five davis and many said two to five if you have five one to five and two to five that's eight to fifteen and we think that's on all fours with mcginest where it was the slowest said only one time to the plaintiff


do that it's because he's got a code provision that says council members aren't supposed to be involving themselves in that but i want to be able to get to this issue of the snake because paterson or i'm sorry davis is the one who doesn't testifies


review from the dismissal of our securities class action complaint on grounds of failure to plead a false or misleading statement falsity is the overarching issue before this court c n tower as it as an element


a successful penetration well you can decide for yourself no one can say well i didn't know what the true stat state of of penetration of the market was because we told you what the numbers were and they can't dispute those numbers and they're relying on reclassification


to any particular time frame during the class period that is the opposite of pleading with particularized facts particularize facts means we show you the how and the what and the why and the when they've admitted that they


have purchased enigma software what percentage of the users han't actually purchased enigma software well ya know as of the time of the filing of the first amended complaint we already had over three hundred complaints of


consistent with well the word marriage is used in the plan so a joint survivor annuity is is required for a spouse if the spouse was married to the participant at retirement marriage is


that a deviation simply falling below a one hundred percent threshold could constitute a constitutional violation that's a constitutional standard that's it's it's unreasonable and it's not supported by the proper


hand if justifying why one is going to shoot well i don't think that's quite correct i mean they could have at the end of the day said ok we we there are some concerns raised let's go through with and what's wrong with saying let's let's


behalf as well as on behalf of a class so each one each person's injuries while the number of dollars would be different if they're readily determinable when you get somebody like an economist that's what it took air for


complaint head then and was so much alleging that was missing from the


it's that the district court failed to pick this particular theory out from among the weeds in the entirety of the class certification motion and so for that reason we think that to the extent there was error


follow that the plaintiff sustained any damages their own expert concluded based on his analysis that if you look at the actual pay period that was being paid the drivers received all of their wages and so


reverse the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment to the phoenix association of realtors because st it rests upon the erroneous factual conclusion that mr tauscher somehow refused to discuss


is irrelevant they just look at the specific school well it in your honor here there's not a segregation there is not a school per se there is the phoenix association of realtors and one of the services they


thank you your honor smith please the court brian howey from far as in brady for defendant apple e phoenix o c a realtors i'll refer to them as part during the course of my argument your eyes i'd like to start with the interactive process requirement


a statute that says all ninth circuit judges are dead would i be dead and would it violate my right to life i'm confused about how the announcement of what could a says actually affects or causes any problem


not have been disciplined we're asking whether or not race the retaliation was a factor at all and if it was a factor at all and less the that case is overturned if it was a factor at all we have given you all of this evidence i'm


sorts of things we can only speculate because we don't know what we do know that it's not based on race the council and like let me use your last fifty seconds i'd like to add to could you go back to america african american


about how unworkable that could be if i'm another wife susie according to this decision if it's a pell my mere knowledge that there was a decision against collegian jr would start my search


limitations apply they talked about cases where there was a continuing effect if you will a chilling effect and there were first amendment involved in there but here we have a chilling effect on the commerce clause because


decisions and that interpretation that the appellant's disagreement is no that's something that could be handled on remand to the district court i mean the problem here is that this is a statute of limitations issues statute of


well i don't want to take a position on that but there may be problems in showing the reasonable time that reasonable time i have one final question are you familiar with the supreme court's decision in


as i know they made an official public pronouncement i don't know what went on behind the scenes around this time however we know congress was asking them to stop using this to not use this is a tool


was conduct that was a minimal to discipline correct well i think the arbitrator pointed out did no discipline had been provided for that it all that was provided was


arbitrator say that a suspension was in order not all of the actions were credited your honor if i if i'm misunderstanding what you're saying to me i apologize well i thought that you were trying to convey that the


terminations in order to prevail on your title seven claim you have to offer direct evidence of discriminatory animists or substantial evidence of pretext what is your showing


isn't it don't we need to think it's undisputed that he was raising it above his head and actually threatening rather than just holding it well it clearly is not just holding it and again i'd invite the court if you look at again but the district court found


provided under section thirty three fifty for the return of the firearms and possession of law enforcement remains available to lori lori complied with that she complied with the administrative procedures she tendered their


enforce a state court judgment and it's not a hell she's not really in forcing a judgment she's inferred something from the court's decision that the court decision didn't say turn the guns back no it didn't but this court is


how do those twelve fire i mean i understand that the trance atory situation but we're not there anymore do those twelve firearms pose any greater danger than any other firearm would pose so two responses


not express it consider talk about the sessions but nobody objected to it then but now when that's that area is reduced there's an objection white why is it different why did it not matter that they didn't consider


figure this out we're talking about identifying people as terrorists on their credit reports i know the supreme court has has looked at this and spokeo and and has given us some


go right now today to the ofac website and type in sergio ramirez it will bring a hint that there is a potential match and so you know with respect to the disclosure claims you're trying to get that figured out with respect to the


being told it's not that you're a potential terrorist but you're being told is that your name your first name and your last name is a potential match to a name that is in fact on the ofac list and that information is actually accurate there


failed hundreds of times there have been hundreds of accidents because the barrier failed many people have died so this isn't just a car accident case this is a case of high level neighborhood since that was concealed there


so it's not required that every design crash tested if someone with expertise some engineering expertise is


showed that you do well it would have potentially been your honor except that he provided explanation that he wasn't served and didn't know and that was apparently found persuasive by the board because the board made no credibility finding they did not find him not credible so they don't discuss that at all they simply


areas program part of the design part of the design of the website was that when the download is completed an alert will be sent to the web site now that's what it was designed to do it comes it comes from the the


were close and loyal to him after omar attacked a want of members of six trey then started to attack omar and it was the gang as a whole multiple members which was regardless of whether or not miss thompson knew who the affiliation


that he was fighting this person and he went to get a gun came back and the person got killed with a gun is he going back the the fact that he was fighting


which makes it different under our own case law but even so no i suppose you could have left the check there but you did put it right again i think the result is the same it's the judgment let's say i had the offer


issue of the actual scope of the class and the classes numbers about forty four thousand as determined by the arbitrator correct your honor and this is just a declaratory


we submitted actually had to the effect of further obscuring the fact that perhaps mr van praagh somewhat helpful it was helpful it ends up being helpful because there were multiple people referenced in the redacted statement


williams in your view your honor first where the appellate division was was coming from was dealing with a very fractured opinion so the plurality in williams can support that meaning the they do not


issue is when it comes to the offense of conviction you have to provide a complete explanation of what you did and when you get up repeatedly and say i was a lookout i was a lookout and you affirmatively represent i was going to get a fifteen thousand dollars fee the court holds a full blown phatic


had a couple manufacturers of these records it sounds like they were named as it were by a group of people have nothing to do with your company and and their record and you can't you you


case what i'm saying is factually the issues in that case were about a very different situation there's nothing secret about what fox news does anybody with cable license can get that content but significantly under fox is not


the court remain ended the claim there was an earlier lawsuit the court remained in the claim for further review by sun life that remained order said nothing about time parameters for a decision it just said that sun life will consider any new evidence by by the claimant and then render a


litigation in april of two thousand and eight they are very last communication to the claimant was that they were going to review the medical records by reviewing doctor and then


some regard and the reason for that is unlike some of the cases that i know your honour's have read there are many pay hours in this in this market in other words insurance companies or bill government agencies you


or enter and are only taking into account segment popularity you're missing a large portion of the of of what the consumer preference is out there and those are in the you know court of appeals was very specific and it said we turn to you as makers retirement


because i do think you know by all means but treat them together because that's what your adversaries doing he says he's relying on two cases and if you put the put them together i mean i can try to put them together you have start let me start with back first and then


say you need one article really need three articles or you need two and a half articles it says that scholarship can be documented by a variety of means presentations grant proposals textbooks and so on the


kind he's since been ordered removed by the immigration courts and that decision was upheld by the board of immigration appeals shortly after he was more why isn't it that the


unknown to law enforcement for many years and the only point that he was captured was when the f b i put them on their most wanted list and that generated tremendous media interest it self and he did your honor but we would submit as we argued


sense that it's already happened there's no increased


record and a refusal to accept the notion that simply because two people have assets that are worth roughly thirty million dollars probably more now that they have the ability to simply convert that into


there's no dispute about that only dispute is what they thought that they were referring to in the defendant took the stand here and the defendant said i didn't know i didn't know what it was i didn't know it was illegal so then at that point it's a credibility finding its credibility


a real likelihood of recurrence and it has to do with the criminal history category scoring and like to talk about this counting of the driving while ability and impaired and i think


way because if you read it sloppily you think oh it doesn't really mean all assets well if it's not what are they protect is the idea for to if the idea is to protect people who might read it sloppily rather than carefully if then you should never have anything beyond all assets


that happened it was a blanket policy that applied to everyone and that's what about and then what confuses me is mr jackson's testimony that set it down like that he went out of his to parks went out and they weren't docked but she was she was the only


testimony from garrett jackson he's referring to the time period after the d h or complaint was brought in april two thousand and twelve so while in writing the one's policy might require on ploys to use their own time charge their


to the manner in which it was being used thank you save some time for a bottle


option provided to decline there's nearly a continued book for boys and i think it's fair that when someone logs song to games dot com to buy a video and is presented with an


wonder whether there isn't a case for the proposition given the history of animists against illegal immigrants from hispanic countries which has been on full view and last year


once he was in this program he was going to have to admit to some conduct otherwise he wouldn't successfully complete the program steve said your client acknowledged his deposition that the intake interview he said i


take any specific appeals he would indeed an attorney in to do that i just wanted to to touch on the good time credits liberty interest issue again i think it's a bit of a red herring that i chased for a little bit might a deadly


lost one to the office of state review it was that was affirmed and ultimately then the district court affirmed sore asking this court to reverse three levels which i understand is a as a heavy burden to


that was rejected in the n t and in saying or in the restatement second in everything because actual causation is irrelevant to the protein to offset it may have some relevance to the proportion of fault offset but you get the


of all of the facts and circumstances of those convictions until it received the the pre sentence report from probation but in fairness the government could have sought out the facts and circumstances of those prior


in favor i'm sorry mitigating factors as well as those serious but the seriousness of the offense the criminal history the lengthy history and the need to deter specifically those those serious factors that were noted by the district court or


identification he reached in the place where anyone would look to produce it his pocket judge firman expressly declined to credit officer abers testimony that diaz refused to provide i did identification and the government has not contested


all they objected all of the testimony they the argument essentially was that this had been discussed with the government prior to trial and that it came as a surprise to the counsel for both defendants that that this testimony was being offered and that it was being offered


connection with claims of excessive use of force both under the fourth amendment and state claims that also basically involve the excessive use of force issues in the case and your honour's it's our position


everything else that led to that handcuffing the linchpin of their argument as the lower court dismissed sergeant moody therefore they are


nine which is ten years before they even issue please list the opening closing date of each but all that there is no specificity for everything you tell us what you have that's really testimonials


client which in fact they have never claimed until today with regard to the mandated reporter issue the mandated reporter indeed who that is a pediatrician had a clear statutory duty to notify the department of


in order to acquire and secure the information needed to be made whole from my wages and pension benefits importantly i would not be the only beneficiary in this because the unions enjoy a monopoly exemption in the clayton act in order


he was convicted in two thousand and fourteen i'm sorry two thousand and thirteen twenty thirteen we're going on five years and his direct appeal is still pending however what happened was he did not timely appeal he sat on the


process yes your honor why can't we hold this in abeyance while you work this out well your honor the fact is that this is a this is a richly in that case yes your honor and


you know what i'm saying is that the minimum explosion concentrations measured in forty grams per cubic meter that's the standard measure for a minimum exposure concentration for a wood dust and our export pointed out that that evidence means


didn't know exactly what the room that was in or that was a scanner into the scanner but there buttons on your answer as an antenna it sure seems like he was capable of causing some pretty significant destruction out there remotely as we all know can be done in today's


i mean no services are provided to parents that exists he exists in a biological sense but this say that through no fault to dissolve he didn't develop a the fault is


position supported both by the statutory language as well as supreme court precedent that whether or not mr gordon had any which is a patient the family service plan has no bearing on whether or not he showed a reasonable degree of concern for the interests of the of the minor


claims that you're asserting on behalf of your client and we might get an intelligible ruling that we could then opine you've gone it's my position that


crossing over her going through history and why it was frequently used by faculty and others do they enter the reserve by crossing the same parking space i'm with you well and burns testified


to them after we've had it over twenty years so we're going to assume that the railroad company was happy to have a billboard on the property without being paid rent i mean that's kind of what you're suggesting right but yeah we


that case a guy had a fence and that fence was with a name and they said to the neighbor do you want to do a survey now don't worry about your friends and they are getting married


character of that letter and subsequent letters and the most recent letter from two thousand and twelve terminating the license it would give the impression that the railroad was with the understanding that there was a valid agreement be entire time and only discuss discovered that there wasn't an


we're dealing with a conveyance a president conveys the injury occurred the when you're deprived of your interest in the estate right there whether you know about it or not is not the analysis


it is not unreasonable for the trial court to be put them on a juvenile there is no evidence presented to the trial court and none presented to this court even that says that these can types of conditions of


house maybe she's playing i don't seek whatever after that exiting the door walking down the neighbor's hoping to find her there didn't then the panic set in they came back searched the car searched the house again and lastly looking at the pool which was the last


again the point of these timing requirements is to ensure that the appellant gets a fair hearing a fair and timely hearing and she got that in this case and returning to lyon again you know even if let's say the department even for


a rejected application or navigation that wasn't permitted to go any further for whatever reason i mean if i was if i was a plot you know i appoint persons affidavit if i was doing it by hand


when it did that and the and the rules that it created which today heart of you and the department further complied with section five twenty of the a p a which says that when you're exercising a discretionary power you include the standards by which the agencies


he's an applicant and you know back terms not defined anywhere an applicant somebody who comes and asks and it's no burden on the state police to deny somebody who's not qualified who's fourteen or who has a felony conviction but


not guilty and particular actually the inspector meister who's the the one who testified about the the measurement his testimony strikes me hold very much as the testimony of an


there is no need to calibrate it if the officer checked against known weights and found that it was accurate i think the calibration issues kind of the red herring and it certainly does not mean that the proof was so and satisfactory


example police reports and because because the record doesn't show what edition question would have would have revealed you cannot presume to support have presumed that the additional


the point is there was no the judge said he failed to avail himself and there's no evidence in the record at all including the pre sentence investigation that he failed to appeal and solve any of what was available and i what are we to


the exact same thing that happened in the two thousand and thirteen affidavit mr liked his two thousand and fourteen affidavit as well as his twenty sixteen it is that was probably that was filed at the time of the third day of the evidentiary


asked for it on this date and here's my two and a letter and that's the procedure but going back to this abuse of discretion about retroactive i just simply think there's a lot of problems that you have with that because of the passage of time


to use it quicker and but i believe seventy days is tops and that actually you know to to address a related matter be the process


evidence and that evidence constitutes the most important controlling issue in this case although there are many many issues here that's what i intend to spend my time this morning and time won't permit discussion of all of these trial issues


zero seven two and there is a sentence in there that says that is possible that some of his testimony may be regarded as falling within the areas of both play an expert witnesses accordingly should the court find that this


rocks at that time or up to that point therefore while troubled by the save it it's like trying to prove a negative that because all products can't be


these where in the golf occasion the qualification in the board order is in it's finding that in regard to the expenditures at happy's in the bank they lack sufficient detail and then in the hearing officers recommendation is the same thing it


complaint it clearly states in the recommendation that the complaint contains those allegations and there's nothing that shows that that those complaints were dismissed in fact there's no worker there's nothing in the


system is failing that child parent relationship again what does it say about a parent who claims to love their child but yet the nine


didn't stop to look for traffic before she ran across a busy street and she didn't look for traffic while she was crossing the street any duty which defendants may have had was so attenuated by the time


so therefore this is not really a jurisdictional question and this is a matter of procedure now course this is also a direct appeal so the senate can obtain reversal without relying on exceptions to procedural bars for


and when they talked about not having the testing he spoke of which was a little odd but he talked about mentioning it to the jury which of course this did not have being a jury trial mentioning it to the jury as to why it wasn't


no purpose other than to allow them to argue not in the brief but in the response of the motion to strike that what that order shows is what's not there late and didn't pay anything he didn't get it there were no assessment of punitive


you can you can i think it's supervised up to over but then per each patient supervise it's at a reduced right if my memory doesn't pay only i think it's at about thirty five but that is not in this case ok so let's get back


and he could have done that but he would if he did it and if he intended to preserve it he would have had to take certain steps that he did not do which is to the well there are various things and we point out of our brief three think of different things that a plaintiff could do to protect himself under


take that many bills through the factual claims that are taken to be true at the stage of the second stage of proceedings so it has a relevant what the state personally believes we take those claims to be true and they're on there


what the guardian can do i think if i think mr brock or always has the ability to file a petition with the court to say look i don't think occurrence given me enough money i think the courts order the current give me more money i think mr rocker always has that option i


enter into contracts in china and when they sell those wheels they deliver them as far as the port in china and no farther jim fay wheel has no contracts with anyone in the state of illinois the only


regard to maintenance as he did that maintenance in the summer two thousand while


and there can be no doubt either although there's some confusion perhaps that that there is an expansion here it's not simply a of putting back into the facility material that was once there because we know in


reviews local government decisions on site it the agency wants to turn this into a strict permit in case but all the agency does is it's a gate keeper for terms in terms of allowing a permit to process and the


the facility was higher the slopes were different we have a different unit now a different facility now this is twenty fifteen this application comes in question is always always in this case and in all these cases if the scope and nature of the


notice that his attorney was a bending these particular claims and was to the told why there was a period of time between the falling of the motion but the amid


we are giving the state the benefit of the doubt on that there still is prejudice and the way that the claim was evaluated was still wrong but our position is that no prejudice if you look at whether six hundred and fifty one c was complied with and if we then


that and i thought that the inspector indicated that if he had seen that he would have no record he did state that but he also stayed in and has room for it but he didn't he didn't examine the


petitioner filed a motion to vacate the judgment explaining again our position of something i would like to call a doctrine of unclean hands or a similar doctrine to such a such


should not and does not bar entry of the plenary order respondents allegations of unclean hands are simply not supported by the evidence the trial judge properly found that the petitioner acted reasonably and the plenary


me ask you there was a question that the judge when asked of counsel a moment ago a few minutes ago whether it's possible to draw a distinction between the murder and the special circumstance with respect to this


jury to return a first degree murder conviction as to ms howard and it maybe we'll have to talk about it and analyze the evidence given the fingerprint evidence the faults denyer etc but i don't see how that


to the district court and see what they say but it seems to me that i remember from other cases that i've handled that i've seen cases that say that that is not a factor unless the officers know that the person is on probation with conditions or supervised release ok and then


man run through this apartment he's come out the back window when they arrest him there is nothing no evidence in the record that they found a gun on him so they believe it that they have reason to believe that at that point that gun is still in there they're standing out here


government wanted both ways like they want to see here but they also thought that they were correct in the certainty that there was reasonable suspicion for that seizure right and the government wasn't as we mentioned it's a post it was a post talk rationale


registration of the vehicle belonging in the name of his girlfriend rather than mr desire on that suggests that at best for the government both people are using the vehicle


administrative side thirty six c f r so i mean i mean i'm just trying to make sure that i'm understanding what you're saying now you might argue that the administrative side also has to be a park area


one he says the secretary shall have supervision management and control of the use samedi national park and fact the l portal shall not be can part of the park but the secretary will


when you talk about that is the defense of institutional failure which is one of the things that they claimed that the council should have presented evidence of institutional failure that's what dr thomas does he presents evidence of institutional failure by saying he didn't get the what he


grant mr rundle relief or at least an evidentiary hearing so that we can develop these facts thank you very much counsel thank you to both sides for your argument in this case one recess


around blanc show side where the warehouse is tells them the routes that will be taking shows him stanford hotel chen let's focus on chen and chen but which the his knowledge and intent regarding this


officers as far as you concerned had no reasonable suspicion to detain him for a crime he's free to walk away and that choice in and of itself does not provide a basis for further suspicion particular because they had no basis for suspecting him of


issues in a number of cases there was of course if i'm saying that right which you're on i know you wrote the opinion in that case that's a concealed carry case not specifically san francisco but that case


yes and judge prior thought about that issue here this happened so quickly the woman runs into the street into traffic that's the testimony in a high crime area in a high crime area one of the officers said that this


bottom of page ten forty five in the top of ten forty six it said here the changing economic positions of true un times readily show that the related parties use these exchanges to cash out of an investment in low basis probably


guess i shouldn't your honor i'm just trying to be practical about this because we're also looking we're looking at prejudice and all this but also there's a planner and there's no you know it may well be that if


the defendant thought a motion for new or a new trial after the fourteen days but on this on these grounds in light of the new cases that had come out and he said allow us to comply then he appealed to the defendant


plain area view and admittedly it would have been simple to just cross reference that same argument i made in the first question and i just have to admit this is a mistake on my part you acknowledge what your opponent said to me and i think


think the difference there was mentioning at the beginning is insufficient whereas mentioning it keeping in mind throughout would be an indication to this court that the district judge knew what it was doing in arriving at the specific sentence and choosing it based on


all he has at that point is is a tip that it seems like everyone agrees and book are you saying that it's all for the jury stuff not quite tell yet ok not yet but soon and so he tells her he displays his


also turns on if there is something less than testifying in open court and a question about particular social group who really


through one twelve it's in that area and the immigration judge absolutely talked about particularities and about social distinction and then again at the end of the hearing


claim of future persecution it alternately mischaracterized and ignored vital record evidence indicating that mr cho has an objective well founded fear of future persecution if he has returned to china the


your honor on the factual basis for the for the plea certainly his stated intention is comes into play all the other circumstances this is the difficulty when we're coming up on appeal in a limited record and there's been no


and he met with my client dimitri martin here in the united states and the purpose of his meeting with him was the same purpose of meeting with other players employees and that was to provide comfort to him


that is testimony live testimony that should have been used and brought before the magistrate so he could assess her credibility when that same magistrate already had credibility issues with one part of the officers testimony


dire were given to counsel prior to die i believe so the defendant was put on notice at least prior to the beginning of trial that the code of federal regulations would be the predicate or the to wit


backing up to the tire backing up in basically going back in in a lane of traffic rather than pulling off showing knowledge that he knows that that tire is very heavy the that it's a load with over five thousand rounds of ammunition we have him on video for some


that mrs kemble already had the information she injected me into a proceeding when i was only the lawyer i was not a met witness to all the malpractise and fraud that mr visited on my client and consequently


feel they could support me and i said well just do it by e mail you know people have busy lives and so on and i'm getting she said well if it happens to produce a lot of e mails and what i was wondering is if i could submit those


well orally that doesn't count and so they denied my separate property interest so we appealed that and when we appealed it the state superior court said too bad so sad you're vexatious you can't appeal that


i can be arsed yes and then on the antitrust complaint my understanding is that was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee yes and is there anything further on that or are you all out stuff a lot of work to be put into


intrusive and very personal it's humiliating it's shaming he's already suffered the government's treatment five years later for a twelve year old indiscretion five years later they do this to him and then he did a year waiting to go into a halfway house


that was the nature of the discussion right and but the government's arguing that it's the officers subjective intent not to search that gets this out of court me and i don't i don't see that that would but what if we i mean that's your reading of their


but that a review of the record indicates that the defendant in that case had never ever been evaluated had never been assessed had never been tested had never been hospitalized had never prior to the trial


said it would be very difficult to be fair that was not there was no drilling down on that it was a vague initial response there was no additional digging on the issue and at the end of


personally his language was not necessarily having the experience myself but directly or indirectly however you say it which i submit is a little bit confusing and certainly doesn't tell us anything about what his prior


court the next case on the calendar for argument is united states versus johnson


second trial was confirmed trial confirmation hearing on november twenty second on november twenty third a day after the trial confirmation hearing the defense gave notice to the government of their intent to call an expert they gave a c v and a summary of the


coming from douglas they were both newly registered which was a factor significant to him they both had techs hurts related to the alerts we really related to smuggling activity and they were traveling fifteen to


is not a problem that's true but i think it would make him you know look like a pretty bad parent if he says hey i'm still friends with this guy who i think was well but that was really i mean he did say he was still friends with the guy that's true that he does


query into do you understand the grass although mr davenport had priors related to other issues he had never been in a child pornography case certainly never been in federal court you know where


correct well the way the sentencing was done in this case all counts were grouped together under three d one point to be an offense level was determined based on that group and


are you saying that isn't enough the defender on mine she doesn't feel like she can get out of it we have to look outside of that i guess i'm hearing you ask us to let outside of her mind


ok and that's the first version and then the defense counsel attempts to clarify ok so now he's testifying again the square a fine for the record what what but then i'd say my question who cares if he clarified if you have a confrontation clause


why but i think she hasn't entitle me to these homestead proceeds that doesn't even necessarily need a bankruptcy code section to allow her to put out for example a secured creditor obviously is entitle to a secured creditors secured portion


saying he didn't care who got the money even the wife or the credit because it didn't matter to him you know and i think that if in that circumstances that would be it that would be a different kettle of fish because there would not then be the


supreme court case in the materials that this homestead right is a separate right of each spouse i think we get from the hague and versus pendleton texas supreme court case the fact that this right is prophylactic protective right not a property right


knew this they criticized your daughter said he should have put it in but he didn't mr list he says ownerships not clear it doesn't have the ownership interest in it basically and the bottom line is and there is a case that sort of bears on this as the thompson of


decided we gave them all the stuff that we had they had a prior database that over three years had mentioned the three customers and then we had our database we gave them access to it they chose only put a certain number of rows and ok ok


only needed a total of one point nine there were three more weeks to go importantly before that order was even do they lost over the fact that the gallery's order wasn't even due to be shipped until march fourth that gave a three week


did by the assignment there is no longer an attorney's the provision to survive that obligations died if if for some reason we believe that there if there be did survive and against all that you've argued do


license well it doesn't show that any profits were actually received because as judge or line noted this appeared to him to be nothing more than a noncommercial sham because dr charging admitted that the price of seven hundred fifty thousand


contracts themselves he also looked at the undisputed facts in front of them that seven hundred fifty thousand dollars sham amount judicial notice of the fact the seven hundred fifty thousand couldn't be paid the fact the doctor charge him self admitted the paper was going to win good sort of this


it's my belief that his volunteer counsel was perhaps not even aware that it existed when i consulted with mr fyshe he said it was never ever raised by anybody that


that he was providing lawful bona fide legal representation he couldn't be guilty of obstruction of justice the jury didn't know how to i that i wake the evidence when when they were considering an attorney defend


market analysis saves the day for that supreme court had that issue before them in didn't offer in the form of the s g s case they didn't buy it but i would say that in this case there was every reason to believe


being a misrepresentation or suppression of the truth to seek an unjust advantage or to cause a loss or inconvenience so i mean we're getting back into an employee if he honestly subjectively


provision to be tied to how much in fees had been paid at the time the contract was cancelled as opposed to the fees paid under the contract there are three important facts that we believe the


yahoo like the district court's interpretation the will be paid language is meaningless it's always a hold back of the refund because under yahoo's world it's always a percentage of whatever they've paid so they'll never be a situation


that have been raised some by a ca some by yahoo during the course of summary judgment he did not specify specifically call out paragraph one however reading the four corners of the contract


record site so that the so the ten so the ten sixty five on its face explains it and the record site for that is six forty nine is the schedule d


of surveillance actually not this kind of surveillance for a much much shorter surveillance was a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment so the fourth amendment is not irrelevant under michael and even michael required for search


sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof of proving that mr perry knowingly and voluntarily agree to participate and in our cottage distribution conspiracy in violation of twenty


was not to be held up under the sixty minute standards of effective assistance of counsel i submit that that is what's happened here we can talk about academic discussions that occur in any other case that involves children and ca


that that would be covered by this the same analysis as texas crown so long as it was in the same kind of bottles with all these without all these changes that you're talking about is that would you agree that is correct that


and you're talking about in your case my case that they had to meet either one or the other and i agree i mean you have to either you have to say oh you know that she had a claim they were doing both she lost on the instigation


completely were completely withdrawn but that there was a relevance if you agree that it was improper to include the word some if the illegally i'm not sure that i don't believe that it may have necessarily


activities of the of the individuals no one speech was interfere with obviously that all of these issues were played out in the state court litigation there was no denial of the right to vote


time i'm wondering are you allowed to just go rummage through people's cars when they're in that is that was that is ever made that's irrelevant to this case i don't know that it affects the use of force which is that's the only thing we're here on is that excessive force we're not


of summary judgment practice as well and finally of its just district court abused its discretion in terminating the government's case before suit without allowing a meaningful opportunity for the government's discovery in particular the site inspections that


connection of the new do that by topography you could your honor but but they did not they admit that that the streams are intermittent what about these pictures of standing water we


them to show any property that could be affected by the developments in this case and they make no doubt of measurements whatsoever to show that that's what would bring the case for them pre con that might raise a fact issue last point they could have gone out and looked at the traditionally


authority for that is the noble case where it addressed whether there was notice of the prior unrecorded judgment and in that case it found that there was not but in this case there certainly is evidence that a trier of fact could use to determine if there


was the liquidation of particular securities that had been purchased by the defendants and held for the investors at all times in trust by u s bank the court didn't do any


and that's because it again to the skin was caught early on but again certainly in that with regard to the penalty which is based which is intended to punish it it certainly should not be taking into


settlement if one looks at the briefing by b p in this matter by my count fifty two times they invoke accrual accounting as the mechanism that has to be used their prayer for relief at the very end of the brief is for


officer consider the totality of the circumstances and we know how these that makes the second judgments and a number of different kinds of things could be interpreted as an imminent threat and so if he doesn't know if the means


so you understand it's not just exculpatory if that end if you report day one said oh i was involved but not that much and then later on when he's getting ready for trial i was involved a little more that's impeachment evidence of that cooperate


them and he didn't the omitted element was was this a real person well to get a medicaid id you had to be a real person so the jury effectively found that this is the first case that i've seen where the issue


because i didn't want to get caught but i guess my point is i think the question before the court is what it would do is what is gross mean in terms of how much the defendant has to know about the technical


facing the truck and that officer specifically said i never heard any thought i think it was always there it wasn't it wasn't on top of a blanket or anything because they asked them that so really the only person who's saying these things about she's turning the she


consistent in finding that i have not found any case where an error was of this sort this plane error based on the record composed in a district court where the court has an exercise assertion to vacate the


them and one of the people that i selected was actually more than ten miles away did you consider the backgrounds no i didn't do any background checks every other towing case that i found and i'll be honest with you there's not a single telling case where that where we


patients all revolving that the patients were going to be able to get get those files back these people want one of which was in the indictment she been found mentally ill before coming to spectrum if you want you to peach piece after specter


looks like the jury can say oh well you know if we're allowed to convict under paper ten with with if it's only forseeable and that picture joe starks or applies to counts for example to through far and then in these special


contention an argument an allegation in the complaint that someone is being treated differently notwithstanding the fact that their similarly situated just because they're not from a protected class that's what this court held in raj that's what the first


purchase a close one they alleged in paragraph seventy seven that the guidelines were used by creditors such as miss america to sell close loans to wells fargo there is nothing as alleged in the policy in there called seller god


fits under the thirty five fifty three and tapioca are in miller exclusions is to isolate judge will mel's comments in a vacuum government was silent throughout the exchange i was


or things i was trying to discount about you it's clear still that before the imposition are the judge decided there should be no imposition of supervised release these are the only things that are


everyday use and these are universal use of steel is possible they cause it's cost is only two or three cents a pound the lowest of any important metal the wide strip continuous mayo


engineering technician jason krieger and there are the ones that are out there obviously goals of safety an improved traffic flow and economic vitality are are all part of that but it's really about a quality of life here in a city


of the opportunity of fewer accidents anywhere within that area which is a real plus to us as in the past we've always had across the east bound lane of traffic which is always very very dangerous


you learn how to do it it becomes your mission to give back that's how it works once you get taught you teach other people there's no greater premise on the planet than that thank you for teaching me now i'm going to teach someone else right and that's how


in honor of sargent our maplewood legislative delegation passed a bill to rename the maplewood section of minnesota highway thirty six the sergeant joseph morrell highway our legislative delegation including


chief and leader and cat captain amy shad doman one of the stories that amy tells in her oral history is was a little girl and i'm not sure maybe five or six or something like that and the


wonderful place to work and a wonderful place to i'll be a member of highly recommended think there's something for everybody in all fitness levels down and join us for a class you going to get there and you're going to find i think it's the community and the sense


state law so a lot of references that you'll see within the city code will say the city has adopted the state statute in conjunction with our own laws so as you can see


part of the question regarding the data practices when you come to the city website but say someone will call me and they'll want to know some information on perhaps about what do you have to do to


and i looked at it and i thought is this something that we should do and i saw the other competitors and i thought this would be incredible to be with these other competitors so i went through and i wrote up a description told my team hey we're going to go do this competition let's get sharing it


community as well as within your business and to help other people so what can we do to help you grow absolutely so please check out our website so take a look there the score final entry has been in so we're just waiting for that to come back but like our


here's something we bet you didn't know nearly half of all cancers can be prevented mostly by making changes in your diet controlling your weight and of course by not smoking does it prevent fifty dot org and get a free thirty day planner filled with tips recipes and more


campuses and that includes k twelve school districts and anybody who receives all funding private or public so it's covers a large group so it's only in the last four years that this is really come to the forefront separate


people should stay reading and looking at these these magazines say here's what i say when anybody says you know newspapers are going away the internet is taking over you're always going to need a trusted source to get your


teenager so if anybody here or any teen or anyone just feels like i want to do stand up when i want to do something in comedy just do it literally that's the best to practice a because you just


to get it they taught me that giving up is never an option and i have all of my wonderful wonderful coaches and teachers through the years to think for that in just a few minutes we'll be introducing the


winner captain as well in track and field holds the school record in the four by eight hundred b to relate to time state participant was named rookie of the year one time that's board member of the student council synergy club national honor society she uses are sports


devote to things like maintenance of other other functions and things like that so i want to make sure that that we're making the appropriate investments along the way and have the contingency funding available when unexpected things arise to make sure that we


famous newspaper editorial that ends with you know yes virginia there is a santa clause to show that was created actually by macy's several years ago following up on their t v special about


performance which we both offer you don't find the same thing just watching it on a screen you really don't know that it's a very different experience and theater is one of those last places where we actually get together and have a


critical topic thank you vivian for having me i need to shed light on us what are some of the horrifying statistics of domestic abuse well interestingly enough one of the issues is people don't often feel that men can be victims of domestic violence


lot to new things new temporary spaces is open it'll be an exciting place and i six months jim i don't think people necessarily think of going to the airport and see art this is something that you're concentrating on and what you hope to bring to the


that beach you make she get lined you know that there are a set but there are a couple of walking tours that are actually signed on steps there's the church route in the south side that takes you to see some amazing views and there's also the finding a fitness trail which


i'm mandy pryor and welcome to spotlight on pittsburgh spotlight on pittsburgh is a program about pittsburgh most fascinating people and what they do to make our city an amazing place to live and work when we come back i'll introduce you to jennifer cam development in


we do with law enforcement check and see what's really going on out there who's coming out there because you're so isolated that isolation becomes a cover for you to operate so does you know that t v show breaking bad that they know are very good they actually do a service


manager or nobody at all those aren't really effective ways to do business and grow sales so i with my twenty plus years of sales and sales management experience can come in and craft a sales management program and be a sales manager consultant for their sales team


listing of all the school systems in new jersey there and the top five percent or better of the top ten percent top ten or fifteen schools out of that many school systems and that's great i think the more options kids have to direct them toward a career


the bartleby meyer project we actually were awarded a little over nine hundred thousand dollars through the watershed they were a conduit and now is take and a new approach to these street reconstructions making them more sustainable in what may


listen be nonjudgmental be supportive if this is an event that just happened strongly encourage the person to get medical help strongly encourage them to call the rape crisis center to call the police but


what you need to do and how to prepare and i think that's important information for people because it's you're not going to do you know it's it's not goes


city mission and sometimes you'll see those those items of clothing in our hidden treasures thrift stores that the proceeds all go to suggest that our very large thrift yes yes we had a our house sale and we were actually able to make ten thousand dollars which is amazing wow


got to hear more about city mission you're located in washington correct yes but you have residence everywhere all the way to florida so you know you're really reaching out to a lot farther than we can think and we thank


ok from now on hundred sixty eight you can say six percent on your energy bill just from that one room and you know energy bills are only going up and you know gas prices and such are we have no control over that so make sure that you know


i mean i mean that's a lot of us have up to what forty bulbs in our home so five dollars a year pro ball that is big and also i want to jim to go into some of the policies the city of maplewood looking at the policy that you just


through we keep the system at a set temperature of sixty three degrees so we only have to heat the water up to the seventy seventy one degree on the system so they run very fission with the frequency drives once again redundancy we got two pumps identical if one should fail


walk in their their resilience and i really believe that every person has its ability to have such inner strength and guidance and wisdom and creativity and passion all of it's within all of us but we just get kind of cluttered up with


have to get their heart rate up so high to get to a point of sweating and they can have that in this in the in for it's on is a lot less hot than the traditional what's honest so you run in about one hundred and you can with a hundred one hundred five about hundred


now but they're doing a big present like we typically do a car presentation but they're doing a presentation for her in august and she's having a custom built kerridge built it's going to be white and it's going to have an r bomb logo on it so


know that you did the nutrition classes at your studio and i think that that's awesome especially because when i'm you know coaching people through this challenge one of the big things is they don't know how to cook healthy food even though we're going on the recipes and we take you


excited to be here and learn some of the happenings in both communities as you all know there's a lot happening in both watertown and belmont right now so today this morning should be very interesting again thank you all for coming and at this time i want to just call up mike driscoll who's the town manager for watertown


thousand appropriation would be seventeen point seven million dollars in fiscal year twenty it drops down to a little over two million dollars that's a savings of fifteen point six million dollars we'll look to move that to the


districts in addition to that center brownsburg was instrumental during the process and making sure that it got approved and to make sure that any snags that we've had he's been able to intercede so thank you center brownsburg in addition to


to have those kind of things taken off the street and it was designated a green community in december we've implemented our advanced life support ambulance service and we're in our second year and i just like to announce that we as you don't know we have a new superintendent john failon


do at least that well in the legislature when the budget comes to us and for a lot of the other programs around our communities that do receive state funding whether it's work of our police department with respect to people with


about plan things that our friends would also get in trouble with you guys all water under the bridge what counts is that all old team has been briefed on once more and now let's get back to the


professional saying that the good minuteman a replacement motor g d m b t was somehow the inappropriate replacement part for this system but we


in there it's the harsher shade counters it's the stores it's the open pike cases it's the seating range once it's columns out front we i gather it's the building and everything in it but why would live include trade dress


issue because this order is silent on the reimbursement of those expenses they immediately began to enter into contracts with their clients where the clients indicated ok i understand that you're going to seek reimbursement of these fees from my chapter thirteen case and they signed


discrepancy between the claimants p l z and tax returns and you don't have to take my word for it in several of the appeal panel decisions that we cited in the appeal panel held that there was an unexplained


you have any questions about maintenance costs versus repair costs i think i thoroughly showed the record supports a finding of all one hundred percent of that with her to my client next this argument about supply categories


that is the issue that is controlled by this court's recent published decision in texas gulf seafood ok the claimants argument today that those expense accounts are actually only written included repairers that is


to the court the court is no schmo he knows what the law is and i think we would be misinterpreting his view to say that he didn't know the standard and sir i did not say he did not know the standard well or that he didn't


policy and that wasn't just in this case in the family i'd say a third car would definitely be excess and in most cases i would agree with you in practicing in almost all cases but you still have to use of the towel do the circumstances analysis


regarding genuine ads and see i would just like to briefly address the fact that even if this court doesn't find that the conduct leading up to the perceived exigency by the police officers was unreasonable and was sufficient to suppress the evidence the


report spoke to it spoke to a couple different things one it i think it spoke to actually both counts that that mr bags packed was convicted of before both for possession and for the i guess i'm asking is there evidence independent of the report on which his conviction was based yes your


faris as having violated the confrontation clause that's not what his brief argued his brief argued that the admission of certain united states exhibit which he has called reports violated the confrontation clause so this is


if courts are equipped the courts have the tools doing gauging this sort of assessment or appraisal of foreign corporate culture let me point out st that in all of those instances where talked


than what you were talking about about how exactly what gives some clarity to how this sort of work out i think the mccourt in law gives some clarity to it because you know in the defense that should have been raised by four k when we brought


precedent than others i could i'd say very little i think that on top of the statutory framework that is clear and that this court exercises this court exercises case in that framework in connection with people who get hurt and


one hundred two thousand and ten government issued muscle in just ration or as documented by a two thousand and nine or two thousand and ten government issued vessel registration or some other evidence that the c s s p might find useful to this analysis and that's really important in


two thousand and ten in the gulf coast areas to c s s pete did address this issue and not record on a pos sixteen sixty nine sixteen seventy two and sixteen seventy three it closely analyze that question and what it


case that the knowingly counsel just just father twenty one j and requested a supplemental briefing on so although i was just brought up this was a case it's a few months old the fact that the supreme court is


don't allow it the rules require rule twelve acquires a motion to be filed before trial and as the district court recognized to do otherwise allows the defendant such as williams in this case to circumvent those clear and express rules another reason is that allowing it


have please the court this court's established it to be a class a member you only need to allege a loss now ordinarily were a class action proceeds to trial claimants are going to


should be a jury trial the jury should be able to decide if it does or doesn't speak for itself but race ipsa loquitur to war and duty toward a fair toward our subsets of the law of negligence of article twenty


putting something on ice doesn't mean that the food is as healthy so they buy it take it home it's about a ten minute ride at most back to the house the apartment immediately off ramp it immediately


nine days before the close of discovery of which plaintiff is knowledgeable the trial date the cut off of discovery at the time the motion for summary judgment was decided and as judge advance notice as discovery is


of costs we did move for costs in the motion for summary judgment when the judgment came down it didn't mention cost whatsoever it didn't instruct as to file a petition for cause actually what the cost be here we're not seeking attorneys fees in


may please the court george hicks for the b p appellants by its own admission the tampa bay performing arts center foundation is going to receive every penny of a twenty million dollar donation that it recorded as revenue this isn't the last


as opposed to after the fact when everyone realized how the spill settlement was to work because these records were all created before and the some contemporaneous two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven records were produced to the center years after and after a long


to answer this discovery while i was in the missouri proceeding but as judge north noted by the time in may of the following year we began to ask for the discovery when it got sent back down here the the lack of response which was complete and total lack of response


a draft of the tool control policy in part to address that risk the tool control policy has a section on restricted tools it says restricted tools are any tools that can be used as a weapon it lists examples


is also a discretionary doctrine that looks heavy only to the equities and i think inevitably would draw you into looking at the merits of the actual innocence claim here and again i think the th circuit has some useful precedents on that point and that's i think exactly


hear no judge hearing all that they will begin i agree judge i'm a little confused about how they did it i know jury deliberations are sacrosanct i can't know how they reached their decision but i'm saying what admissions are made by a defendant then the


and understanding you know all of the evidence that came in on on the dangers of this product and what they knew it's very common