seems they would concede you know if john wayne told the police officer that he had been out buying supplies for his business that day and stopped for gas that would be ok well his testimony was that he was out conducting advertising for his business


the interstate scaffolding case itself spoke to certain sets of circumstances where m m i may not be the dispositive fact and we believe this is one of those cases


relatives they're not others so she is doing social things together the only relationship is two months a business relationship and all these things he called her are because she worked for him and these are what


my head and then the claimant didn't serve but that claim usually is a multiple of earnings to look at these companies are bought based on multiples so if there is a the mistake of a million dollars in a receivables we can sue them for five or seven or ten


room to have testified there was a consultation report in the medical records where he had examined the patient and put some opinions in all the actual reverse of that that was repeatedly put before the jury


we're saying i'm an advocate for cd doing here here i have a concern about the security based on my past dealings with this individual and i bring my concern up to a deputy


that the action taken by the court is therefore void the second question is whether the court may properly proceed through the entire mortgage for goods or process under the illinois mortgage for those alive where no evidence of the


testifying or not knowing what is going to happen if he does here that choice is taken away from those convictions were coming in and while sensibly the jury was going to be told it was for a limited purpose it was actually or greater


that argument if we understand you are out we would also add i guess that as a matter of public policy we don't think that it's a good standard to have the petitioner guessing every time


evidence for its truth and they must have considered the evidence for its truth because the state itself argued that that was one less important pieces of evidence in this case the state needs sure to place this diagnosis before the jury during its examination of both


was in fact money that was transferred back eighteen months one thousand months earlier in august two thousand and nine in fact the testimony shows that it's not it's money from just that the mother in law made his mother in law


disregarding the order i want you to go over to the place where we check people closer than not even coming into the stop the the officer has policies and there this is hicks this is an important point


here i disagree that that was what happened here because i disagreed that this record shows that those other experts opinions were the basis for her as a basis for her opinion was her own evaluation of stand her own translation


tweak those words apply with power and force in this situation thomas by virtue of his heroin addiction was particularly susceptible to


any evidence those areas basically break down into a few different categories one once conveying information to the jury that was pretty difficult to the defendant and the second was promising the evidence in the opening statement


thing coming up with the near future that our supreme court may actually say something along those lines because that's pretty much what they're going to determine this is where those mandatory minimums are are allowed and of course legislature certainly has the prerogative as


points but not where the defendants on private property outside of his vehicle and what we have here is merely an officer who believe he has subjective belief that this is a traffic stop and as the result he can order mr a good to go back into his vehicle mr haygood


know it's got to certain types once you do that then the fact that you don't know the signature doesn't really matter i mean it it may matter on the way to do that but not only misspell but that's a very


and again you know in the following in the briefs here they keep on trying to attribute my argument something that i never sat and that is we all know that individual records in groups of records in the third party created you don't


was a letter back here dog the letter said comply with the american cancer society rule that says when you get forty years old you


should have that opportunity to have a fair trial and that's all i'm really


this accumulation of whatever it was got into the parking lot that day plaintiff counsel argues that his intent was the assumption that there was snow in the sidewalk that he salting somehow melted that


the certificate of innocence so he wasn't saying the proof of x was not beyond a reasonable doubt he was making a straight up finding under preponderance here's what he said on page twelve fifty of the transcript he said


occupants in the car or it goes the reason suspicion that germ is involved in criminal activity that we don't even have that in this case and we don't know it was even in these cars here well ok a reasonable


would have one over the other it's either b p really should in jurisprudence going forward separate from the claims splitting doctrine now of course my client does going to the second point my client does forward that if it is a voluntary dismissal with for whatever reason the


be profound and hopefully hopefully in the morning have in goes away it was another aspect of this injury that really stands out you're the only one that experiences you work with a number of different


problematic so i don't think that that is a speculative prevention at that point in time everyone is operating within the realm of asking specific fast villar wants to know specifically if they're going to be a voluntary


terms are going to go the route of going through the second situation about the resignation which i understand you have a right to do for our part and rule on the app of course you could i point out you this


and while we're talking about the so called admissions this is what the plaintiff is saying in her letter is attached to the complaint it doesn't appear that o s f has a necessary spec to apologize to me regarding your admitted aaron


of fact that would actually support her speculation that there was corruption on the part of the justices the petition was not timely made to the extent that claim it was attempting to overturn the trial court orders that had been previously affirmed


to ask if there's evidence of corruption then you should turn it over to the judicial inquiry board and to the prosecutors and i would think that if it hypothetically some justice were convicted of public corruption and


further from the truth the only human rights act and seven seventy five miles yes five six one i want retaliation that is covered there is because someone has opposed something which they reasonably believe is discrimination oppose


so if you're not calling now the no will call so now i prepared mikey certainly now i have to go in and shift complete theories literally as i'm picking a juror it and actually the formal pleading wasn't filed until after the jews


balance because that's not valid notice unless they have an attorney client relationship those notices can't be valid if he is not on the master all of tourney's and state of illinois those notices went to nowhere and i think that's a mitigating factor that the courts a look at and say well


peculiar to the employment i doubt if we continue to back up from the act and say well she was concerned for the safety the so had might have been producing some bubble she was worried she was going to sort of eventually get to a point where yeah we've got to say it's a


not necessarily i don't want to make it sound like this is you know is no matter what she's doing in there it would be compensable for example if she does something i want to she's assisting the patient bathing


the facts are largely in dispute undisputed and that is the official report of the work at eight thirty on day in question she had a mid morning meeting at the respondents ministry ation building two blocks from the can't keep county courthouse


getting at is whether there's an identification of the petitioning territory with the district in which attachment was sought and in that there is a corresponding likelihood of an increase in extracurricular activities and your honor i think this this this this whole past


evan what this case was about is that we were able to show even though it's the plaintiff's burden and what happened in this case the the argument was to say that well judge kearney was capricious


what it's asking this court to approve nor is there any legislation allowing this were to do to prove with the state is asking your owners to do defendants admits that the steep believes this is necessary of this new pleading practice if


corporate veil argument is not proper at least at this point certainly i'm a man of the record is developed further and that becomes a viable argument will cross that bridge at the appropriate time


that article to be able to see something past just a disgruntled parent and one other thing i'd like to point out is every time we pick up a newspaper and we read something by


this is absolutely key component to appeal your mo case as the plaintiff half prove that they're better qualified or as qualified than he other party and this is the instruction that was given by the


has taken some sort of additional step which we don't have here for example and liner the prosecutor during his closing arguments wrote guilty on a whiteboard and your right arrow pointed at the defendant the prosecutor took that extracted show that he intentionally engaged


don't rise to the level of reversible error in this case your honor the jury was properly instructed there were no objections first we consider this in terms of plain error whether the evidence disclosed the balance here we have three witnesses for the state


going criminal case and yet here he is still engaging kind ag in conduct growth rather that could subject in the criminal liability the problem here too is that this evidence was presented through a


apparent from the transcript and then we had a parade and the way judge the judges do it is when you're on break the juries excuse they go back to the jury room and the parties are free to go you know to the restroom to drink or


matter there are other offenses with where there was no charges brought for those offenses in order to diagnose the mental disorder which is one of the components that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt under the act in order to diagnose that it's


inquiry and i'm not saying because i believe it's the right one and i say my time is expired i'll just finish this thought there corey been made even then maybe even him fish the way that i did it in may of two thousand


and that the terms of the sale work were not in conscionable and there was no fraud wait a minute now i want to argue that this was all fraudulent and in terms of the sample or unfair that's why judge laundering was taken aback i don't think he's arguing


case they said they rejected the holdings and front left kelly and walker only in the federal statute not only perhaps the outright division of social security benefits it also prohibits the indirect division of benefits by awarding a nonparticipating


i explained in the briefs there are still if a number of reasons why this issue should be reviewed even the defense counsel to object at that time including being reviewed because of play here again during this court's attention to the larger case which


twenty five seconds there were stiffer testimony about what color down there was different testimony about how many shooters there were some of them said well only trish on was shooting other people said there were lots of guns and lots of shoot shooters so the


when i was a point because terminations so absolute it much more important than a misdemeanor criminal case which has more rights in that than this but this court carve out the standard in this


earlier an army to the court earlier in the earlier appeal what i would say to the court today which is perhaps stating what i've said in my brief a little differently is it seems clear that


and even if this court believes that that was the issue that was decided at the trial on the complete forceful interview tator that in any way does not preclude mr o'brian from contesting the enforceability of the international grievance under either of


luxury that judge hill had in two thousand and twelve and thirteen and that's the frustration but as judge by out there said he did not believe in neither judge hill that my clients intentionally under


was using hoop of some sort on the sidewalk in there was an ordinance that prohibited that type of activity and the question was whether or not you could instruct the jury of this child is using this sidewalk an unintended and primitive manner the supreme court said no you can't run


and his forsee ability unlike that of injury and all of that and what the court has said is that when the condition is obvious and dick supreme court defines it as what a reasonable person exercise an ordinary


it getting no i'm saying i agree you never hit or that would have made mike i agree it would have made my case easy but this was this kind of bizarre increasing behavior and the court and knowledge that that


days worth of hearings the transcripts right the custody the custody hearings you're not there the custody transcripts were not included that's correct because custody was not being appealed so the only issues that were heard


anticipated arguing but that is essentially that argument there was no notice given that that he should was up for any reconsideration and just to sue a sponte decision by the judge absent any request or suggestion by rachel


first question as it was just described is whether or not there actually does exist a well defined and dominant public policy that favors the safety of elementary school age children the second question then becomes assuming


my case will be set for sentencing and successful completion of drug court shall be viewed as a mitigating factor at sentencing that's the benefit of his bargain just a statement further noted earlier during the defense


which would have meant for a new york period the mother provided the ok if the child but didn't have an alternate charity or caregiver and she was drinking


was the reason our house so it was clear that the son had an alcohol problem it was also clear that she had a mental illness the main point there being that she admitted


been a problem but i'm not sure that mr baez would have added anything because he didn't see what happened all that happened is that mr wood told him that he was experiencing pain after after doing the overhaul but the


work related injury in april of two thousand and seven injured his lower back so the history and the records is identical there's there is no inconsistency in the medical history and if you go all we've


soon and then regarding our second argument we


i was inconsistent that his answers were car about the prior misdemeanor were varied about the timing and that he had his he didn't disclose that he received a jail sentence on the traffic driving license


realizing what is that still a problem it's still a problem your honor because being asked to be removed from the case does not negate all the information that you still have about the clients he can't


how long it takes the caregiver to reach the child are we looking at once they have left or are we looking at when they're on the playground


dissent justice car meyer said why aren't we talking about it and i believe it should be talked about i tried to raise it in the supreme court has found a way but i i think there's a good faith extension of the law here this is the case that extends


certainly we could question the two doctors and the discrepancies between their two reports certainly a stipulation is just presenting evidence without having a witness testify but the trial judge is still the


if you started out right you answered a question if you know whether you know the mother was willing to accept mine or my recollection was that she was not that she said something like my child help or so i can't remember do you know i don't remember the


and this court should affirm the board's decision because the governor properly designated the a c u a positions as excluded from the collective bargaining from collective bargaining because they are managerial positions under six point one


problem with any of that there was not any evidence to support it well as i recall the chiropractor who was probably the best witness for your plan testified that all of the objective findings


of just some general issue of death but he knew specifically from the anesthesiologist that he had a risk of paralysis that that risk manifested itself in this case and it may very well have been


sign the consent form so he recalls being told that there might be something related to anastasia that could cause proust this and that was either july twenty second or august eleventh that was his testimony that was seven days worth


penalties from the time of the divorce had historically divided those expenses relatively equal like in january of two thousand and thirteen after mr i had a job with the illinois


interest of justice and expediency to say look we're going to allow those discovery depositions or use your prior matter to come in now in this matter because it's the same case the same standard the same burden same witnesses we have here it


commonsense you look at everything that was presented to the judge you don't it and if you start looking at the nexus that can narrow the focus too much


rb itself said we're revisiting the situation because we didn't give we didn't provide an oral hearing and then they heard evidence extrinsic of them asked to the legislative history regarding regarding the


talks about agencies directly responsible government lived right out that's the language in that statute it says we're going to say these are not directly responsible to the governor because these are should be and are intended to be independent


improperly joined or not which needs propose it is then in a strategy a trial may have been different it's really difficult for me to go now with this court to go now and try to post through the entire trial and see where defense counsel may have done things differently


recommended a sentence of twenty to twenty five years the defense counsel recommended a sentence of six years the state imposed a sentence of fifteen years which was weak and the


transportation vehicles they said such as for example and then they list three types of commercial transportation that are correct but i also actually is already stated on the record that the term material


both contingencies if you file if you comply if you don't comply covers everything in prescribed when they may proceed and right i may not i get some version of my question and explain that in a concrete way sure what


submit that the district court properly addressed the issue to a briefing to details or argument took enough question answered to get the proper what was relieved an hour of the party's dispute and then issued a construction supported by the


are they more skilled do do they have greater education do they have more experience this was a determination that disqualification oath of the application was based on the suitability determination not want


statutory authority which under the c b i provision extends to claimants and the short little bit used in the financial product or service of the phrase financial product or service sector has an ordinary meaning


you've said over and over again that we've come a long way from silver spoon tests and in the world of a complex multi component high tech product like the one we're talking about here we're certainly in the realm of many many many different aspects of ornamentation and functionality that are going on and


was associated with the samsung phone it's just wrong there was a survey from mr poor a that showed that something close to seventy percent of smartphone purchasers


again if you look at the figures and in the seven six eight patent they all show a structure that i think like this where this wall goes around the back and surrounds we submit that's what the proper kind construction ought to make it look like the judge is going construction was


you know and i i think the cases are pretty clear and i'm not i don't think center actually disagrees that a jury is free to pick a number somewhere between what we call the goalposts you know if there's an intermediate figure they don't have to pick the number that either


shown and if it doesn't know the words it's not an admission of anything about what the sidewalls do with respect to the surround requirement and what i would say about the art of that quote exactly my point is the automatic opening is is shown in


the construction was incomplete or misleading or at least ambiguous in not distinguishing sharply enough between whether the information is associated with the user's machine or the


limitation that included the motion sensors so now they're pivoting embracing the prior art on appeal because obvious is known obviousness is no longer in the case we lost that down below but the critical point was there was the specific configurations of


all matters issue with veterans claims which is that we've been found to be resolved in favor of the veteran but then applies as i understand it the benefit of the doubt rule applies only if there is essential i


take you to september fourteenth which is the day that strikes me as the most problematical in trying to understand how this plays into the theory of the case she arrived initially at


judge approach this having the same problem i am with that argument you're suggesting he either knew or should have known that somehow into his record back in one nine hundred eighty eighty two there was


about the ban the proposal being noncompliant iran is correct about that but what the agency decision making process entailed in fault is not relevant to this court legal determination about whether or not the proposal


they took her in removed her police powers center out of the building with armed guards this was way above and beyond what would have been merited by the kind of charges that were brought up that she made some statements to the newspaper that she says that she didn't


asked whether customs regulation should be in military i would like to address the issue all right the judgment fund would not find this case because the lower court did not issue a money judgment


twenty to thirty years ago and then times allegedly manipulating how much money turbo usa overpaid to turbo med for the sake of getting money back and frankly it sounds to me like a zero sum game they haven't alleged any more than that


improperly obtained and then in paragraph sixty three and sixty four they pulled out from those two paragraphs a general how a geisha that will was familiar with tribble us excuse me with a b b's business again there's nothing in


injunction not a pleadings case that's the one case that they direct you to it was a case for pulling in every injunction where there was record evidence from the parties in that case saying no i didn't take the trade secrets from the company that i left


you said page thirteen but there's no breach of contract claim here correct right and you seem to say it pages one nine in twenty is that they're asserting a takings claim


not this plane doesn't say that there can't be openings or that in the end pattern layer or the entire device the concept of blocking the indigene


two points very briefly the first is the argument of counsel which is also in there in their proof that absent confined jurisdiction to instances where there is a judicial or extradition proceeding


claims probably say two or more but i think there are many patents that have claims for two or more when something else had one so it's not a prohibition of it where somebody comes up with something that does something with two or more verses somebody did something with one


asked to do and this is on page six seventy three of record was simply to explain what the industry standard was but if but if the government you was our contract specification was deliberately higher than the industry


the same in terms of symptom and manifestation of the typical injury component and then as well causation the occurrence occurred as a result of the administration so i think on


could well at every there are two different scenarios in compassed within your honor's question so one is a situation in which the first symptom or manifestation occurs but there


in the sixty milligrams set as billed swing the ram said a potentially relevant if the examiner was interested in all she had to do was she had all the data in front of her he didn't make any difference whether she knew it


six freidman article and in that in that article he actually purports data for a twenty to forty comparison forty to sixty and then a forty eight in forty eight study


no plane construction dispute raised by him live below and now they're criticizing the district court judge for conducting this hearing into bankruptcy and not


and i don't profess to have back patent expertise of that nature that you're talking about so i'm giving you my response but with that i think what the judge is trying to ask you is in the course of


comply with the marking requirement correct effectively yes your honor and did you preserve your objection to that to that ruling we in our in our subsequent that are game all papers we stated in the


they want the court to have the ability to look at all of the record the transcript what are the witnesses to say what are you arguing that is typically i'm sure the record that this court sees on the jay ma motion and that's not what happened


jury instruction on these points you didn't object to any well actually it was in the car it was in the context of a discussion over the jury instruction at the close of the plaintiff's evidence where the judge said show me your objection preserving the if you want to appeal to the jury was an


ninety eight flying act videos that are alleged by mr beck were from concerning mr edmunds and with respect to the disclosures to senator mccain's staff concerning the hunt contract there is an absence of any specificity


apparatus law it is not shown by point that they had penetration that was more than fifty percent on the contrary the evidence is that in actual


by ear these are all cases that use legislative history as a tool of statutory construction just like and chevron in the notion that brand x without same so has changed that structure we


collateral attack on a separate commerce department anti circumvention proceeding what bessie otto has done both before the commerce department in that administrative review as well as before the court of international trade


you say that you know there is an explicit determination one way and mr scott ruins the answer that question is yes but the anti sort of mencia determination was different than those parts good rulings and really for me to explain why that's different i have to explain the record of


why isn't that enough why does more certainly you agree doesn't have to be explicit more doesn't have to say choose the fueling one but more saying choose any known mechanism that is capable of doing this and there's no dispute that feeling is prior art


is sort of paramount or all


now that's what we were there for two reasons one is since it is subsequent to that to the district court's ruling to this court made clear that the change in law in the seagate case did not change the


the defendant's argument on obviousness is fundamentally based on hindsight they start with a claim language that claims as one of the features churning the workpiece fixture on the laser head in a fix patient relationship of the facial region


is what is done based upon that nothing and the evidence in this is there is no evidence that all this can point to that there are any control signals are operating the camera pursuant to those in response based upon the address given by the camera


for the fries as a result of having to transfer to another school district that's not what we're looking for we're looking for compensation for the violation of misrata civil rights took place when she was denied access to the school with a service animal and


excessive no constitutional violation we don't even go to qualified immunity but judge stivers opinion the district's opinion is so exhausted he goes to qualified immunity he says ok well let's assume there was a constitutional


identified as its program manager before the contract was evaluated david kendall sperry resigned and left man tex employment in early september two thousand and


payment and that of course makes perfect sense but in this case even if you assume for the sake of argument that there were false statements in the award it's brought to the government's attention to the responsible decision makers


fundamental basis of having sufficient amount of facts that are that are alleged it's not it's our position that these are simply legal allegations that exist here and that they are not it when you look at the exact statement itself it needs to be looked at


that have passed the motion to dismiss in that we've said that those the failure to train in the defacto custom and policy allowing access i think your friend on the other side concedes as to the federal claim it's derivative right in other words if the other two


because he was squirming under any standard your honour's under any standard we needed well we understand your argument thanks very much thank


he had a right to their theory have we have no way of knowing what would have happened happen once the student or the parents got the letter that the computer generated after this initial incident whatever you want to call


when there's a suspension for longer than ten days there has to be additional protections there has to be a right it's not clearly defined but there's more than just this preliminary hearing and so we don't know whether


which again mr vaughan's expert was did not attend the inspection of the facility but you see i was surprised at how how easily those levers move and that is the reason and actually the reason


reorganization is the cause that was asserted bad the defendant the defendant whether he was a some sort of reorganization exception to finance he nevertheless got to


mind it's in the twit freezers mind what did they know so what did the army know here they knew they had a very troubled soldier before he ever got back to fort campbell kentucky and


breached on may twenty sixth the a body outside of the barracks is total by him i need to take her in the woods and shooter that's reported to his chain of command and the way policy seven reads it's not


case showing that virtual studios sent fourteen new images to bow you in two thousand and ten those images that were introduced on those exhibits show


name for adjustment of status green card and adjustment status are synonymous and then application is an i forty five so the i j initially had relocated and a new i j memphis was assigned to


a slightly different pre divorce mint case correct correct and the point here is that this is a little bit different of a branch just as a first oppression issue and i will and i'm i no one putting a lot of a lot of weight on your shoulders in order to find this because contrary look the case


we disagree with that those were circumstances unrelated to petitioners case those were personal to dr harlan personal and professional to dr harlan and it had nothing to do with this case dr harlan participated in the first trial as a member of the defense team through his testimony and we


who says hey she would have said that it's possible that could have been x that being dropped as opposed to says there are many forensic pathologists that would have testified on behalf of davis if they had been i ask well if they mrs attorney


testimony to that they recognize that in this case i'm just wondering whether there could have been any harm from the absence of this letter


what the other company which you judge gillman into indicator there in say were consistent with so the record is what i want to follow on a stick to this question you said everything that's done pursuant to the plan is discretionary


something that the agency has decided is up to you because of the agency has decided it's up to you and then you were careless or violating somebody nay nay which in standard they ought to be able to recover against you unless it's something


a deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and there are really three issues here that i'd like to talk about this morning obviously they're all in our briefs on the first is that plaintiffs up apple is simply failed to plead this


a single person in the department of general services is was clearly unconstitutional under settled law that's true assume it's true none of us the judge that you want in front of said the injunctive


in what is a regulatory enforcement you can see that this is not the same as class action in the general civil context we do though i think so then you go


for here the conspiracy conspiracy that was charged and that was being proved at trial is that these individuals agreed to mean you factor meth with the plan that they were then going to sell small


mine ok and so you you negotiated for five days and then you western expedited hearing is met and there was no effort to get it further expedited or to go to court to get an injunction or


american bar association hussein sions an examination the law school admissions test which you legally test mr benaud on his inability to see rather than on his aptitude for the study of law there is no doubt that


final approval by the house of delegates but it's the legal education committee that's recognized by the department of education as having this authority so yes there are other tasks but yet there are none that they like quite as much as the all set because that's the one that they routinely


and say you're right that there's that should go to the jury what's the consequence of them say he was illegally stopped everything all the consequences flow from them having some are i mean a lot of times they could be wrong full stop and there's no armed


car and that they didn't turn on the lights of the car so we have the same light situation at the time of the stop as we do when the affiance are engaged in viewing the car that's a contested


i think it's animist based on the e mail exchange it is that took place so this wasn't a decision where the judge or excuse me where the provost just said that he was too busy to get to the matter he first of all


fair enough you know i i don't think that that issue has been addressed in either brief your honor and it's not something that i focused on ok well now's your


well to that extent your honor we would rely upon the other evidence in the other aspects of retaliation that took place in this case is there a qualified immunity question if we were to find that you had established


issues in the last thing that that i want to leave with leave you with is that in addition to the other retaliatory action that we've been talking about there was a hole that was placed on christopher benefit and that since transcript what


of a general permit but even even if you disagree that you can't reconcile it with its plain language i still think that this case is one step removed from national cotton because national cotton was soley about a permanent regulation it


i think the court should try to give meaning to the statute but clearly this statute has some the judicial review provision has some problems in fact and subsection b refers to


based upon the neural psychological evaluations that they conducted objective neuroscience psychological evaluations the the they had discussions with


morning your honour's ruling or the morgan appearing on behalf of pia the issue before the court this morning is whether or not the plaintiff who suffered a catastrophic burn injuries


case in both states why then is it not the decisive question as to whether or not a statute of repose would apply it doesn't seem to me to make sense that everything else is going to be decided on that but


thank you for your argument telling you we will consider your case carefully will issue an opinion in due course thank you


pleadings you want to this is the appropriate case for dismissal on the pleadings you look like you had a question i'm sorry ok i was thinking about the word republication i mean it's does coincide with papers newspapers


tory and i don't believe the prosecution is going to say it was there the attorney general is going to say it was not clearly open torrey in the sense of it would have been extremely useful for cross examination really yes


line ever spent by anyone that can't possibly why doesn't that their theory is correct that this bacterium infantilized thirty six


quarrel with the general proposition that if the placebo effect varies as among them to mean that it has to be placebo some of the maybe but again that just creates more work individualized issues and we're


even if even if the red cross is not a state agency you have an argument on eros county right to what to the district court do without argument they granted summary judgment to house and why was that wrong


haven't indicated they were lying about the phase out there was nothing in the record before the district court in the pleading and said it had to review which spoke about that's the only language on the phaseout in our


light it's a reasonable reading about statement that implicitly the person is going the art knew of this approach but did not take everything in effect not that it didn't exist it may not be commercially viable


states that figure six depicts an inlet that is at least a part of it is bolo the top wall and a part of it is above the top


the relationship between paragraph seventy two which is that relied upon paragraph by the board and paragraph seventy seven seventy eight seventy nine paragraph seventy two refers to three concepts for enrichment one of them is


with undisputed facts well and still would be a description of certainly some classes clearly ever the question is what what characterize for me if you would be


which is again what they used in the administrative process and then what they ended up reverdy jail pursuant to the c i ts litigation ok so they made certain decisions and made certain pronouncements in the administrative


or zero millimeters by definition everything below that is good and therefore once you have if you have a range in size and range and weight a range in tensile strength any characterization such as that


entire statutory analysis and comes up with its conclusion and doesn't address this rejection of the three pieces of prior till the end and the very beginning of page thirteen eighty four is where to dress this and at this point that's what the court has already made its conclusion about the statutory


instructing for disablement at a specified time unless another message is received and it's the language that says in the event no additional messages are received by the device and once again the best example of this in


is not the first full calendar year section four point four refers to the first twelve months and the standard form to which the j seventy four talks about the first calendar year


precisely that the evidence demonstrate that in financing the project a s a p relied upon the divisional payments under eight point three being and i'd also point out if just reading eight point three b on its


may suggest there are problems with side effects in using it to treat low testosterone problems in men however you know i've had some success in the in his intention in the fifty fifty one to seventy percent range that we use that are at fifty to seventy percent i don't remember the fifty


well i think i think might my point there is that it shows that there were any number of ways from along along the trajectory in the past year that he could in other words there were there were alternatives he could have made


they surrendered the scope during the original prosecution yeah i think i think the well let me try to answer your question why are trying to get it done the invention requires structure of life and you know they're not going to get what they want without it well i don't know what


my decision to not have you be a part of this house i know you just walked in but i want you out and that is the sickly pointed out within the record at for example but not limited to


analog to the bidding process for placement of the advertisements and it said the process was well known to us no no your honor it's not it's not a matter of whether it was well known it's a matter of preemption in


there is no purpose to the invention of this patent other than direct pointing it is the entire reason for its existence without direct pointing there's just nothing that one would do with the invention of this patent and then of course if you look


theory of proving their case then it remains in state this case should be heard in state court and if that is correct then why i know that we've got a lot of debate about what the complaint covers and what it doesn't cover but at least an


to satisfy that that issue and so if you're going to depart from the solution if you're going to modify that solution articulate why other than just the circular reasoning that there's a generic recycle we want to generically save water it needs to be more


like if that's the case if that's a factual case constrain though facts most favorably to your dear friend wouldn't that create a travel issue of fact there on the actual knowledge honor it answering frankly


reference doesn't say what you just said i think it does your honor because it's talking about these two situations i think that it's chuck it's contrasting the situation in which the camera's relatively close and in that


statutory authorization for what the board did with respect to join or here if there were a different party could be different party be joined along with different claims no your honor because section three fifteen c only speaks to join your claims and


solid line on the multiplexer that was a signal mass it didn't help you determine precisely which line of code was being executed in the other words which of the two and puts the input where


and bonilla i would not thinking of those words all by itself think that a bowl that is a mere politan ball that's what it's called remember would be excluded why why wouldn't why wouldn't it


when the patient was prompt that's correct your honor and that the time that the instruction is given is one of the pieces of data that is stored and transmitted in the own reference which we've pointed out in our briefs but it took to the point even even


is so again we're talking about the pet the proper construction which the board articulated data indicating whether the patient has followed instructions for use is satisfied by their own reference above under the bridge construction that


about what the patient actually did and the board consistently looked at in disha of compliance in the context of the disclosure of own it did not add limitations or redid limitations so you have to look at the disclosure


arguments you make in your request and the substance of argument substance their argument to the board was that you gave us a new claim construction nobody saw this coming give us a chance let us put in evidence arguments directed to the prior


stop having these proceedings if we need to catch up it's better to not have them so there was wide reaching discretion for the agency about instituting part are some or not instituting


has a clear regulatory chance and you know people should take advantage of this role if they truly think that something maybe popped up or was overlooked so i think


right and i'm still frustrated by your request rehearing didn't do more say more in response to the alternative construction the board adopted and explained why even under that clique of corruption if that's the playing field and this is why the


presenting to the board it doesn't show what they say that it shows and so it really even if they've been a little big but i guess they are saying they'd like to go back to their expert and have their expert explain why perhaps


ordinary skilled artist would have thought of that i guess what he said your honor was the inventors awareness of the problem and solution provide evidence that a person of ordinary skill in


enduser as performing the method because they own the phone then we say that if you're going to go down that road we have to be able to show that the defendants control their customers under that they are my principle because they condition receive a benefit that is access to their


it's a bit metaphysical i guess i mean which is to say it's a highly artificial act of infringement it is i think necessitated by congress reality that just by filing it we haven't actually threatened a future sale in all fifty states i


one thing this whole process does is make it almost entirely unlikely there will be any infringing sales if the allegations of their complaint are correct injury in fact here comes from the sales with all due respect i don't think


it would arguably impact the value of those property rights i mean i think that's right i mean i don't want to pass myself off as an expert on you know ten k filings but but i thought that that seems right to me it seems


about that the placement of the guide and how the guide works in relation to the cut isn't is there not there's not there's a figure eighty but that's that's not true i mean that this is a long specification but


and so we want to make sure that that's very clear that when the board was talking about completely you know what lester is correct that first came up and what a reviewer but i want to make sure that that i understand your argument though which is the conversation we're


to amazon dot com or target dot com or what have you the issue was one of tracking for purposes of compensation that's electronic record keeping which as we know from house is not


here we're just talking about the assignment of id numbers for electronic record keeping this the next stuff the receiving that's just using the internet for its conventional communication function and it's conventional


and he testified about it he showed the jury the demonstrative and he said it's not varying during the time of the switch it just isn't dr we disagree decent title to disagree it's a classic that issue that the jury result in our favor


declaration lacked any factual evidence outside the teaching of the cited prior art work back to bally's general opinion testimony and unlike the cases by john cites the board directly addressed each argument on which dr


issue and said that under the construction of without tools it would be a fact dispute at the markham hearing this is a day flow of eleven through a twelfth well the district judge appeared to agree with me and say that it would be an issue down the road so certainly when its construction was without


encourages legitimate good faith successful design around efforts so that there is no infringement suit so that's i believe what the court held as it did in intel but the last point if i may make i see it in my last ten seconds we would request


force believes that the warning he received was improper of that he received some different warning misinterpreted is not relevant mr officer gaiters testimony that he gave the warning that was asked to be given is the significant factor in this case because it's the


them there was no showing that those statements were made before the defendant says it you're innocent of this testimony but a couple different statements here one of the state relies on the field that the defendant allegedly said that he was


honour's to modified reverse the commission's decision in that perspective the arbitrator was very suited in the way he analyze the evidence that was presented before him commissioner lindsay reviewed the record and


because i was reading it late at night but if


all had an opportunity at some point in time in the time of the shooting for the final trial to come forth and say something they said nothing the trial judge found this to be totally


to get into the lineup and get height and weight information that sort of thing then they took you wind up questioning properly had ceased the judge below from the police returned from the lineup to the room with the defendant tony been


expected that house would provide some evidence that another person in the in the yard outside of the apartment where the shooting occurred had possessed a gun in it was drawing a gun when mr


forth but if you look at the scope of the cases that have been decided under that standard it goes well beyond what the leaders in would consider traditional environmental pollution after example the industrial


and it just been never did they they sent us letters asking us to protect their interest we protected their interest this stevens for talks about how in this particular situation how did provide a benefit to them


others one outside because they were told to leave the bar while outside in the parking lot my client because of the traffic and the amount of people there was not able to move his car immediately and thereafter after he got out of his car he had an


see you know again there's no evidence of what whoever was in charge the last i saw in the light most favorable to the plaintiff you apparently have some sort of pushing contest


course lead to a drop off in the photograph show that so that doesn't create an issue of fact regarding the overreach nineteen times on the estimated i think five hundred twenty one tonnage


for trial however it's the finance argument that what what what is off of the record is that the attorney knew that this this witness would be


one the assistant manager who was about eight to ten feet behind the teller who was birch she did testified but again that has been his pocket with his hand was in the pocket but she didn't know it was in there other


than his hands and that he did move forward but again it's not the rest when that happens you know when he was getting the money it's not clear what exactly was going on there but the the critical i think what


cisco that's all we have to prove we don't have to prove this event and sit in on june second was the sole i was the primary cause of his symptoms but you know the fact of the matter is the symptoms for which he's treating after


those coupons and was was surprised and appalled that these coupons were being taken in at their store


pages thirty three thirty five there are the specific findings of fact of judge stuart all these issues


the opinion that even though the medication had not been prescribed that the course of treatment that he had received from his work related injury good condition in his system we have other explanations that he gave other explanations


which persons of the learning in their field might disagree but rather the question is the legal question of whether or not the finding of the commission which was confirmed by the circuit court is against the manifest weight of the evidence whether there


right on the borderline of what was in his opinion a personal use amount and when he was asked on cross examination what his opinion was of this my canvas was split i always his response was that well it's more likely that this is personal use of law so what we've got


these comments about what a great recruit or he has been as part of what they paid him for that's part of what they promoted and he knows that when you get people to do that which they didn't think they were going to you know only pay him cash but you give him strokes and that


prison but to see that that was relevant to what you know one third at the scene of the shooting i mean those are those are two two totally different things and this guy had no history of violence is always


of what advice if it was mine subsidence after that then they went to the soil juniors with whitney thought maybe it was something other than my subsides so compaction soil create these different terms


purpose of a forcible entry action is to decide who has a right to possess certain property and in this case my client is a trustee of the dollhouse family trust and the defendant is a lame dollhouse the widow


is a stipulation indicating that he was at some point plaintiff's expert and by stipulation was to be our expert with solving expert whatever expert i don't know what we're not down his


dad who says i'm going to keep my kid here to get back to mom i think that the record is clear from the testimony from all parties that that my client was involved and invested in this


across and then the gold cross be done bill prady now after the previous appeal that was in this case a settlement was finally reached and it was agreed


that the defendants sentence was necessary to deter others and then he goes on to are to deter others from committing the same crimes then he goes on to the find what he means by the same crimes


obligation terminated upon the death of mr brymer but if we accept that is true then paragraph all over three couldn't possibly be secure in painting me and after his death until


served is much smaller than was the case and wrongly conservancy district and so the referee properly distinguished those two cases finding that any public benefit here was secondary to the primary private


was also never came out him saying yeah i was unusual for me to stay home and be home all day that they even though he was invited to go out didn't think it was unusual for me to be there he says he heard a you know a loud noise if the i think you could get that statement out to show his


probably i guess i will agree with mr murphy on that one for lack of further understanding on my part i'm


the witnesses from new york the jailhouse informants snitches with their statements now that you know what that more really didn't actually confess to us we knew there was some reward money we were told you know while he


moreover in addition to the forty nine days it is contemplated by the court based on the evidence before it that mom would be returning to illinois for a long weekend in for alternate holidays so again it is incorporated in the corner and it was articulate


to me that because she's no winner floyd there will be no need for before or after school kids daycare she would have more time to spend with the children not in school which in my opinion would also his general quality of life of the child very with all respect and


prior to the rule titian being filed moreover this was as testimony was i gave mr weir the schedule for the school for the twenty ninth we can school year and


year so you've got basically less than a one percent chance six out of three hundred sixty five to catch somebody on the property my client's testimony was that you know he had maintained south of that fence by clear in some brush but he was not there every day either


x number of dollars and then the under the under the foreigners there is nothing in this or the sensitive when the end of life the landlord if you gets car sued for a hundred thousand dollars


public duty rule that has an exception to have a special duty rule that would provide liability i only think of one other process in the law that has exceptions to that would provide liability and those are


maybe interview them together i imagine if people come into a police station just off the road maybe it's a family and they say hey we just witnessed this crime and the police are going to split them up and interview rooms and interview them separately maybe to challenge inconsistent


necessary for the association of the members including these very important employing people to enforce the rules and regulations the rules and regulations has set up at a twenty five mile per hour speed limit and provided for


agent attorney client relationship like this that in those cases that's where there's a transaction between the principal and the do sheree heightened concerns are raised such that where the principal benefits that there has to be


does look at it as though it was a question of credibility ought we this person or that and i understand that that's like i said it's tempting to do but the problem is if that opinion is not rounded concise to begin with it's not reasonable and it


photographs measurements and determine the speed of the vehicle before it struck the tree apparently some ninety eight miles an hour in the trees the reason he did not render


expert who says based on these levels of methamphetamine in the system yes you're on and it was his consume method last three to two days so easy to forty eight hours i don't think we're seeing this intoxicate he had meth in his system so nobody said that he was intoxicated at the time or likely


straight out with his legs straight out and his hands somewhere at his upper torso your point is that the trajectory evidence suggests that's not right we know from the autopsy that five bullets you me of the seven bullet


we're not dealing with a situation where there was knowledge of something fishy beforehand but i


that the majority in a non binding case from out of district in a six five decision ruled against the government in that case the government today would would argue that that case was wrongly decided now for the last i think that within the dissenting opinion there's a


s business is private it's commercial it's not for governments so can you answer my question is is there a commercial value of this from your perspective or you don't want to act that there could be value to it is


really correct your honor the further instructions from us if the case were dismissed well would just a minute my understanding and that's why i'm trying to understand the facts that you contact the sheriff


further collection actions without saying and hold on to the money until you either receive an order or a request or the bankruptcy is just in hindsight that's what they it will add to the attorney should have done that's what i


the bankruptcy court and they all know what they're doing and the judge they all get together and play golf together and they all may creditors and they all ok well they don't necessarily hate all predators because they got the trustees lawyers their needs


not yours i don't know how you make that argument this money was never yours i'm not ever in your client's possession never subject to anything never levied never not been just money that would have been in the


unravel the settlement the settlement never should have taken place but did well and was approved by the bankruptcy court right as approved by the district court the fact that it was approved by the district court and the money


not even consistent with drowning well he also said that he was apparently choking for fifteen seconds that would be enough i could hold my breath for more than fifteen seconds yes you're right and i mean a


petitions for actual innocence claims and for other types of things i mentioned in him that is there is there a is there a second successive that is there bart a second successor these petitions in california and


within approximately sixty days now in this particular case had to go back into the legislative history for the prompt payment act but i still interest still trying to figure out what's with your client


and specifically stated that s t v was to be paid in accordance with the government code section one twenty seven the theory is is that s t v had the obligation to pay alter systems the same prompt payment penalties that were


other devices that so obviously identify the defendant without naming him that's the equivalent of brewton that didn't happen here to be clear there were no brackets in this case there was no lip sees no one referred


the only thing that is in the record was a statement that was made on cross examination which was whether or not the material had been tested and the answer was that our client sent it to a company called sent away so knowing as a company that manufactures the product for us


verdict right and he found that there was no confusion here there was no deception here so what standard of reviewing this under i think the answer is that he reviewed a different standard in the case that he cited was really not standing for the proposition that he said and by the way he's a good judge but


how were those hours reflected in the billing statements well in the first knowing statement they were just we put my time in we didn't allocate over cases in the second version i think five or so


align with the with the plaintiffs repellents told the court and what their motion says the motion of it says that the all the work for the twelve b six motions which are early in the case the june twenty fifth


two thousand to ten motions in six of the cases


of sanctioning or censoring the court the district court by the court taking control the court has previously expressed to an appellate commissioner to and if there are factual findings that need to be made and then the appellate commissioner puts it back to us


seventy seven to seventy eight her attorney in the divorce proceedings indicated there is a federal tax lien on the property in the amount of two hundred forty seven thousand dollars as of october two thousand and six the judge as you're


specifically what what regulation and you were lying on to say that somebody in his situation is required to pass even if i i know there was an opinion rendered by one of the witnesses that he was required by law but that opinion isn't supported by any specific


sets out the standard for analyzing c w allegations and there the courts are skeptical about c w allegations because work talk is cheap and it's easy to say anything you want so as the guy says what you have to show and you have to show the particulars of the alleged


for this for this finding for this proceeding there's nothing in there in the in the court's order that's indicative that the rigorous analysis that this circuit has repeatedly indicated has to be applied in deciding class


for recovery of those damages so both of those sound like reimbursement types of damages reimbursements for amounts that were paid to my right correct ok so doesn't the class definition include people who didn't pay well the other the class definition


the person who's claiming that he relied reasonably under all the circumstances and from the perspective of that person and i i would submit that that certainly under these circumstances would be a jury issue i guess


attended other meetings so perhaps they heard other things that were said to them before they entered the owner operator program so that could be an issue or it might be in the tiriel and it might be that the fraud claim then would be subject to summary judgment because it's not a material


in our papers namely that these were fresh really cause of action for toward these claims they weren't successful there's a double counting of victories and the judge's decision ignores the fact that this has to be a


appeal to this court in which they want to obtain a reversal of the judgment and to cover other expenses and p s m took the position that when they took over b a i see vey assumed that seven hundred thousand dollar asset even though the


did you learn that either your opponents or the judge had may have had a different view at they i presume at the hearing that day because judge real's practices that have his his order written out and


prejudiced the jury well i'm going to the answer to that is no no what was actually testified to a trial where these six criminal convictions that mr but the jury had the rap sheet didn't the jury had the rap sheet the rap


instructive on just that point class cases are about what is routine when the teams looking at tyson so you'll have to tell me what evidence could an individual class member an individual employee at a store


guess how a trial judge should have done things but the abuse of discretion is whether he had substantial evidence to make his findings that led him to conclude as a reasonable person might that that this that the individual


his home will no longer be outside of his district is perfectly acceptable so and that actually of course reduced the african american population in city town the other thing that happened course


assumption if you purchase something that is your property and purchase that box yes the assumption is that your box and there is no allegation in the complaint that best buy ever asserted any rights against this plaintiff to have to return it


hornberger is the judge dropped pointed out is not an account holder and doesn't have any right to any sort of an accounting what happened to the account the account was opened it's not in the record but the account was opened


there was a prior law from who filed the complaint we spent about six months going back and forth with those lawyers providing various documents and information showing that the accounts were


it's fully fully compliant with the law doesn't tell me anything there is no need to expressly request a general election under california law for a few reasons number one the plain language


we have someone who knows it better than any of us probably but i thought gonzales said you had to give them the results of the inspection which in my mind would include the fact that the first time we checked it the damn thing didn't work and we had to fix it well i don't believe


i don't think that it was clearly made that way that the trial judge told him look if mr if mr torres loses this case he is looking at an indeterminate term of fifteen


reflects he specifically complained about if you will the shower conditions the cell conditions with respect to the handrails would be march of two thousand and ten yes no if no please give me a cite so you


man speedy trial claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law as determined by the u s supreme court now marian does tell us that the sixth amendment right is true triggered by formal indictment or


and they're the person going through the example entrance and they unlock that door before the plane gets there and they never have to navigate or deal with a locked door no problem or if there's an attendant there for us or we know it's not alleging that he's ever been delayed for any appreciable amount of time because of the fact


officer violated her particular rights under the constitution and that's not the standard under which event and in fact the third party officer in this case his actions don't need to have themselves


misconduct that's the same case here actually this is a much stronger case but boreas because it's unauthorized to the subject matter what he was given was an unauthorized disclosure


six tested micro clean and it's a twenty three ten but the cleanser packets from a lot forty seven ninety five turned out to be contaminated and that's a twenty three thirty so what


that there is a more specific and a more general statute the more specific statute must control here we have a statute specifically addressing the procedures are in apartments were examined agent that's three forty night if there were a conflict it went out of or section twenty four again we think there is no such


and how it all is going to play out now and step back just in this from the viewpoint of judicial officials see the net make an awful lot of sense to throw the method into the same litigation as the


and also to look at how the documents contradict what he testified to what what documents contradict that he made the decision on the twenty seventh


vacuum i think you read it together with the other relevant here provision that is at issue here and that is having thirty seven a one and chapter thirty seven no two when you read these three provisions together there is clear


useful for construing the scope of the heading it's crystal clear they explain atory notes per heading thirty seven zero one include this merchandise explanatory notes or heading it for court to exclude this


you said there was one hundred twenty five thousand on this one hundred something on that but with at least two different rates for attorneys and one for paralegals there's no way to translate your numbers into hours without more information so


process of having if you like it is on the screen printing and say well we can make it even more flexible and cover more systems if we combine it with for men's translation correct and the translation is for the specific purpose of ending up


in that particular instance where there was a double obviousness rejection and where there was the language it may use a transposition and did just i understand that to mean switching numbers because that they're the mistake is likely obvious from the


congress has decided to do is they said ok in a situation where there there is a big increase in costs we realize we can't we can't use just one annual period we commerce likes to use


jurisdiction and that the only remedy was one in the m s p b this is in august of twenty ten and at that point you knew that the only


and my client agreed to pieces mother he agreed to stipulate a settlement agreement to stay out of lake county or isn't that an evidence of enforcement over trademark and it's very limited evidence and


sean if you go back to some of the malone case the u s very similar circumstances little different result different circumstances or same circumstance him alone but there were there was an example or there were refurbishing military


they could have walked off the job lick their wounds and went on to the next job just but but so why should milt i should malone be treated more favorably than metcalf i submit they should not they're there in the same position


it's my opinion that this should be a lump sum one time payment that covers the entirety of the of the patent and that's what and that's how he describes a lump sum payment a jury made that determination not an abuse of discretion if a court the size of


surgery again we're going back to the factual decisions i make that what they found was that that he had the preexisting injuries that any surgeries he had during service were to help them with their preexisting injuries and that the later


challenge the pats so in that in the in the for the cases your honor if if you ask for leave put it this way if might might my friends on the other side of the courtroom here were filed for a request and didn't get what she asked for i don't have standing to ask that the sewin say that


fact issue and that's for the fact finder is there a trend in the relevant design community another one is what's the background knowledge of one of skill in the art what was going on at the time and here we have for the clarence for the clarence presented to the district


detail so we're not in a situation where we're lost without the earlier declaration mr rogers in a situation where even setting aside the mr rogers declaration that was in the record and we think should be relied on we had the core information when you look at all that unlike most people that we believe


itself which as are mentioned is clear on its face and it's particularly been clear since october of one nine hundred ninety eight when it was the regulation was amended the particular regulation six


jurisdiction requirement that you have to have a contracting else your final decision on a claim that applies to contractor claims government claims and government counter claims this is a government council estates when the government said we're not going to work we're not going to pay all of this that's that's


for the other end and paragraph one applies only if separately calculated or calculated together you actually have the data for everybody in the sec maybe there were only


and try to get mean wine why isn't there a clear record on that the trial court saying these facts need more data to win but them report these implications mean more data or about it and she didn't say it that way


and all that doesn't demonstrate that if there's a balancing here congress it's in a better position to make that call than to this court does based on the record before it as well but


establish commensurate in scope the portion you just read to me very clearly says the reason they reject secondary consideration evidence is because it wasn't measured against the noun after the correct prior art in their mind it says your honor the


basis on which judgment was entered now fifteen every since principle argument that the root ne ne of the bus controllers can be the root bus controller ignores the intrinsic evidence of the zero to four pattern and the specific


incorporate by reference but and we don't take issue with the fact that those two prior plans were in fact incorporated by reference in this case it says you're writing a specification that's not our issue our issue is you don't incorporate by reference in


minimum and a master required three offsets and it it pointed out very specifically that because of the scope of the plane as construed that under your specific exclusion doctrine that it would


at the restaurant already you can select you can select the the last destination you were going to and then you have to go back into the last that prior destination that's that's what it would be from a prior destination


but in this case judge smith gave very good reason just like you asked him to and you said it back and he said ok we want you to do something that we don't think you did the first time and that as we watch it consider hensley and we want to can consider


even when the amount of damages would not make it feasible that was at page five seventy seven of the supreme court decision in that case so the question here is this court i believe should implement the policy that statute and i


both because he did what was right and secondly because if this court gets into second guessing what are essentially factual determinations you're going to just encourage more peals in these equal access to justice


determine what approximate what an actual rate would have been with a built in increase in in keeping with its statutory mandate to where where to have a trying between deterrence and


another opinion that's on appeal said transverse means across and can be at any angle all that's just wrong because it gives new meaning to the word transverse any time you go


received and how does that constitute an interpretation of one o five by the veterans court as opposed to merely an application of an interpretation by this court instead of


evaluation whether the supervisor could reach down and actually wholesale change the tenor of the evaluation i don't know i have not seen any regulation that prohibits that and there's a problem if it's done before hand is


judgment that said something like yes you can exist they would back to the government but the government will have no obligation to pay you a penny you know what i didn't think


and yes it's trial and error and yes you make lots of mistakes but remember we've dealt with that in our case a lot lampy after lost power for instance you can have lots of mistakes and still produce it and


ropes against hurricane force winds the second reason so so i would submit to you the patents exhaustion does not apply here for that very reason because they're selling not infringing chemicals and


seeking restatement of a cow and we think that that type of will be felt in the early would be one that is not other than money damages because under the supreme court's decision in department of the army versus fox the relevant inquiry is whether they are seeking


vehicle for that given that their government has not even made a motion for lack of jurisdiction in this case so whether or not you think this court would be in good standing to say it should be stayed in then we would order the district court to address an issue that no


business as a side not for example if dr barsoum had an invention that had a component for example a computer under major league baseball's view that would make it related to


of the first documents produced in the case that no i asked when the agreement for between schlumberger and the defendant was produced that that the actual employment agreement was produced in the spring they had a


proof of the of the f h l we believe they're only doing it to comply with the law there's if they put in language we'd like to have a contract that something really like that then and then you can look at this and say well maybe that's an offer but there's no such language in the stocking it is just a regulatory


is the combination that was a value weighted in the combination that was approved for its anti cancer effects as a district court found in the infringement part of the decision but label precisely tracks the claim language so can i take you back to trying to


teeth right it's well it's grounded we bring with that the baggage of a stop well as it's used in the district courts and as its use in equity and where it has come from and we also look at how the words that your honor is looking at actually martin statute law and equity


claims will centrally evaporate and the cope any district court can follow any way that happens later one of the problems that i have with your argument is i'm not sure how it makes sense because you're saying well it's tough


it goes through the end and once again there you see a disclosure of a participation limitation and kelly there is a limit on participation based upon age and i'm going to finish here on earth with


completely failed to that or methodology was unreliable and if you actually look at what's in the record nobody testified and the fact that this no other expert testified the value is due to only these


just facts that rise to willful infringement i could just touch on the enhancement part of it though the judge here doubled the damages and under this court's law if the court makes mistakes in its assessment of those


have found that there is something more there is enough there including the the apple case i think the m t d products case that we cited in a rule twenty eight letter to this court is another good example where you have a lot of structural


are based on attorney argument we had expert testimony with the petition and then again at the reply stage were plenty on the board took note of that and that form substantial evidence for its findings


what's in the document is correct that we have we were damaged in the courts


also that the board also found no publicly known exception so the other reasons why there was no finding of liability are also not correct and they also


me please the court i'll start with the threshold issue of the prevailing party status of the parties grilling party status is a substantive question not a procedural one and dragging in serious on the merits on the substance have real and ripoffs


choice you are making the choice that is where you are the director yes but the why when and why does there have to be two different choices simply going to direct someone to something sometimes there is no choice that all of them just give more direction to do it


and in order for that decision to have meaning it had you have to be selecting between two other two potential different now true why doesn't this when this is a dream that articulate all of the things that are supposed to occur in a myth if and really what is


dead if your construction of directing an output in claim one is so broad that it reads on dedicated output paths and dependent claims are meaningless they're impossible if you have dedicated output paths than that is an indication that


refer you to it if you try and combine these two technologies if you try and combine the horizontal intensity counting with the sum of the histogram technology you get a completely inoperable


limitation was just something that had to be it was like an obligation to the contract not something that prevented it from being executed might be with respect to your comment about attorney fees i just wonder arguing that it's frivolous when the


completely ignore the overwhelming record evidence in support of the fact that dixon take underwrote is a manufacturer of pencils here in the united states that record


buds indicate that regardless of a physical presence in the united states that intent to direct activity towards the united states and the customers in the united states was


whole thing's actions and supporting the software banks customers could not use that software and it would not be triggered in california we believe this constitutes for purposeful


and i think one of the standards that this court cited in that case as far as what proximate cause is is extending to foreseeable risk created by negligent conduct and that directly contravenes counsel's arguments regarding what proximate cause should be


have to consider this proximate cause issue and to the extent that the board and the veterans court had to consider the proximate cause or causes ation they both did so and found that i think as the veterans court said that


some of this is a little difficult to understand because it comes out of context he's referring back to a previous exchange between the board and council for comcast so when he says what he's referring to figure two and figure three the


element but even taken together the only advance you're talking about is the excretion through the liver and then as a result of that the doctor can just give the same type of dosage or do whatever it was doing before to this person


do you think that the board could rely on references beyond when to petition or science but then your concern is the lack of notice yeah absolutely of the the board can rely on on references that are


and in that you can see it's a table and it identifies all the different marginal prices the variable cost that does not include the capacity price ok in our case brief we had said to the department look if you just take


think that that comes back i guess to the congress discretion as to whether how far it has to go under the statute and whether or not it's an abuse of its discretion to take the laws and regulations of the government of korea in conjunction again with this data that indicates that the


if the court were going to interpret the a c a to conclude that congress actually intended some form of damages remedy then the question would still remain what kind of damages remedy is it one that does or does not take into account the


very precise here but that we largely for an inference about congressional intent that kind of everybody knows the way this market works kind of well i think if the court looks at the


you have to think about the related provisions and how it's had a very high level of abstraction i'm looking for some help that's a little closer to the actual facts that we have here you have i think you're telling me that that we did in that case that you we didn't find a case but we didn't


license agreement was there some history as to attempt by c n n fujitsu to try to gain a license that was completely


and sixteen and seventeen whereas the license patent was perhaps merely claiming invention number one disclosed in the twenty inventions that share disclosure right that's true in courts of criticize general protect for that for that


tar so sure but why why would you expect if these discounted prices are the product of negotiated transactions that the price that the two parties would reach would be a dollar


presented in its motions but it sure shows we treat the decision by the board on the motion determination with regard to the question of whether or not amazon should have been named


rule which because they have boundaries minute boundaries so i just don't see what the daylight is between these two well the smith version makes clear that sets off by a comma that the presumption is


some kind of net present value in myself because i'm looking for that therefore we must back out equity from the denominator and you know obviously that results in shrinking the denominator in a


owner has put into the property is it the same for is it the same number is t p for the p v market conversion the same number as p v for actual outcome i think they


itself so sixty to thirty c one day states that it again that demonstrates that it applies to a subset of computation will adjust and by stating that there applies to those that are necessary to ensure the


document that tells the taxpayer this is for your information don't do anything anything that's to be done the either us will come back to you and the i r s was coming back and the i r s was continuing to negotiate and continuing to discuss and debate


this is a claim that the judge identified as verifying identity that's the limit no where does it say anything about fraud and in fact a specification talks about multiple reasons targeted advertising like the nebraska exclusion clause or


technical we do know what the argument is that's not that's not how i understand the the institution decision but what how do you understand the petition so what we're doing here is we're trying to figure out if


just to be sure i'm right hypothetically if i'm right let's look at claim one and you look at claim one with me do you have a consulate


all the cases that found some sort of computer technological advancement i think you'll see a stark comparison counsel i don't fault you for taking advantage of our precedents i don't even want to get into that but doesn't


twenty nine the configuration is why don't you just shoot receive user signals and perform any other operations the signals can go in the excuse me the screen displays can move in any direction they can be


here without disclosing a subpoena a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate and that's the language i think that gets back to what is being improved the technologies that perform these functions are not being


depression and therefore claim tents limitation was such that satisfied when the district court said in saying that it was unclear about it should have looked to the specification for clarification of this


that right yes because he found that she was credible that she would have ruled in favor of the river in order to do so the district court had to disregard the activity report


referral to emergent medical attention and definitive care was the loss of a pulse in ms deals case her hers they had difficulty locating her pulse and that's what caused them to call nine one one with the other two they waited until


strategically i suppose to file one single brief they didn't even provided in their excerpts of record we provided it supplemental excerpts of record one forty three to one seventy two and most of that deals with


his thirty five fifty three now says greg variance and mr davis so we get down to credibility which is why i think you're going judge smith of judge real has to draw has to decide who's


testimony is in relation to it's up trail down trail and gestures in the courtroom so that so on the stand people are saying things like over there from here to there well that works when you're in the court room but it's why i looked at


was a picture of a child in underwear correct that is correct and that avatar was part of what the government's it said was an advertisement correct that is the government's interpretation yes what about


just by putting a creative tomatoes out at the farmer's market you are guilty of advertising if there are that withstood challenge under the first amendment under any other constitutional right and in fact there have been cases challenging child


as this court explained in its minors decision the prohibition on advertising child pornography is extremely important in fact the words that this court used was that the distribute the distribution of child pornography feeds


i think the same rationale with respect to fire still exists but then they could say well if you want to prevent fires just keep people out of parks altogether and i mean other way to do so is just i


greater for his financial records no in this case for my no liability we are looking at a broader timeline including the previous


foreseeable that she would not have been able to make it over these mountains given the fact that she couldn't make it around the flat


welfare but that's solely we know they have so long as some something is determined that will affect the ability to sell at a particular price so i don't i don't need anything beyond that commonsense observation to know that there's an impact i guess the


nine because there's no just the language the plea agreement doesn't use the language of eighteen twenty six however right and that's why it should be limited specifically as to whether was an unlawful entry and i and i would note in preparing for the argument which i guess i follow


which one one or two over the it would be white one to the u s supreme court case for example the rules under inclusive because it allows candidates to use and solicit endorsements from all groups


whether your argument is a realistic one can you help me what one might missing here one of the things that i think needs to be pointed out is that the state claims that they have this compelling interest of preserving public confidence in the judiciary but there's


the guilty plea so as far as the timing about when he accepted the plea there's there's no indication when he did to the extent that he sentenced mr still i think at that point he may have imply of the accepted the guilty plea enough that point the judge had read the pre


for the contingency states that the state specifically that the contingency is that lab results have to test positive for controlled substances and the i found some the same very same page says possess purchase risk a controlled substance plural opposite


that's hard to say in the face of the evidence that just the judge smith just reciting would if the jury credited that evidence and discredited your client's testimony that he was


there were corrective instructions given as which should have been given by the judge the plaintiffs were not convicted of every count and there was fissioned evidence well if i look at this case judge devkit did give


steve said no but we agreed to a temporary place program to finish out the remaining few weeks and then she says while in this interim setting he was taught regular an ungenerous so that's what happened it was a they had a short term crisis and


bono lawyer i can see the record is not as good as it could be but i i want the legal issue here is clear and judge fisher you kept asking for an explanation as to why what's the rationale


somehow revoked when dr roberts communicated with his attorney or because of the the defendant's what we are saying is there had to be a valid communication of acceptance and there's been no answer to that legal point and there's no evidence that it except


coastal tribes in the one nine hundred fifty s his report generally corroborates what fracking bird had to say according to saying the indians used only two small halibut banks south of cape flattery one near james island which is a few hundred metres offshore


understanding of their treaty it relied in part on the expert linguistic testimony of professor whored who was the only expert of the trial who had experience doing linguistic work with fluent quill used and should not jargon speakers professor whored


and i think you know the tenth as the tenth circuit enbrel v armijo citing to national farmers union stated federal courts are not the this is quote federal courts are not the general appellate body for tribal courts as a supreme court has instructed the


receivables went to clearwater and then clearwater would then distribute the taxes or the taxes we see will the funds to be used to


it up here so first first want to round there's some as it were testimony by him so the first one that was filed that's not a dish you hear it's only qualified immunity because there's just some testimonial evidence provided by mr


the sort of confusion that arose in cannes or where the dirty jury didn't know what to do with misuse or forseeable that that i've got the same concern here they heard the evidence because well within its rights introduced the evidence and so where


record the judge nelson had as much information as the law enforcement officers who were warning the social workers that they had concerns about the safety of the boys that judge nelson had as much information as the coxes who had known josh


month sentence which fall on both procedural and substantive grounds and mr boone was sentenced on the fraud guideline section to be one point one which among all the guidelines skews higher then the


house because the government argued this was a parole search and the court said i don't need that i'm not going to find it to be i don't believe that that's correct i think around sean's excerpt of record one hundred twenty nine to one forty or so that there's a discussion of we'd like an


i could be up by three pages but that's where the key discussion going on and i didn't hear counsel i'm sorry i didn't hear your answer to one of her wits questions because when i look at the photo this isn't a situation where you've got


want the government to have to try the case twice and the remedy was to exclude some of chung's evidence which was that tran was a gang member so what he did was he excluded the evidence that tran was a gang member and and then reversed himself on the issue of severance and


going through this process with ten millions at the same time he wasn't even talking about individual equities with them or with with regard to mr march in his individual hearing he did go through those equities i would submit that the questioning that the i


record to suggest that that number was chosen for some other reason the defendant in that case did sustain his burden of showing that the sentence imposed was a product of the guideline miscalculation here


unless we can show that it's in quotes plainer well yeah i mean i think that's the error that's being claimed here and the error that we have the only one i think it's the primary one and i think that's the area that we have conceded as to promise i wanted


ten and in addition we did argue also that the elysee amendment in essence for lack of better we have putting it rather an artful perhaps but restart of the statue of limitations and so


to explain a little bit your honor ok because in two thousand and six key bank releases roy and nature's best and internet release it also releases its security interest with


this point tim tippett knows or should know there is no nature's best interest we've actually publicly filed this with the secretary of state and again what his reaction is not oh my gosh you rip me off


on the list roy i'm young and nature's these are all being transferred expressly and explicitly in paragraph seven of exhibit c at that time now it's interesting that counsel said well wait a minute it


do that is because each year we're sending six billion dollars out of state to buy out of state fuels i mean i mean i mean change the emphasis under rocky mountain we allow the ethanol purpose in effect claims under the commerce


submit sure i have this right it seems to me that we're here on a motion to dismiss correct so on a motion to dismiss i have to take the allegations of the complaint is true right in


they credits are bought from oregon they're being bought from oregon oregon is receiving all the benefit of this law there is nothing in oregon which gives it a negative


again the district court contacted the chemist apparently on a thursday before the monday rule thirty five hearing talk to her about the d e a s seven never told any of the parties about this and it appears never intended to disclose in answer to roger's question


judge just just the opposite if if there is no right to indemnity if there's been a settlement then that encourages parties who feel that there are one hundred percent fall free from not settling we would have to try this case out to show that we're not liable


before ten months ago if i had just seen somebody picture a license ten months ago i can think of recognizing well when it's months later when it's been suggested to you by the people who are responsible


retribution by the gang so we'll isn't that enough i mean i've got the what do you believe the bad boys would look for rep it retaliation he has because we were attacked it goes on to say more about the retaliation by the


witnesses to that effect and the fact that kilpatrick created a g a v m they like to make a lot of fun of that why didn't he use a commercial off the shelf version and the answer is because by creating his own inputs he could make it more


written statement and then told everything to the asylum officer and told her the same thing in her testimony or that she told everything in her written statement and left things out at either being interviewed by this home office or in her testimony it was kind of all over the


fraud that was three different counts of conspiracy mail fraud wire fraud was seemingly an afterthought when i was preparing for this case i went back into the record and i


and my client came along explanation in the grand jury of the function of the lockdown and if you're asking this witness a completely different question than what you did that day because they know she did the count because there's a count


simply that there is persuasive authority that that committee that's the sense in provision is not mandatory but rather permissive there is authority in other circuits that there's no


it related to this massive massive international drug conspiracy under the new guidelines it was a very specifically different view and i would submit that because one b one point one specifically


listed in the c f r that were charged to the jury all of those are in favor of mr stevens including the fact that in the camp description of pharmacy manager which is the position that mr stevens held in two thousand and eleven it's not