this case was moving forward under ninety five zero four absolutely not everything that the plaintiffs filed with the court after this suppose a grueling reshuffling the deck stuck to the old theory that's not what i'm


effectively on o t c because if if the tenant pays the utility the rent is decreased by the amount of the utility that they paid that is in the record again those are issues of material fact that the court weighed in favor of one party over the other which was


which doesn't appear to have any explanation whatsoever and i mean by that reasoning could they take a ten year delay i mean how long of a delay would be allowed and what is the rule that you are advocating


the armed robbery is guilty of armed robbery now there is some confusion from the defendant's brief about the effect of someone holding the firearm versus being not the person carrying the firearm the distinctions


must your honor i disagree and that's the focus is on the the state department to department of justice's technical analysis of the treaty and not this particular portion is found at government excerpt


injuries only so that evidence isn't justified rejection another reason ailes agus rejecting her description of her test her testimony about her limitations is social security sent detectives to investigate her and in the


is true that's what judge him once said to do what you need to do is you need to argue what you can if you don't think that you should argue on the first element because you don't believe that she didn't make the statements then you can argue that there's a reasonable doubt that she didn't have an intent


problem i don't understand how this rises to a level so heinous that the can't get a fair trial in this place well the fact that there is not a lot of cases point is


read it i think the sole purpose for that witness would have been to prove that that motion was timely filed on the may eleventh date and so what i would say is even if you assume that the best situation for the defense


issue because there was a fight over ok well you know was there was there a new contract what happened with that so i mean it looked to me like what happened was this journal originally said i need four and a half million to make this movie the investor said ok we'll give you a four and a half million


client basically in essence unilaterally reduced the amount of money that the investors were willing to part with by two million dollars but in mr arnold gave some of that money to i guess what a


really don't help you well we don't really know because the district court didn't make any findings on them and in fact one of those factors in the value of the settlement and in this case not only didn't the district court make any findings with respect to the value of the injunctive relief or what value the class


set a value for that time specifically because judge clowes or deny classification judge clowes or deny class certification in part because he he could not


them was one of them and a significant one ok so just go back to the my question though and i guess if we're looking at this verdict and we're trying to figure out what did the jury necessarily find as the basis for conviction isn't the most that we can say is that


collateral for a larger loan that they then converted from a construction loan into a line of credit to build out three hundred five more stores of their verizon wireless outlets it's our allegation that


not understand what was occurring at the time it did on twenty two fifty five then he would have to come forward with a method of this rather than rather than just saying that i should judge more than ask me a follow up question so


defendant's competence has talked over the terms of the guilty plea understand that here the man is operating on his own without counsel so in that circumstance the


that is the fundamental deficiency in proof because i would submit number one they didn't lose sales because we are paying more i would submit number two that there is no evidence of lost sales period no admissible evidence the only evidence of lost sales is


due to his inability to complete c c c time this is again based on he initial brief but that is not correct he was not denied early


are essentially involving the same transfers there's an overlap forensic accounting dead we figured out all twenty nine of these cases overlap an isa representation by counsel made in


assessment of the into relationships between the transactions and you then you look at the broad policy language how how can you under those circumstances argue that it has to be more specific than that because in this case the


case where there was an end grest of loan policy it's true that the case there did not talk about common nucleus of facts but they did say you had an aggressive one policy that then you have to intervene in business decisions that actually caused


back to get coverage under the first policy period or counsel counsel for the issuer seems to think that financial management ways against your argument was that not true it's not at all true for


and you have a problem that arises where the state is not doing its job there is a collusion you have a claim against both of them but you cannot really do anything with perp except to say order them to do it and in the interim there's


issued as opposed to a notice of intent not to act a notice of intent to act against a state commission with a declaratory order describing its position or simply a declaratory order to the parties


law and the property interest if any that the state law provides again the county's law does not provide a property interest while they're facing felony criminal charges and then only after that if there is a finding that protect the property interest to evaluate whether or not adequate due process


centrally i believe it is african american gang members who did not like his tattoos that he was white that he was put into a pod and so through all these traumatic events the past history of alcohol and drug abuse


he was very frightened about coming clean with his trial counsel how did i'm not sure that helps us here so i apologize for the length in getting to my point here but the


least a twenty two year settlement as the killer robert when had agreed to and i do believe it was prejudicial not to pursue those settlement negotiations thank you thank you


pain isn't usual it's not a classic nerve pain it's almost like a nerve pain kind of in his forehead you know it's quite different from a migraine but quite severe as a result of her review of the medical evidence she indicated that


respectfully are they aren't admissions miss totally in a as also as in the record carefully worded the plea agreement to deny any concession or admission of fraud the plea agreement did not admit fraud the plea hearing did


can potentially we're not sure the record doesn't is not clear on that but the b i a clearly didn't address it under the circumstances what do we do with that we send it back could there be a to consider the petition in the first instance well i mean


force would not be justified it would be warranted it was the act of seeing a gun while he is in direct disobeying it's of her orders opening the car door and exiting and as he's exiting she's watching the gun come down and out of sight she has no reason to


what i'm arguing is that she acted on reasonably because she realized she'd not followed good police procedure and she perceived a danger that simply wasn't there opposing counsel said your i think said that your


are you changing your argument that i thought your position was that the idea was this was sort of a spy a sponsored that would be an office if you will party because the captain was retiring and somebody else is coming in and they had been told your client and they were


not have any fear or concern about being returned to my home country i mean it's more than the fact that he didn't complain he affirmatively said he had no fear so why what is the government


reports one of which entitled cruel and unusual punishment how a savage gang of deputy control deputies control l a county jails other similar pavers the a c l u was monitoring the jails through a consent decree under


the grievance procedure was not available to these to these plaintiffs they acknowledge that the procedure existed they had filed grievances in other other instances and when you look at the mcbride


as the export sales arm of a particular manufacturer of paper and that was all that they were functioning as they were not functioning as and so they are in the business doing that and without disclosing that customers


as you because your client didn't know what he allegedly did wrong in connection with a thousand dollars of the feared when you examine the bank statement but the probation officer had reviewed that previously and there were any problem with it you


that i think the point is that it wasn't unrelated i mean it was i mean how is it really that it shows she's come in and she's complaining about some of the same conduct the same incidents but alleging in that context that it was on the basis of her union activity


damages well it was because the at the district court level director for being an warden your rebate were dismissed at the motion dismissed stage on allegations based on their lack of involvement in this case and several


that's not even a no that's not under spirited a job you know and you really be where the director and the ward and my client had nothing to do with the budget now but that was the question hold decided given the budget issues


together a statute that makes it clear what our intent was i want to make a comment on the


it's a very interesting difficult case and as i said earlier we're going to go beyond our scheduled time especially when there are questions from the panel and so i want


to have a situation where we have stone the power that applies to cases that don't survive twenty to fifty four d one but stone deepal doesn't apply to


orders left off absolutely i don't think that that's i apologize if you thought that that was the that was the essence of the lawsuit it is not the essence of the lawsuit is the international law violation


concurrence described the domestic takings rule as the consensus view among the courts it had been adopted in in the fifth circuit in sanchez but nobody this agrees that there is such a


what we would do if we were legislating for legislating or lots of things we can do but congress has made the legislation here not anybody else and the legislation at the time didn't cover it now for example what


pena which was referenced as distinguishable in that case the police supervisors encouraged their officers in the precinct to drink and drive while on duty and assured them that they would not be


marriage brian in order to divert attention from another crime when the clear results of that would be that and the government investigators would reach out to the defendant in this case and be told no that's not right and that would lead to more


so substantially plausible that you knew that the district court abused its discretion and for three and it should have come in but then you also would have to prove that it's so plausible that it's not harmless error that i mean the evidence here


so that means there was something that had happened there and it was here by the time she got to the hospital correct nurse to correct they were found even when he had when he had a jury trial that from the report


important for the court to be able to see the report of dr drobe the forensic psychiatrist but reflected the fact that the pallant had a seventy six i q and had significant psychological issues but a quote to consider which are factors that certainly


usurped the power by effectively not allowing an effective motion to be made and at that point they said to send it back and have the motion be made would be wholly artificial at that point we're in the same posture here it's the bill can't be unrung it's


in the case we are not asking to reopen fact we are asking to reopen expert


provides long term care both skilled nursing and assisted living services the assisted living services are provided at the atrium one part of the facility i think you are familiar with the facts ok thank you your honor appellants arguments in this


there's some ice in that area so there is the extrinsic evidence that shows there was a condition to the deck and he says his feet slipped out on that deck of course in his after the affirmation he's again


showing your age i fully agree with that and certainly this court's decision in martinez for the city of new york in fact highlighted that fact that in a jones act case where there was a slip and fall and that that plaintiff did


at and i understand the court's concern about you know particularly the f e l a in the jones act that they speak to a lib a liberal standard remedial act however this case is is really unique in the following


slip and fall case many witnesses are unable to say exactly what caused them to fall in till they fall fall and they see the bolt they see the raised up what have you he said no so based on the circumstantial evidence available to the plaintiff he was unable to say what


worker and and in prevalence the court said you had to prove that each one of those conditions because it was a general verdict of negligence that each one of the conditions could have been negligent and the court said only


recklessness and the defendants in this case lou about it especially considering that the financial advisors institutions geoffrey's switch sides after advising


definition and there's no limitation on the context in which the c m i has to be used because congress was looking to create with the d m c a protection of the integrity of my and that it would have ball with technologies or however


that's giving the the city is the one that's providing the forms to the state and the state system for winning folding them forward i'm not suggesting that the state like churches where there were direct there were directions to falsify the records that were


impose these requirements for pleading i mean it's always true that that that people bring a case in and plead the the complaint before they have all the facts they need discovery and the supreme court said tough


on your answer which was no no no he would have not been he would not have been confused he would have said because he understood he could he understood do what he understood to be there was no definition of what the essential functions were but he understood he could do


pronounce is that it it's sites that incites it cite some insights several other published cases that it's relying on but that was the most similar facts so that's the case that we saw but even if it


county has been convicted of covering up crimes the crimes that he covered up were forged instrument filed at the county records room while i was fighting and


and the securities fraud title eighteen they said the government will rarely if ever have constant charge an insider trading offense under title fifteen when it can prevail without proving the traditional insider trading elements by charging identical conduct as wire


required under section b which is the connection with the securities but i still think that it's carpenter is very clear that this kind of conduct is prosecutable under the wire fraud


saw or experienced any kind of encouragement or direction from kathy scott she directed the two probationary officers in the room right she according to


inmates they are trained on how to use force and when not to use force against inmates the use of force by morris was unjustified and excessive once he started the assault and santiago joined


the evidence is the testimony of timothy van baucus and so in that opening statement at that point the prosecutor who gave that jury address was describing the anticipated testimony of the cooperating witness that testimony is that seven hundred


october the contacts were made by my client he apparently had the name of somebody there and there was never a response in october he hired our firm has hired him at over and we did the same thing we wrote to them and heard


and there's no evidence on that so we know that there's a contingency that's applied towards the fees but we don't know how the fees are calculated even for ms sullivan because he failed to include in the record the fee agreement


thank you helton states more than once that the realistic probability test is satisfied if statutory over breath rather than the application of legal imagination to the statutes


the other side so we have two sides before my my understanding anecdotally from colleagues is that that has happened in some cases in the past and in others it has not it's actually i have several colleagues who have done cases and have argued alone because the employer


not sure how much there are things you can find out from it but i'm not sure i'm saying this for reasons i'm not sure how much you should read in to things that happened there it was an order it was a one page order but recently


the party what i wish to call them are in agreement basically on how this through how this should proceed i believe we are your honor and to be absolutely have no problem with essentially the opening


alternatively you could have a retrial to decide the reasonable value if they get past the light sensing bar the statute of frauds bar and a failure proof but if you had it then in effect a real man would be for a trial to find a reasonable value to


got every penny and then the last payment for work he had done that was payment for work while he was the associate at the firm he was offered seventy five thousand dollars he refused it he keeps saying i was never given anything from the last five hundred


received the full economic benefit of its bargain and in every case affirming a conviction there has been a showing of actual or potential economic harm to the victim but this case is different the government did not prove that for


rebuttal and indeed to give me a minute of that and if that's acceptable to the court would be appreciated let me begin by saying this none of us are asking this court to overrule


they have the ultimate ability to say no this is not what we want with respect to the r f p or if they have the ability when only one beat is received or only two babies receive to say this is it competitive


they way way argentina argued was that the boateng is like the federal register because it doesn't have ads but it does have that it's not like the federal register i've never looked and seen an ad for anything in the federal register whether it's attorneys


the district court to sort out the arguments were making would be appropriate but we think there's a clear showing here that beats the statute of limitations thank


but that was not what the trooper said was his inference so i think we have to be clear about what's in the record and what inference of the court and what inference the government has drawn and i don't think the court's inference is supported by the record secondly


them summary judgment on that isn't that sufficient you're on a case all indicates that preservation on that issue only on the summary judgment level is insufficient to two to preserve it on appeal specifically when they go to the when they start making


is that she lived a rd not a party monitor wouldn't know that the name suzy q means anything and what it notified the probation department the probation department on the other hand being familiar with mr word being familiar with where it is that he lives


testimony and he also told mr naif and said that in his in his filings it became clear that he was it never was familiar with the watts case and what what defense lawyer who's representing someone who's


to the attendants in testimony at an official federal proceeding there's no suggestion in the statute that the mens rea are somehow cut off after attendance and testimony leaving official proceeding merely as a fact to be


we may come back to that but moving on for just a moment this three level enhancement that is for in the sense that resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice could you describe the


mentioned in the note on the on the progress of that particular trial and nothing changes becomes a peculiarity of this witness retaliates thought it does have the effect of


we just have a check stand by and that's why you would go as the essential inquiry into the person of skill the art and ask them you understand what this means does this term have definite meaning to you and the answer from dr howard was unequivocally yes he said clearly it means escrow


and i just not sure if they're saying they are following it or not but i don't know the answers i just need to understand your argument that they got it right the first time they're getting it wrong now or it's your argument that and


saying there was no legally enforceable trade just because the trade just was functional when there was some other problem with the transgressor that they were claiming right obviously there's no parties here nobody made that argument


back and say well one reason your back can't be so low is that there is something missing is it the modal logic or something p c interface like the interface like a look at the figure the


is page eighty one and then section appendix a which starts on page two seventy one and goes to three of five


next which is also with you if you build an oval by the court i'd like to address well our briefs address several issues of mistake of law major


likewise had they even assumed so had even taken the time to share their own statements in their own knowledge which is under spirit they certainly had knowledge that there was another contract that was getting priority they certainly had knowledge of hard milestones


that is what they said requires a minimum separation distance and you know if we look at their specification they do talk about a variety of ways like using the angle of the arc uit surface there is and other ways to


get there but that's not in that claim so this argument is really about the lewis teaching that women station and not a new claim constructions issues are any further


is how much enhanced damages are appropriate we're not asking we're not suggesting what the right number is we're not asking this court to come up with the right number that is the function of the district court it is the function of this court and i would submit a


that there was infringement and the patents were not invalid but this court reiterated as to each of our defenses and at the outset of this opinion that our positions on those dispositive issues were


result in the denial of other claims those other claims are therefore expressly didn't know me and we have sat there and that absolutely satisfies the notice of the denial requirement


that was a mistake unfortunately made by counsel during the the agency proceedings and that was fully briefed before the court when it was brought up below in the river a forty nine you say that quote magistrate judge


any arguments about retroactively have been waived if there's not any suggestion of them in any of the briefing indeed the brief refer specifically to the arguments that were at issue in oil states namely whether or not the seventh amendment applies


what the problem was not even differentiating between the two patterns and then the third bullet where they finally do out of forty pages of briefing address the three seventy four patent it's and these two sentences the claims of the three seventy four patent include a future that


i don't see any lights on so i think i'm still within my time i'd like to return to the three buckets of inherent sea air but there it was in the context of the time


pillar of the market and that's the reason why you see a lot more of the kelly brand etc etc and then he says goodyear is manufacturing tires kelly tires play to specifically play in


octane is it really a two step process that is a determination of exceptional case and then the exercise of discretion to award attorneys fees or should it really be viewed as a one step process involving the


should be shielded by a credibility determination on the experts i believe that's what the respondent is trying to do here they're trying to phrase little ashlyn happens in these i've seen cases you have a bunch of different scientific evidence or a lack of scientific evidence


improbable the fact that we actually have companies working on a human t cell based vaccine tells us all we need to know do we need them to actually succeed i think not


where your experts say the norco suffers from that view because i had understood before that the only difference between norco and what you say of the claims require is the look like to be


least that i remember refers to it as and on sale by which is it and if it's an on sale are which if the method system's computer readable medium or so i say i see


bolded that it seems to me your under your arguments would be eligible and i just don't see how that's possible state law well so what so what we're saying with respect to the nine nine nine i only got through the two of the problems one was one was the


of course when ex parte rigs emanation was created there was no prior form of agency reconsideration at all and the patent holder and pat lax argued that the the fact that the presumption of limited didn't apply an expert a reexamination meant


that an ordinary sale isn't enough is that it can't possibly be true that when you go to the grocery store and buy milk you come out and say i do seem good the grocery store is offering a financial product and service they might think that if you offered a credit card and you were


allowing a sale was good enough and in versa there wasn't a sale i reviewed the claims a couple of days ago and all there was was determining a price for a product that was to be offered for sale in this


access points which are provided usually by cisco which they say are the r f transmitters that that's not part of the song or sense archelaus it's not it's part of the system that they accused when you look i think it's page


made and it wasn't made for mr banks or other people because there was a longer runway on those employments and that's the problem this looks an awful lot like you decided to hurry up fire a veteran not actually give them a true pip


looking at willis and taking from well as a bunch of stuff not dependent on use for a short runway and therefore that person would have been motivated to combine it with a


focus of the appeal is to get a declaration that we were the prevailing party and therefore we do not have to pay any costs but what we want is that depending on the number of patents or the amount that was recovered i mean is i understand there was


one it's not an abstract idea and second even if we don't get over step one there's a question about whether the combination of these two elements was routine and conventional and that's something which we do you need to be sure


based on lab results and so here you're just saying ok well if you here's how you parlay this that throughout this math you're simply say you know we're going to parlay about across three sets of diet which is


what the point is that they don't and the board says we considered you punt factors for which there were arguments and evidence so where is it that the board considered the arguments and evidence that were presented on du pont factory because they present it repeatedly


investigate products that come from the subject country the subject country being the one named in the petition here china but i thought in the opening argument we'd already read that this was the very first case


trying to use and take data from a country that's not a comparable economy and apply it to this particular economy with respect i don't think there's any difference in the calculation for the extra relation necessary they could


indonesia calculated exchange rate of about ten thousand repeat a one if you move the decimal place for to the left you will find month by month size by size virtually identical black tiger pricing in indonesia


and one piece or two pieces of luggage that i'm not infringing but if i use for then i that's a user right yes your honor and those of those would go to infringement questions i think the way this would work is both from the manufacturing side went to sends me factures


and doesn't cause a lot of people all of us here in this room to spend time and money trying to figure out what you meant what you actually did decide and not decide i think you know where i am there's no question no we're sentenced telesur about what's


agency went back and it wasn't something that was easy to find your honor when they specifically look for it in response to the specific argument that was made before you they did find it and i have


again there's no evidence or even fair argument that these were written by an attorney or that they were in compassing privileged information that was discussed between an attorney and a client and again i think


wireless licensing the court issued an order at the end of last week because they spotted a possible standing issue we don't know if there was a standing and she were not but we want to make


so that's found in appendix fourteen and basically it was determining whether a given use of an identity is permitted based on information that is in itself insufficient


opening in the fifty six hundred that it's accessible from the say right right so there wouldn't be infringement on the second one i believe that's right and i think one appropriate thing for this court to do would be to set aside the


there is no ability to challenge and i don't know if there is an ability to do that there was there was a district court case about five or six years ago where a party in the balls position brought into action in the district of


we presented to the district court the definition of a learned function and that would be let me pull that so


unfortunate to say judge did in the pure case the district court didn't look behind the quote immediate removal of those paragraphs as i said it wasn't an immediate


men not only incredible with regard to areas outside of x his expertise but discrediting his opinion altogether but i understand you don't take it you don't


do you have to show does the government have to show as an element of the florida of france that the drug was cocaine they have to show the nature of the control substance but the nature


retired former investigator and inside i think missed from universal as the crux of that testimony and later put that loss and to a loss calculation and


start with late the first issue that we've raised and our brief which has to do with the truck court's refusal to allow mr rosenfeld to call james bradley as that witness at the trial mr bradley


cd but then people are who the customers who are responsible for verifying and by contract are saying we verified it this we've confirmed it our funding group is in place these things which give my client reason to believe that they're


own witnesses which makes it misleading to the jury and shift the focus away from what they have to prove and then that's compound by the fact that we can't put on bradley who can offer another opinion rebutting her so you've got the victims who are


here for the option payment they made was for the value of the land yes these options have an expiration date they have an expiration date and the expiration date has since expired because i think they were five years


in the collateral provision why are you saying joe montana purchased land in the bahamas where the best you were giving him land in the bahamas and the jury was free to reach inferences based on the record evidence and say


the land pursuant to a supreme court decision in the bahamas was transferred from newport to summered and newport is who was sued here and the people who are claiming ownership of that land have conceded in a miami dade county court that they don't own it


exclusion in compass is all of the different kinds of mismanagement claims that are typically broad by the most likely constituency to actually bring those claims and of course this is a privately owned bank but you're saying the concept


arguments as to severability are all predicated on an express severability clause in the policy itself which we don't have here so when the typical policy you have ensuring agreement


and sanders where the allegations against them were for pure management liability what a d n o policy is designed to cover and unless the insurance carriers could demonstrate which


conviction of itself was in two thousand and fourteen so as a result of that conviction as a lawful permanent resident he subject to remove ability he has the opportunity to quote unquote cancel that removal under the i a e a absent there


a different discretionary standard for fees and or costs under eighty one thirty one or is it the same i think it's going to be the same and i don't want to say i think i've been pondering that question and waiting for that question from the bench and so here's here's we know what the


going with us this week to help us decide these difficult cases thank you you're welcome john to allison and we have four cases that are scheduled for argument this morning and i see that counsel are ready for the first case it's united states


like i know this is an upward departure baryons but that's what i would do that that's unnecessary berkut i think it is unnecessary verbiage and i think that district courts


at sixty is that not enough does that not that put you into the life range now the right one three and five that's the question that's being asked here i think the question is if the sentences were to run concurrent concurrently and the guidelines were


at the time he didn't currently have the funds necessary there it seems to me that there are certainly ways he could borrow the money you acquire the funds through other means without resorting or without necessarily perjuring himself with an affidavit or


was the supreme court announcing a new rule of law in coleman which means that the southern district of florida it had no discretion but to apply that the chevron oil test has been effectively overruled the supreme court has said that a couple of


judge said no everything is fair game going all the way back to the beginning and in fact judge incl wrote the jury instructions and presented them to us the day before the end of trial and judge him go wrote the verdict form and it was passed on by everyone it's in


individual and not to and i also think it's important your honour's to recognize that ten seventy one and three seventy one that one can conspire they can try and conspire to to hide that


guidelines as counsel says the district court sat through the trial of mr durant's a lawyer the district court was very familiar with the internet it's of this conspiracy those findings are entitled to some deference year he understood the trial judge saw that


debate about that but i think the court has to accept the allegations as true and i don't think the record in this case can be defended based on a strategic decision because you can't make a strategic decision without conducting any adequate investigation the supreme court has made that


says there in that i'm looking how the district court and the district court actually decided that the question is whether the senator would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating did not warrant death


was this psychologist did expressly evaluating him for money getting a factors and the third point is that this psychologist did present a fulsome picture of mr maples wife that he was abused by his birth mother before the age of three that he


general principle that the government can retry mistry counts is that if facts have been decided in a first valid proceeding they cannot be real it a gated in a subsequent proceeding and that requires the court to say so what facts have necessarily been decided and it's


i think that's a very difficult decision to make sense of i would say that both this court in ohio and relied on it and then the fifth circuit in gager before it went up to the supreme court relied on it and after


lineups to be shown to be eyewitnesses in this case that does not appear to have happened or if it has happened it was not revealed to trial counsel through the pretrial investigation


loss which we are not contesting the six point nine million dollars of loss that it's requesting is based on to be one point one note three f i which is it states that a minimum


in paragraph twelve it starts out by saying that twelve a one had four notebooks with personal identifying information in them and that's that's i've got it here what paragraph paragraph


kind of attribution is that the heart of your argument that's exactly it your honor and that's why the government even conceded to that the seventy thousand dollars of i r s government claims prior to september that would not be taken into consideration first calculating


rogers and mr demetrius flores and i think what is more important than that then the fact that he started it is that in both of those occasions the court mr dols that my client chipped those two individuals to me that does not


there have been two three four five breaks of glass and each of those breaks is is the result of a defect in that particular piece of glass and therefore you


have to fix it as as a non complying perform performance regardless of the expiration of the warranty and chose did not turn around then and say in the


article nine paragraph thirty saying novum you have a duty to death bin and indemnify us for matters arising out of your work in the phrase arising out of your work is absolutely critical to the


fact pattern that we have before us in the arbitration namely a general contractor tenders the defense and indemnity to the sub contractor the subcontractor so is not my problem the general contractor has a serious issue with an owner that must be


ripping out the entire curtain wall and putting it back in with laminated glass which was the contention by the university of georgia in order to resolve it cho did two things it put a safety film solution out there so


subcontract the two it's like a train on tracks you can't have the sun you can't have two trains on the same track and the track is the track that has to do with the acceptability of the glass


determination it's not about bad starting point your honor but it's not the end it's not the end of the analysis inspired ho the court relied on three florida cases where the courts held that


guilt another look at the florida jury instructions to prove the crime of trafficking ok in the illegal drugs the state must prove for our women's beyond a reasonable doubt and then if you look at this this is standard


felony of the first degree which felony shall be no known as trafficking in illegal drugs the fact that the statute specifies that all of these may be


course of the investigation that proved not to be correct would wouldn't do it again your honor there are two statements made the first statement was when they initially knocked on the door of his residence and his wife was


grams of something having nothing to do with any transaction five grams is the is a is a person and he's found and it's not even in connection with any transaction five grams and that is that is a again the one of the problems we have other than the forty


conclusions dr truckie went through and explained the various ways you can look at the drug health effects on the central nervous system through structural activity relationships which is a sort of a chemical molecular analysis through in vitro tests which


like the court in hazel said just the fact of the violation is proof of injury it's a new in the nature of i presume damage and i just say sometimes yes thank you


this case the facts of this case that they're not that far from the facts of this case they're pretty far a pistol is a is a gun that's not capable of doing that that much damage and we have a guy who's elderly and holding a


facts and therefore they did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal this case is repeated replete with the defense counsel arguing their version of facts cherry picking facts and lapsing into disputing


request we're not asking for the outcome we're asking for the order that the first removal was proper or in more specifically a reversal of the reminder but if that doesn't do anything then we're not giving you relief in other words


in this case we don't know what this mother asked or didn't ask of her lawyer we don't know what her lawyer did or didn't tell her but what we know is an assumption agreement went to the lawyer the lawyer client signed it


any longer and i think what's very notable about mr beaver's declaration in terms of his description of his interactions with deputy coker mr beaver's never says that he told deputy kolker i missed my


procedural device by the court controls its docket it is based on principles of res judicata but it is a separate doctrine under either they lose if if this really is federal claim splitting which lets we might have some doubt about that but say it is federal claim splitting then wouldn't


case filed by the debtors st one was dismissed this one was converted after several months the trustee actually filed a new last report demonstrating her intent not to proceed with ministration of the case simply because


justify proceeding so the way the sale was structured was to guarantee the estate at least the minimum recovery and then the take that's the market and see what more you could get although originally it was a related party there was going to be the buyer


county the most direct a victim of that fraud were the people who were not allowed to get those lanes i e the plainness is it your argument that your clients were the most direct victims of the rd misrepresentations absolutely i don't


you're talking about those decisions all involve scenarios unlike frontier oil and unlike this case where the policyholder and the insurer just generically agreed to nationwide coverage without naming specific places or said it was and that was


i'll give you one minute missing your honour's i agree you have to follow frontier oil and this is from tear oil that case involved policy language exactly the same as this case that case had it boilerplate coverage territory clause in the


that the recorder was being used the question i asked just yet did your client not know that there was recorder sitting on the table no i can't say that i can say if they knew that the recorder was sitting on the table knew that they had their own recorder sitting on the


the d h s s reading of the statute what would be different about january first two thousand and nine the secretary would still have power to name any project that it wants anywhere that it wants with on the southern border and waive


she she does things that are totally inconsistent where she says to the officers come come with me in there in viking manor come with me need my dogs meet my cats we're going to all take care of this together and then


collateral review and says right in there that the motion was then barred by the statute of limitations we've got that on our books seems to be a question of law so while i looked very carefully at your


suppose you know can i ask you a factual question right looking to see if there was some specific allegation in your complaint as to what you


council what is the basis of your argument that is that that is that that it is unconstitutional or it's extra statutory they cannot do it or is that it's arbitrary and capricious it just they just went too far there's lots of discretion but the attorney general just


think the attorney general could have so so when you make the argument on the human trafficking are you addressing only the certificate or also the focus areas because you've tried to be very careful in distinguishing between those two yes right i think that is that is that is the certification


at the time congress adopted it and stretch this idea the congress is sometimes careless and writes war when it really means and and it in this particular case is manipulation off the


any time they want yes they can take physical possession when ever they want all they have to do is pay what they owe it's not that i mean what they want i mean that's that's you know if they bought it on the margin


not stand for the proposition in this court in california if a court doesn't address an issue the case is not precedent for us i don't know it was a carrot doing if it wasn't having a remedy it was assuming that there was a remedy for failure to


evidence in the record was insufficient to sustain a punitive damages award tell me your strongest case that point something me in the brief tell me your strongest your strongest case shirt your single strongest case to support your argument


alternatively whether pineda damages are even available under the statute well as under california law which they are as to a lot of those it's clearly the case that punitive damages categorically are available in this case california law is that


which was question four d it asks as a catch all other any other illness is items consultations treatments that sort of thing in the last five years if you haven't already told us about and he answered no to that question it's our position that's not a


was the evidence of misrepresentations by mr harrington uncontroverted and the answer to that is yes even dr harrington's deposition testimony acknowledged that in response to the application


clear you know if i were feeling this out i would know that difficult questionnaire go through all these consultations talk about consultation with it with a chiropractor if i recall correctly or one of the initial application forms didn't


other i can't tell your honor what he was in his head other than what he said in his deposition which was he understood the great west was asking about the symptom not about whether it was a medical record or some other type of record


three years after him but started how do they know about dr pak because one of dr harrington's other providers dr abousamra made mention of that in one of his medical records the doctor which is already in the application


stieglitz and mr mr freesheet your presentations the case of health care ally management of california versus blue cross blue shield of minnesota


council member scott has testified that he had nothing to do with any of these other investigations is no evidence contradicting that mare robertson the same chief the end of the same the argument as if


termination even absent his speech then summary judgment is proper and in this case somebody doesn't certainly was proper in light of all the evidence unless the court has any questions thank you thank you


are rd party actions but the there would have been no reason to say in the case of any rd party claim if every thing in twelve one was about a rd party claim while there would be no reason to say in the case of any rd party claim you


california these days is that the default is that if you have a provision that's labeled indemnification talks about one party indemnify and the other talks about one party holding the other harmless the default rule is to assume that that provision is


as well so both of those neither one of those kids is a california case raid one from wisconsin one from montana that's correct their california cases that you were able to find that would be responsive to does least question no or any that would go the other way i suppose


if that's a word on an evidentiary matter are they legally tied together i'm not going to stand here and say no because they were separate questions but generally speaking in


statutory language and the california supreme court case law as whether or not the later writings are contracts in themselves so our complaint affirmatively alleges and this is not disputed that this


thank you thank you


point in time they were not a contracting party they were not one of the parties in the original agreement between the slip in the subcontractor and we think that is improperly


beginning they have allowed the trial court to go into a duty to indemnify which is what all owners about it also is not the case it talks about well main thing it does is it's a st party


or that person own the backward at the time the the requirement of property damage during the policy period is a requirement of the policy but in order for pulte to be an additional insured so


some kind of soy component in it that the wiring is insulation is all made of that then it wouldn't distinguish between this vehicles and other and other vehicles that are experiencing rodent damage in other words the


what percentage of the vehicles is this it's tiny i mean that's struck when we're talking about nine cars and this is a big international magazine after the point i would make is the plaintiffs they've done a flight three hundred consumer complaints and they


determination of whether there was retaliation and thirdly the focus in the administrators proceeding and some of the california cases to talk about this is are is really unjust cause i was there a


ignore the policy as expressed in johnson to minimize repetitive litigation avoid harassment the parties we would have likely a five day trial in federal court what a sport but you don't need to see it because this particular issue was


this litigation it is myself or my office i would have to prepare the proof of service under penalty of perjury your honor could not state in a declaration a sworn declaration that my office


get tons of these kind of junk mail things all the time so you know it's some whether someone can even remember at this point it is difficult to say there's no way we could get around that problem but they could have found someone who could attest that it was actually mailed out and they did not know


i had had her removal proceedings reinstated several times so again i think the judge takes a party or a litigant as he or she finds them and nothing told this immigration judge that this particular individual needed to move to a competency hearing to figure out


but you seem to take issue with the court having had a hearing to determine what the what the real purpose was and you're arguing it's not an issue of fact the question is what the purposes is the purpose of the use of the funds in the baptists already construed the


the reason that seven zero seven b is limited to only consumer doubters is because we want to encourage economic risk by businessmen and this was a business opportunity to expand the little no


issue in a case called the last kiss her era and in that case the board said board indicated that that if the criminal act did not result in harm to the child that it wasn't


interface this intercede in event of him leaving the country had become known i guess i don't understand the relationship or the rationality of that argument how is it that the fact that he left the country and came


driving retribution for that the family assumes it's the zetas the family is the one consistently saying it is it is this is a this is a this no one else has confirmed that there is nothing to confirm that there's no correspondence was was discussed counsel


a counsel could i just go back to the quantum error issue again you heard opposing counsel say that mr ogle nik signed on behalf of all interested and the


says that the essential competence of the court of appeals is based on its institutional knowledge of the law what is clearly established and what you want to declare the city of appeals for i do i understand your your request


speculate oh well because your client has damages of nine hundred dollars that necessarily means that everybody else hasn't least that much in damages clubhouse and b b m w i think is the case you're referring to but specifically fourteen forty six provides for other


the the board i think that gives the ukrainian government quite a passage that says that this is just discrimination and harassment from private citizens that doesn't rise to a level of persecution however it appears that the


and the people were pleading with them to help and protect us and stop the police just watch the mob and stuff right in front of them get in the argument the government would argue that that's not the police


any of the other aspects of the complaint


is pretty clear i mean i think the judge got it all wrong if we welcome it if we agree that the judge got it wrong because the judges


and furthermore would support that he was not capable of performing the sedentary work that was identified by northwestern mutual in its closure letter there was and how did how did northwestern define sedentary work in


thirteen and if you look at the four corners that medical record the district court got it right there was nothing in that record that proved that it was ongoing disability let me


i swallow your argument what do i do i would remind and know what to do i allow the i j a to do at the worst father respond that you would require him to carry his burden to


child support orders and gone out by virtue of being the ass and he and collected that debt on behalf of the of the custodial parents and the children to whom that debt


on a legal principle on whether or not in the reason why we're pursuing this is to get a determination on whether or not these costs of incarceration or by law nondestructive all domestic support obligations in a bankruptcy


statute and this would be one of those drastic changes if the court were to adhere to orange county's reasoning it would be a drastic change there would least be some mention somewhere in the legislative history there is no evidence to show that the these


why any inconsistency that is pointed out and why the immigration the applicants explanation is not a reasonable one you need to explain and second that you can consider minor inconsistencies those were sort of two glaring errors that were noticeable from both


i grant you know get relief well what the immigration judge sent is what they were doing to this shining path the shining path was doing to the marines torturing and he said that's how you


everything well we know they didn't consider everything your honor because in the record on for my two thirteen officer crna himself made a contempt that is a contemporaneous record where he specifically stated that he conducted that interview in


in favor of the consumer any any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the debtor consumer the second principle that the court must consider is that the you know the court my supply


alive with a tire and that point is addressed in our opening brief pages seventy to seventy one providing further evidence of the likelihood of torture and when co counsel was referencing to reading from the immigration


there was no sure yes it's in the it's in the record it's in the meeting minutes so the certification that's attached to this resolution ninety seven point three six is is it worth the paper it's written well


been in on it's so to speak he still would have been guilty of grant's f which was a third strike he still would have been guilty of the felony possession which was a third strike and place eventually realize that fact when he kind of gave up his representation of petitioner even


intelligence the test one is consistent regarding whether barrios knew the elements or the rights of he was waving and i think it's also clear that he did not know the law in relation to the facts because young had never conducted any investigation before the


because i believe that the police were adamant in trying to focus on a religious gathering this was corroborated by the statement of the squad leader that later was remorseful and


the time of the shipment was made at that point in time well no they didn't they they would not receive the product with the time shipment was made to be a physical impossibility because of the three thousand miles in between they could only


he was the anti money laundering officer he made the determination that no suspicious activity report ought to be submitted back in new york and we don't have any


they submitted a proof of claim on behalf of the debtor and but that's a different proposition that if you finally approve a claim on behalf of the debtor you really are acting as the agent with respect to that act well i think that you're complying with the rule in respect to


creditors and you do that in the form of telling the court under oath that i owe this money and i agree that i owe this money then if a creditor comes in in a circumstance a circumstance like this and has made a procedural error which


that this these litigation expenses could be requested for a different type of case and in that particular case it was it involved an employer who was trying to enforce an unlawful arbitration provision so the so the


as sad as these events are doesn't your client bear the burden to show why they were killed and to tie them into this social group i don't see the connection or your honor in terms of why his grandfather was killed


just this piece of evidence in and in and of itself is insufficient and even taken together it's just not enough to meet the burden of showing a nexus to his family status his story about the note


somebody shot the tires out on the passenger side right well that's not conclusively proven is my point or the tires have not out on the passenger side or not is there no it's been all the agencies who investigated this incident nobody made


a report a note in their report as to which tires were shot out if you look at the last page of dr firestone's declaration which is not nine thirty three and that's not my question and my question is is there


danger to his person he wouldn't exit but doesn't know why does it matter whether he was afraid or not the question is whether an objective objective leo would be reasonable for somebody to think he was in danger i mean it did here's the me just tell you where i'm coming from so you've got the scars


the government also says that the ninth circuit said that you have relief but you can only seek it prior to the reinstatement and again that's not what the ninth circuit said so the petitioner he challenge to the the


and that's not at all what mr gomes did and so the government argues here he's manufacturing himself went as the reinstatement process and so i think you know i want to just first say that the court doesn't have to decide that in this case because


he in appropriately said that was a violation of the like you know the case right now the twenty six b to a ruling that we cited in the brief that he


do you agree that the bankruptcy court's judgment in the discharge adversary is in conflict with the district court's judgment in the preference of the sciri particularly on the issue of whether the business assets or the debtors


question she filed her motion to reopen exclusion proceedings after the change in country conditions if she had filed after her second the birth of her second child that would be as this case decided and he was going sol is merely a change in


against the there's a litany of names here so i'm trying to do in your sense but it would be anything anybody related to the juvenile justice department in any individual or official capacity well after


federal law claim although we do under nine hundred eighty three we look to state law on certain things such as statute of limitations such when i have a real concern about the lack of phonology and a federal court


maybe up next a friend brought a lawsuit and failed to do adequate discovery or the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and they said that's not binding on the minors


any issues that during the process of the first lawsuit that it wasn't aggressively prosecuted i believe you ask a question about if the records said anything about them asking to file or amend


this is some new cause of action would mean that we have to come out of some new operative facts or or something and i know it all kind of ties them together with that race judicata issue but you have to determine what


was no way a rational jury could believe his testimony after he had been impeached and found to be lying on several occasions while on the stand additionally the lesser included office just to touch on a couple of


correct and i'm sorry i misunderstood your question yes that's correct and if it's specifically in the contract that's unfortunate contracts to provide temporary solid waste disposal to the


that i was trying to zero in on this was judged against and i'm not sure that they were not still talking past each other but all i'm not talking past i agree with your statement just now that probably under our deferential law what they did to the father


notice by having this these multiple steps in additional notice to be campy i mean there's a school can get rid of folks even without a violation of a particular policy if they comply with with the notice requirement yes but here that they didn't


they can ask but the law doesn't require them to get a rubric of every single you know of the exam that they took but that's essentially what mr shaw is asking for and i thought it was interesting that he said he noted that he admitted that everything


in fact that's true in a case it overrules a case called united states versus franklin decided by this court in one nine hundred ninety eight now they treat that factor as if it's dispositive of this issue and i want to be very clear on the


the defendant must do enough less so that if they are powerful to the criminal activity and a prior panel of this court in company said that that test focuses on whether or not the defendant was substantially less culpable not on whether or not the


were some procedural victories and the court is trying to determine whether those victories on those procedural matters actually affected the outcome in a positive manner if it's a not to be beyond some kind of trivial relays here it's not


to follow the bone factors but if you look at what the factors actually are they don't discuss any but the first ok there's a lot of question as to what bad faith bad faith or culpability i guess is the actual standard there's a lot of question as to what that really means


would submit that that's what we have here certainly in the instance of five if you are one forty four we have it right not out of his mouth but off of his fingertips we have his admission he understands that


constitutional lawyer about i am i will say that we believe that in the texas supreme court we also would get the right result the reason that we do not believe that this case needs to be certified to the texas supreme court however acknowledging


especially in a capital case to test the evidence didn't work in this particular case and probably the best example of that is the fact that judge smith required mr fields to take a dry run with a witness who was the critical


belief that should be tested in an event and evidence you're hearing likewise dr mark in his sworn declaration said he had no background information specifically no history of mr fields prior mental health diagnosis one of the questions


and are bifurcated calculation in response to the attorney general opinion that said there are other ways to get at this even protested employees what you did with the two thousand and seven amendment doesn't get you there but you can address this


the court did not have jury right who would have arguing that they are they're not present that point here they're just saying we lost on summary judgment we have a right now to go to trial to prove there is no


braised them in our brief in our briefing to the district court the district court shows to limit its decision to the fee or that does not foreclose our right to come before this honorable court and raise


presentations often included prayer by those students i know this court has previously addressed the issue of prayer at school board meetings i intend to address that those cases specifically but my bishop well why isn't this a pretty


how many the nature of the various presentations that were made and how many were prayers and whatever is there also a breakdown of how many elementary middle high school students i believe that information is within the briefing within the record your honor as to the number of elementary schools


are very few students there in some instances the only student there may be the student who is delivering the prayer if they chose to do that now keep in mind that you think if the through record were developed more with out there more students on a more regular


the government has satisfied the element of interstate commerce with regards to that transfer and the court the government ultimately decides to recall paul hawkins to ask him further questions about the locations so


between the parties in connection with this dispute was burger king's case in the northern district of texas to recover on a guarantee not in a franchise agreement not in any of franchise agreements but simply on a guarantee and that guarantee as everyone


you point to any evidence parole evidence that's in the existing record that shows that the parties did intend it to be that way well i think we don't even need to go to pro i'm just curious kind of the pot when mr smith says declaration that snit's was saying it was effective on term


it so many stores and it would have sold so many cases it where does that come from it can we reasonably rely on that expert predicting how many stores are going to sell it and how


chris wooten who was also a representative of a i c they both indicated that they were able to do exactly what they would normally do throughout their process and that they had not claimed that there was any prejudice


issues dealing with qualifications we we vehemently disagree with that but the main issue is not so much about how whether or not miss it was qualified but that she was eternally disqualified from ever being


have any evidence to controvert the certification by the work and we don't intend to oppose a conditional release of mr dick should the district court


one you actually can ask for discover you can attach evidence on my post through twelve so in a court can consider evidence and in the soviet managers dictionary great game i'm sure i'm sure they can in this case what what what


contract was that they were not a party to the contract price but if you look at the contract the which is the ticket the ticket does not denote who the contracting parties are it does not state this is an agreement between the national football league


whether there was a difference in face value between the original c and replacement c and if there was no difference and i knew where there was some other basis to claim that it was an inferior seat and that you say some of the sixty got


did these groups of employees were brought into the social security system voluntarily but in modification one thirty the state and h h s


classroom alone it's a forty hour work even if it's learning is going to trip well the regulation says that the fact that the once you get to forty


sold by the victim to a secondary purchaser before the fraud is discovered in that case the secondary purchaser really does stand in the shoes of the first purchaser economically speaking they are as defrauded


attestation in fact the government changed those instructions after the employer solutions here was in the process of being sanctioned to make that very point clear thus in effect conceding that the instructions prior to that


original documents the regulations state that the employee must present original documents the handbook states that the employee must present original documents to him but also states that the employer must review original documents and we know from the regulation petitioner makes a point of this in their brief that


resume so it was never submitted to the district court the district court never had the opportunity to view the video itself and apply the dos factors because of the factual resume which admitted


argument is precluded by circuit precedent isn't it it i think that it is and i said that in my brief saying no we can't do what you ask but you preserved i guess for


really turned his life around he is supporting all the people in this family as i've indicated here and i think part of the reason the judge didn't frankly slap you with more time was because he was impressed with the fact that


is the right sentence but i don't want to you know suggest that the district court was not acting in good faith but i just felt that the district court is hands were tied i mean what what is he supposed to do with no indication of that and we do have judges who say my hands are


and i certainly think i think that case is distinguishable in that the relationship and yeshu in the brown case was between o


go there to decide this i think if there is no evidence of what the government undertook to prove as the means of violating that statute then there has to be an acquittal and the judge was right to acquit mr byrd away on that ground but actually what we're


there's not just a reverse screw diverse or a reverse lawsuit but you're also entitled to have an enforcement of what they finally determine that your entitle to i think that's exactly correct


to be a delay between that order and the actual production of the documents but that's that's hardly unusual for an agency action to have some time to take effect me happens all the time and pre enforcement challenge is to rules and constitutional


and then so if some point there they would be that the sierra club well right to intervene will arise so we're just doing this all over again i mean no i didn't have the right to


raised four issues on appeal all of them related to the constitutionality and legality of this practice all began with what was claimed to be a mystery there is free whether or not the guidelines permit a cross reference from bank fraud to murder


specific specific facts i don't think there's anything along those lines but it was undisputed that dr bowen said the sheriffs are responsible for supervising him and then sarah callahan said no he's


proof what should appellate counsel of argued under if he had argued plane air and prejudice that what would he have looked to do to support that prejudice without anything in the trial record well let me first point out that to answer the court's


motions but the rule twenty nine motion according to counsel this morning presented a cornucopia of arguments that could have been brought forth by appellate counsel while that rule twenty nine motion was before the panel on direct appeal was


serving declarations affidavits can be sufficient to defeat summary judgment in other words they count as evidence just as contravening affidavit might well so serving affidavits alone


their argument in the office or be quiet and get back to work and they were able to settle down and get back to work the physical altercations in which a and was involved at the school district involved


independent contractor if the party knew or should have known that the independent contractor was unfit and the case at hand kalen had direct knowledge that n z was unfit when it selected for the november second two thousand and eleven transport


entirety and that's what test masters tells us if you recall and test masters the issue was if it alleged trade dress then there was going to trigger coverage under the state farm policy


the camarade of those state with specificity how did their damages occur throughout this whole song and when they're talking about how their damages occur they're talking about seepage migration of


summary of facts and it all is only that is a summary so the facts that are included in the count section are in addition to those that were incorporated from the first summary of facts sections into the account


the i would argue that there is a fact issue as a second point regarding whether or not that occurred


every day and i think most of the public defenders can recite unfortunately in their sleep the script for an upward variance and it always involves acknowledging that there is in fact an upward variant the


and the intention are not there that's another way that it's different a third with a three obviously includes non intentional felonies so you know classic burger you have to have the plan it has to be purposeful but reckless felonies injury to a child even


government may have now are clearly prescribed just as the negligent misrepresentation claim was found to be prescribe the will they suggest the losses make see twenty six million to be sure that's true but not covered losses


i need to learn another minute bad yank one of the pit bosses allowed her to do that one to try to go work another game and have a day to look over the next night she says she tried to do the same thing in the davis said no we're not doing that you can't learn on the


suggest is not in the record and it is just not supported by the record so way to ask a court to send this case to a jury to allow jury that to determine whether or not the import your proposed a reasonable accommodation and we believe they did not is really


and collect the assets they're held in trust this is especially important where in the case before the court now the trustee the packet obligation


that means no bankruptcy court whether it's a chapter seven or chapter eleven can have special masters you know how to do any going to be collected and how we how did it work going to get done if you don't put somebody there to do it all the same way it's been done


this money so we're going to put it over here so five forty one d doesn't even cover it it's not a state property and factors there's a great case right out of this circle so several of them


customer with whom i had any contact or communication or about whom i developed received or learned confidential information that's what the first page of tab eight one beat i see that ok


school they give fourteen days notice and interpreters provided there's even an example in texas the procedure and for a driver for a driver's license issuance in texas is if you're under twenty five seeking a first driver's license you have to go to school you have to


it's extensive or modest the only thing that the agency issues at the end of the day is a license in this example not only are the driving schools issued a license they're also given curriculum they're also given instructional materials they're also given this due course completion


he had been in psychiatric counseling since a childhood and that he had suffered from depression a transcript of that was included as one of the exhibits with the petition so it is transcribed and is one of the exhibits


at the end of the day that there was a reasonable problem probability that the outcome would have changed and yes then you would need some evidence that those people would have actually been there to to testify so if the standard for any behavior


it would be enough to get this judge's attention what are you saying would be needed so let's say we have that exact same confidence inquiry that occurred here what would have to happen at trial to raise the red flag that would be enough


illness do you understand the options in front of you and if you do you still have to go to question number three i used substantially impaired in your ability to choose between them because of your mental illness and in good dinner is what the


money had they structured this deal so that the twenty million dollars of new money was the end of the contract said that the stock he got was also in consideration for that amount there would have been a success feet on the twenty million dollars right it would have qualified because it would have been in


but evidence and behavior that suggests that he's trying to keep secretive this vehicle so that when he goes back and forth i live along the border mike


permit land and those rules control now were part g e reaches out and grabs part b requirement and reference that references that pulls it in then you're ok there's a lot of talk about major modifications


yes you're on the there's no u t m the system the designed to protect pigs if there was a you can be system designed and monitored to protect pigs then it would be that system that would be making the authorization for those pigs to be protected under the


and threaten violence which is the expertise of security administrators sure they have housing authority over that but let me just read to you his own complaint paragraph forty three page thirty nine of the complaint and you decide what who he's alleging has


case gave no reasons whatsoever in its order and for that fact alone there was an abuse of discretion here but even putting that aside the undue delay or prejudiced fact factor could never have justified the district order court's order here and there are two


before have to do with distinguishing between an me just back up electric ball roughly eight thousand plus underlying sets of distinct service we've thousand more of them wanted to twenty thousand port that's correct your


cases i'm not sure exactly what the plaintiffs should have known at the time they first brought to suit we're all learning including the defendant as to how this circuit


retaliation but you see that subsumes the question because the retaliation was based upon protected activity of representing someone with disability so clearly if the if that underpinning is based upon disability and clearly we braved an


again if every behavior gives rise to meet every behavior gives rise to a claim for disability discrimination then that's going to open the floodgates and it goes back to what you were saying to educate isn't about the whole reason


in discussing it fried doesn't change that frye says you could make a record and if you read fry i think it's mostly suggesting when it refers to the arizona they could do it in writing by filing things with the court before trial so i would ask that the court reverse site


a yellow light on you have two minutes when the red light comes on we ask you to can unless you're answering a question from the bench we have heard you record the briefs and the record excerpts we've not


i would think it would be done here your honor and then it would go back down the district that would be my why do you think that well because at least with one of the options there would need to be a district and a new sense in judge in one case if it


proceedings and realizes that there is a district court action that's proceeding and our point about keeping the two separate your honor is that between the two of them the one that takes precedence is the purpose of action in the district court because the district court has to


expertise that could assist the district court in this very complex matter and very important here the risk of conflicting rulings by furka and the district court was substantial and very real


facility however your honor that is a transition facility and again i would refer back to jones which says the nature and extent of the confinement must be related to the legitimate state interest in continuing to confine


consistent with both practical experience and the allegations of the complaint assuming that's what was alleged that would not deprive them of standing would it it would your honor and if the plaintiff's lawyers went out and did investigation of saks and then ran across a


open gate in mexico they were entitled to come back to the central district and really gave their claims why is that a conditional dismissal as to service on opening the court didn't characterize it that way your honor how


court and they did not meet that burden and thirdly as to the evidence being in mexico versus the united states we have alleged and the documents show including the judicial records the judicial notice records that that facility has been shuttered it's


definition and they wouldn't the meaning wouldn't change a bit and you can test it very easily the relevant portion of section two hundred fifty one point five subdivision a directs that now i'm quoting once the property is repaired rebuilt or replaced the insurer


that one reasonable way to interpret the statute as the way it does it says that's the only possible way that replaces inherently has this same use limitation that's travelers position and that's not a reasonable position counsel


that site no no and that's that's been well let it get already so that then i'm jumping out a little now but you know we keep going back to twenty fifty one point five in the definition of a place if you actually look at twenty fifty one point


literally admitted as a party in a put judicial proceeding in in allowing the person who was in charge of this the presidency if you see in allowing an


on a factual basis by the district court when we've held in south lake tahoe and subsequent cases that the the political subdivision is a standing question other courts have not agreed with that is there any reason


s e received back from the copyright office wasn't read wasn't evidence and c s c is general counsel miscarry job and you testified that she authenticated the copyright application and testified specifically that it related to


to come in and change the outcome because the evidence that was presented in front of the three were they had the opportunity to look at all the evidence came to the conclusion that neither the mother or the child's rights were violated is the factual


upon the latter that i don't know what the letter meant apparently was erroneous even as the county would argue that suggested that that there was going to be a terminations of rights but it doesn't you don't seem to focus


the seizure issue is purely a factual determination and a little girl is capable of being the victim of a seizure in a five minute interview with the principal's office i guess so but that that did not happen here look


don't think you went facially then you could come back as applied we could we could come back and that would be speculative at this point what the at supply challenge would be that's correct let me let me let me point out that


factual evidence that the district court might be able to consider if it were sent back so we think the record is clear we think because defendants have asked this court to address that exclusion it would be appropriate for this court to do so on the record but obviously


that is correct and not supported by particularized factual allegations for a number of reasons so that the very you are also saying that the person who made the statements they point to didn't know whatever he the clear it knew or be arguing both that is correct and not


and it seems that you have you have two clients you have rodriguez this is rodriguez's main claim i think the nursing home issue yeah and i was trying to figure out whether in rodriguez's summary judgment papers she ever


and the record reflects only that and the explanation is we don't know what your definition that you offered was you got this reprimanded august well in september that see explanation because in september you actually have the finalized criteria


internally inconsistent according to the judge if you can do you have evidence that there are people on the list in june who weren't fired in september you know no one has evidence one way or the other about that they didn't get any of that in discovery and let's think about it i mean the thing that plaintiff's counsel kept saying


testimony so i think some cases like the music cases as i was explaining because of the technical nature of music and the fact that there are only twelve notes each of which is not independently protectable but constitute building blocks for an original work and


which would be subject to the novo review and the rd question is for clear air the st question is did the lower courts as a matter of law regarding the trustees duty to give notice in this case our contention is that they did the nd question is do the lower


i think it's proper to have a rule that says very simple rule to comply with if you're going to believe you have to take action in state court you need to make it clear that you're doing that because you're under a compulsion and


very clearly obvious it was assessed by dr markel or identified by dr markel in her testimony that krystal needs this because she can't function following her accident she needs the help that's available


the district knew its duty they knew that they had to provide an assessment plan and procedural safeguards to the parent there is a lot of testimony a lot of discussion i explained this to her i explained that to her but until


enforcement standpoint did not cause him additional emotional distress because of his known disability that


six of article nine it can exercise its contractual remedies but none of that's relevant here nine three one nine doesn't do what i p c says in terms of bifurcating the world into this universe where article nine applies for part


ok thank you thank you


implication to litigate and decide issues in regard to the investigation requests that have been made so is that right what we know i don't think it is your honor because what we had in the complaint and what we attach to our


so we don't really know what the district court was thinking of or looking at when it when it stated any sort of that the any q powers clear these items the district court didn't explain the finding or or point to


entity is closet usual so we don't actually see this come up in a case law very much here we're talking about a relatively new entity that's only been around for a few years in a foreign country that is not something that you know


the direction from say the executive branch leaders without regard to investigation or hearings where that make a difference under california law as to whether it was quasi judicial or not i think your honor that hasn't been noted


settlements or what they are that's that's right they took the risk when they undertook the strategy of sending out these individual settlements agreements with live checks so that is what it is and could be a


of those this issue gives the trustee in bankruptcy no statute of limitations i can simply say as trustee you know i think that property i think it's community property we're


certainly that could be done i know it was recently done in the reynolds case with regard to whether an interest in a spendthrift trust was property of the bankruptcy estate or not and the supreme court accepted the certified question so that is always going to be an option for you but i


were to apply the presumptions in family court outside it opens up the pen doors box in terms of what creditors can seek to do as i've indicated and the impact on to the unsuspecting community which has taken


an impossible situation wouldn't you agree i would agree on so isn't it more about on the fact that not on background was there was this weapons


day letter indicates dynamics and vasquez we move one hour from our quiver together they establish that plaintiffs are not independent contractors for purposes of their claims based on california weight


a new law that's been said to be retroactive we don't know on the facts of this case who wins or loses under the law district court go back and tell us well i think your honor that we


think the difficulty and i take your conceptual point it makes a lot of sense to look at this and say well if they're not employees of the contractor they can't be employees of directv but if we have if if


when you were proposing to the district court and amended complaint you did not attach a proposed amended complaint so that it could actually be seen what they


standard civil litigation that in my opinion that the case there is case law out there that suggests that in a downstream distribution scenario that joint level


and so you'll see in there are some references but it nimer it is in that he'd recognise that he's trying to say what the hypothetical is but the next twenty pages are all about the district courts in the various


each person is liable for the whole loss even if they did not act in concert so the only times that you're going to find joint and several liability among parties for not true joint actors for the same harm


compensation or consideration you get three year for three years you get half of the profits half of the profit for three years which is a substantial amount of money i think at oral argument the council suggested it was at least one hundred thousand year


and the board is actually two hundred and forty five dollars a one which is assault upon a salt with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury the board and the immigration judge identified


emphasize the seeming see your seriousness of firing at a police officer but it seems to me that is absolutely irrelevant then to the analysis the analysis that we have to conduct in terms of and it's a it's not a categorical analysis it's not you don't just


code we deliver it to your door it's that easy if you know you're not going to be home leave a cooler outside with a couple ice packs inside we open the cooler we take the whole bag we put it right in the cooler and it's fresh ready cold ready for you when you get


parker's bookstore downtown and ed and i and my uncle eric who's a fantastic photographer in town eric hilton it was just the three of us and we had actors and got these costumes and we shot it in a day and week


eighty seven and they were never really meant to work well together and they don't so it's a it's a reinvestment in those courses to to sort of make those a comprehensive and and modern offering for a for golfers


how everyone's been touched by cancer and with that we have children we have adults we have seniors we have some families with multiple but to support we look at creating


some confusion in regards to those types of things but there is a lot of coordination that has to happen between the organizations post state local in regards to making those things happen and you were talking about other projects well and then you brought


neighborhood watch we did have fred lee there we also had wayne or jim reed was there for a while and our own john horton is a member of neighborhood watch we


pools or do you have a restaurant what what else do we have so we we have a three pools yes we have a lap pool and then we have a cool dark pool which never goes above sixty five degrees very


and we provide eighty five percent of the services that are provided to the homeless currently in the city and that we have a variety of programs and of course we have partnered with the neighborhoods glaspie park and rosemary court


psychologist is really somebody who looks at what is the best way that we can possibly make our environments change so that people within them are healthier and are mentally healthier


of the city to provide housing for the workforce that we have already and will be having in the days yet to come we are working very


bonds you to a warm there's a different there's a certain warmth in sarasota when you get to know sarasota and the people that live here there's a warmth here that goes beyond


largest energy consumers in other words take a look see who are the biggest electricity customers in the city and then focus on i mean that washington d c has taken that approach they've said ok look there's a lot of existing building stock over the


localities cities can help step into that breach and that's really one of the strategic underpinnings of the ready for one hundred dollars effort is that look if you have across the country cities stepping into the breach it makes a difference you know utilities have to respond


photographs of the actual conditions and and got that out so a lot of those misperceptions corrected and then being able to host the world rowing you had nine hundred athletes i think


in information technology is that correct so before we jump into our discussion about rank choice voting i wanted to have show a little video a short video that will help explain exactly what it is so we can play that video


office to the state florida department of veterans affairs to come back down to every county's local claims office they will then coordinate with a goodwill minnesota to get that packet of information specific to that


permits and with the races you've got a coast guard permit that has to go in one hundred thirty five days before the event with a plan you've got street closure permits you've got liquor permits so there's a lot of permitting and


days so it would tell you certainly whether or not it was either in the active or or expired status and the reason i asked that question is sometimes when there is construction there may be a street closing and the tour or something else that impacts


families that we work with who will allow us to because people will it is perhaps this will be in the house and system and what it does is it not only allows us to track the


thousand teams that were competing so booker is in this class of students where we have this keyword collaborate in the pits and compete on the field so booker has the ability to network in with all these area teams to bring themselves up to the world class level


but certainly transit certainly making it more come for people to cross so that if they want to get from one side of where you want to the other we want to make sure that they can easily do that so they don't feel have to get their car to drive from downtown to the to the


three o'clock on the th of july we'll open it up into a regular city commission meeting or special city commission meeting and they can come up and speak at that point i noticed a cool thing on the website there is a place on the


joe if you're going to be here if you're moving here i've got a great job for you and as with music i and they were getting ready to you know their could their current conductor at the time in two thousand and nine was getting ready to step down and it was it was perfect i mean granted that


twenty years from now and we're trying to stop that and so what you're doing you're doing is you are slowly bridging the gap in terms of economic sufficiency for our next generation in terms of giving them the skills and tools that they need to be able to compete on a better level


and it was a real thrill i just want to say as a city court judge i've been there now for twenty four years lot has changed in the city court i was becoming a much more user friendly using an adversarial system


showed that residents have returned about crime the need for more police presence and the need for activities for teens these needs noted by the residents are also reflected the consolidated plan implemented as it was published in the january seventh daily gazette under the neighborhood


areas particularly grange street right now you've heard from sharon schmidt of a meeting of merchants and neighbors that's what we're trying to do is is develop a concerted effort to pick up


thousand and thirteen funds for the program our doors may most likely close we did not get any two thousand and twelve c d g grants for the situation or circumstances at that point or are long gone i


office ten thousand dollars for somebody else over the foster ribble we can't pay to put anything on the principal we're barely make any interest in three years you've got a long ways to


for for these jobs have a terrific county fire department i mean buildings have to be protected you know best services have to be delivered and these are the things that we should really strive to partner with everybody and have


united states according to the state department is now again trafficking and what constitute a gang is three or more persons and it could be a gang or be gang association or a subset of a gang and so kids that come from follows homes boys and girls


over the canal the canal that goes into filippi creek into our park so the good many things that are going on we've been partnering with a number of organizations the university of florida extension service for example


and to me just that partnership alone you get the caring feeling for park and it really it really then makes it a truly community park right right and speaking of sweat i hear you have a cleanup date it's called yes we invite you


picture in there as well as for the bridge we also have four bay front park right and we also have four different ballpark absolutely i hope so


have an actual accountability of the pilot programs we need to know exactly are they compliance or they are not because they are in order to reese continue to receive their pilot programs they have to create x amount of jobs and this is not transferred


been the president of the college of st rose the schenectady chapter and other leadership positions in different organizations i have taught school currently i am a small business owner with a specialty i


responsibility for all of us to address that problem marion is the person who works tirelessly behind the scenes constantly and trying to develop a stronger more caring community you may have seen in just a couple of weeks ago


evolves with the way our world is going and we continue to keep looking for the next thing of how we can participate and you know keep it on the forefront and be marie of the year it's an honor for us it's the super bowl of marina's you know


do enjoy what i do and one of the reasons i enjoy what i do is because i do believe in the city of schenectady and i do believe that we can get better and i have witnessed it in these last four to eight years and i see


there's also consensus to discuss at their next meeting exploring the expansion the the west of coconut avenue provided that the developer pay for that next the commission passed on first reading and an ordinance axing certain


department of housing and urban development point in time survey to me this is an exciting and amazing opportunity to be a part of that success along with the patrol division captain the chief of police and everyone here and i speedy who is an integral part of implementing an operational