testified to the degree that he was required to testify the sort of the commission applied the wrong standard hellen to a much higher standard than the case law will support and that on that basis the commission should be reversed the decision


the evidence that the fed did present the prosecutor the student in turn told the jury ignore it he didn't prove his innocence his statements were self serving they don't mean anything they're irrelevant just ignore it and just listen to what the state has


client's family from using their house that is the only relief


of the only two witnesses the defendant presented how reliable regarding the issue of cost benefit analysis and quite frankly if your honour's reviewed her testimony it was sparse she couldn't identify what the cost would be how expensive it would


considered a significant factor in your aggravation and said i am considering an aggravation these two felonies so i am not saying it's a possibility i'm saying that the record reflects that he considered again accurate information in


the court aired and finding that in two thousand and six and the latest january two thousand and seven when they received these disclaimers that they would have been put on notice to find that these unsophisticated investors would be able to read these


it and those particular statements that ultimately won the day are very different than the ones in these in these agreements are


those officers what we don't know what if if you were to deny that we don't know its officers would have continued questioning him in fact it's a common interrogation tactics to challenge a defendant's prior statement and that's what the officer was doing here is


to get out of a dish one one of the tour of unity air which will want to have one year statute of limitations has been held that the complaint was not one who are unjust enrichment for restitution that one year


answer to that question so you're saying


think what's critical here is that the what my colleague here has suggested that there should be no difference between the pre filing any post file contact i think that's wrong for two reasons the first reason is a practical reason which is that prior


and the reason i say that is mr carer said he can't to the site to work say between five and five thirty he then called mr leahy at five thirty eight according to the telephone record and mr leahy said i man my


she could have easily either amended the application or are you in the alternative to choose disabled from the would cut condition at that point in time she didn't do so after this quarter


city's interpretation that it will be any public work or other public improvement and limited this appalling improvement we would still have brain are certain if you if you look at the definition of public work the again


construction is not defined under division nine and lastly you only thing that needs to be in the agenda is that the country will be entered into a reasonable approach a reasonable person would assume that a two point two million dollar contract


if and i say even if the legislative intent of using transacting business in one case and conducting affairs the other case indicating in intent for a different standard as to whether or not


falsifying work hours true he was apparently was fired for the work hours situation regarding the week before he was fired on the fourteenth and of january and there is some inference in some of the arguments


that only person should be able to see by observing somebody's demeanor whether or not that person is in a position to give reasonable consent without having an expert testify


necessarily just because yes she was her uncle by marriage there was a relationship of trust and yes she testified that she had felt uncomfortable with comments that were made before but i think this is a situation where it's not just a matter of


i think we'll have an opportunity for


but that's not what happened right he said that was yes he says it's but now there is something beyond a reasonable expectation don't you believe our i don't i don't believe that that's a reasonable suspicion but


understanding is all that there is in the record is something that says that the motion to reconsider was served by me on the counsel that the record doesn't hand anything that tells us when


we would interpret the law in favor of your client as well and you don't want that to happen you want to say i don't want the rules when they do apply i want to stick or unquote vacate my plea because i want to be flagellated or tortured or


stipulating that the witness's testimony from the civil court trial constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the criminal trial i would say it that was what he had agreed to then the defendant has to be admired and agreed


that you didn't exercise or regions didn't exercise the option then we should fine in your favor rule in your favor


contributing and not factor but for reasonable probability it's in the mix obviously what you're looking at no question is in the mix the question though is not could it be a factor and again we disagree with the defense


judge or i believe it waking state juror who took an action where they spoke to someone it is not the facts they are at perhaps the judges daughter might have been a facebook for him the victim's


federal probe that's right but you know it is set in stone as federal law or federal regulation i guess unless the feds allowed michigan to change right that's caressed part of the scheme of the federal clean air act is it not


you don't have customs agents asking you on your way back did you know where did this gasoline come from is because at the end of the day it doesn't matter they can't get taxes on you from it so i wanted to clarify that


evidence coming in both from the medical professionals and from these two women who very much had bias against my client and had demonstrated including in custodial proceedings with the grandmother and my client


if you're worried about that you have to explain why the fourth amendment doesn't allow that the that's i mean does that allow that very thing that's proper finding of dangerousness to go on the property without a warrant to alleviate the dangerousness


that peach to recognize and i quote the driver of the vehicle was unable to see the turn into name the vehicle ran over an embankment when the driver finally executed the


the district court's order recognized that the driver of the vehicle was unable to see the turn in time there is nothing in the record that suggests that the driver could not stop get out look around


examiner's report was inconsistent with stewart's testimony yes i mean the jury would have heard all of that evidence sure and that axa now has the ability to know about that discrepancy and take a side of it when she makes her


defendant state of mind can be proved indirectly from the surrounding circumstances including what the defendant said what the defendant did exactly was what the government use i use the text message and what the cooperator say but we needed this information for


there and the law had or women were were seeking obstruction because he got up there in law based on the jury verdict that's what the government say it governor also said i think you can make that inference based on the text messages and the


crimea admitted to in his diversion agreement and that's the crimean mid to in the civil discovery when he reaffirmed that the statements in his diversion agreement are accurate and as a matter of law any


you know i may have not gotten everything of the record about where these things all went but there's plenty of sources out there that these things could come to light and go viral or whatever the term is now a days gone pow in an instant


woolsey could have kind of agreed to assist in the prosecution of his coconspirator run bingo that's not actually in the record before you here but i think it could in part explain why there would have been these two separate offers that's but that's not traditionally how it's


five forty four a three claim also five forty four a one claim how do they make that big jump from your viewpoint i can't answer that affectively any more effectively than judge walter did when he when he read that decision


driveway had the sort of the same curtilage character that the driveway columns have right sure it's obviously distinguishable from collins collins it is a driveway that is enclosed on three sides it's thirty


good afternoon may it please the court steven wright for the petitioner lose transported to a mass if i may reserve two minutes for a bottle the the underline issue we believe in this case


have one other tourney and under the plaintiffs theory they have the same defenses they are exactly the same so the fact that you have two attorneys presenting the same defenses i don't see how that would delay any saying and then how


test sample sitting around and someone loses sight of it you find fifty samples five years later we better we better finish the test and go for it right so that works unless the prescription


rescind the order if anthem doesn't want to pay they don't have to pay unlike the mcdonald's example so anthem came in and they say we're not going to pay this because it took too long labs run that risk when they run these


about medical necessity but the proof throughout the case was that medical necessity is a matter of opinion doctors can have different beliefs about when a test is medically necessary when a test has value


start i get the idea that it's there in a tough spot particularly if you're allowed to do it past thirty days but six months ten months seems crazy it just looks like five years to me it just seems so beyond anything reasonable but what the what


cite and you look at the actual statute it said that they may determine that there is no basis for liquidated damages and that's what the judge did here he actually spent time on that he went through and said that


case law so there's never an ability to not award nearly no your honor i know other cases it's possible to objectively reasonably believe that an employer is behaving i thought you just


to court made clear that the tribe was not waiving its sovereign immunity they did not open themselves up to a suit for this effort to reporting for fraudulent transfers in they by no


plead that individual officer we did not see to the office during the vigil i mean he didn't say he didn't say i understand individual less than perfect employee i'll give you that yes but i said and then when


reduced from two thousand and nine to two thousand and fourteen this is all context however again mr stearman was not nobody was replaced nobody was ever hired in fact not only was or not and by hired to replace mr


those that sets but we can't reach the assets that are generating the tax liability to satisfy the tax liability that's the type of unjust loss that the alter ego doctrine is intended to to look to remedy the time of the transaction could you have reached


oh if mr holland bought a house for a relative then perhaps that transaction perhaps could be classified as a fraudulent transfer if there were no full and fair exchange eccentrics uttered if you had the debts at


spots you introduce the video that shows her on a certain date and time in there doing a transaction i think that's probably as good as if there was a witness it be a matter of authenticating the video and i don't think there'd be


the decision making at that point was that he was concerned based on the other pieces of information which indicated that firearms had been used the neighbors call to nine hundred and eleven to the dispatcher that he had killed the cat with a


installment of this installment contract has to be treated separately we don't have that state law here so that's why the court in that case said we can't have one tender that applies for the whole claim we have to have each separate tender


properly they found that the the laminate expanded and trapped the dirt under it's self and you found that out by going to an expert what


signs they had some leaflets they did not intend to create a disturbance and there was no information that anyone had to the contrary they we consider the videos part of your pleading you mayor there's the video to show there was yelling from the from your


and created a plan to keep the organizers out of the complaint it was much more than a tip i reserve my time thank you very much


for resisting an obstructing and in fact the plaintiff was bound over on charges in the state cord and so all the malicious prosecution the false arrest claims really ought to go by the wayside that's based on what's on the video how he was


well she was told that right so not quite exactly what i mean it is a little i understand what you said earlier but but she was aware of the parameters she was made aware by the police that's correct her


sentence and stop being dictated largely based on the parole board because what happens is he goes into prison and he serves the minimum now which point he's eligible for a promise my last question could jump in for now but when he gave


grievance process so that's where they went the point is that yes we did accept the grievances because we had to because that's what the dio i am in the c f r says about no time limit so we did take the grievances and we


though so maybe i'm not following you but i think what you're saying is the facebook exhibit was not used for his phone number what was used for it was used for the communications with audiotape or and those are facebook instant message communications


to them that it's discretionary but you're saying that the discretion has to be exercised in a manner that's not arbitrary and capricious there are you saying something else no that's that's that's very that's a fairly good summary ok


helped them get there they said this trust up and now what they basically do you say set it up and they put the in the allowed themselves to do exactly what they were doing from the very beginning and that is living on the property or their lives and they control they control the powers


with that's not much to rest a verdict on we've cited to about ten instances where mr jensen testified differently from his deposition transcripts to his trial transcript and i had to walk up to him about ten times and i cited


about what he thought was reasonable in terms of the rate in terms of the hours he thought some work might have been duplicative problem is he did easy to distinguish prior cases in this area he didn't follow michigan law and


happened after demotion had to do with not working more than eight hours i think the only reasonable inference from this testimony is that at or pitot before the time that she was demoted she had been instructed by mr macleod flynn not to clock in i mean what do we do with the peak


this point to tell me is there a way they could've done what they set out to do without creating these problems so in other words it is it is legit in the abstract to have tax imbedded


believe i mean that's all about the


initial throwing down of the gang symbols for and i think the testimony range from five to twenty minutes that you find the people again you slow down your vehicle you allow your passenger to get out who's carrying a rifle


theory this is this is it it was a strategy to change he said a lot of time in the trash trying to get that gang evidence out and here he not only was trying to move the motives


case i i have looked up some factors in that and obviously it's not in the record before your honor's but there was a case when i say to us about a principle being found not guilty


and once they make it do they have a basis for making it and the answer is dr cohen said dr byrne fields said yes there was bats the basis for their opinion that is contrary


guilty but she she feeling guilty if he's in for seventy six years and she's not going away with skilton but you know why she was found not guilty it wasn't that she wasn't there she was found not guilty because the court believed her


motivation are routine more of corporate civilian life as they are here and yes there are things that we don't want to do or the choir's to do by virtue of accepting point in any context and this is the same thing


decision that then became the director's decision is based on in the conclusion based on the facts in applying the law and i don't think there's any reason to believe that the director does that they don't know


cases mutual control and mutual benefit are the essence of the test for joint employment in fact in the related context of liberal relations we all my supreme court has defined joint employment in terms of control and


penny for penny for every minute that my floyd worked on a three s job so that a certain course decision on the joint claim an issue and the associated arising under issue is wrong and should be her first with


at the evidence even on the manifest weight standard that the manifest way the evidence is clear that they were separate corporations that they were run separately they had separate business they were operated that way that might floyd had ample opportunity to operate the crane


the treating doctor the second treating doctor and dr graff testified that the type of injury and treatment that he had from his prior surgeries would lead to further degeneration at the levels above and below where the fusion site was


but also inherently subjective because they are limited by things like the two are employees report of subjective pain so generally the courts have not look favorably upon taking s t easy out as


employee relied were basically founded on this two to three hour her day work restriction as shown by the pope rehab persons report and both of ok


because his doctor required suggested surgery and employer was not going to pay for any treatment there was a a couple of delays in this case that extended how we got to hearing first


i mean there's your defense to the attack that she's not telling the truth because she could have gotten treat that's exactly what this is but this isn't the situation you you represent in your original argument that they somehow deciding


issued i believe the arbitrator tried to shoehorn in his finding to deny the first claim which was not appealed as a basis for finally have caused ation for the second injury which was a completely different accident date july twenty first two thousand and eight and again


to prepare for that overnight trip and so they are in for that it's of their employer's venture at that point and it seems well you would that if you're going to go that far then when he packed his


buildings and that includes architects engineers and contractors both parties in this case are contractors one is the general and one the sub further there are even cases that have gone so far with one of them being


discussed i don't recall if you were discussed and i think it's also important to recognize that the group be contained a number of different independent grounds for a duty in that case not all of which i think were were


like contracts or agreements or phone syrian or takings or the special circumstances that this court has recognized must involve some element of reliance not there a possibility that there might be of the injured party and rely but a specific


where he fell he said he didn't know i wasn't thinking about it i don't know but when he came there to asking him where he was in relation to his truck he testified in no uncertain terms that it


fifty feet from however many he was he according to his testimony he was moved and therefore that brings the calls to the nexus between the alleged condition that this is diaz saw and what he allegedly fell down and


its time and attention appreciate it thank you


witness identification is no longer valid after the passage of time that would lead to loss of water cold food which results that after a certain amount of days or certain amount of time and all the sudden identification no longer becomes reliable


he's going to get his case heard on the merits solution just like and which frankly the trial court was that was the trial court's position which was do we have to talk about technicalities you know i


fifteen years yes and no constitution there is no common terms to to show but the relationship exists between the parties the transitional regulations that exist between the parties to govern the parties until


the holy simply bishops i see in the second amended organization organization yes is that different then the people's assembly the holy assembly of bishops is


investigation you looked at the victim impact statement you've heard of evidence


for the nineteen and all he had was their vexatious refusal to pay t t d benefits for that period of time when the only opinion was she couldn't work on reasonable or did they feel prove it was reasonable doubt is


that a board cannot rely on only wind down after his testimony been specifically that i think the point is they have to consume all of the testimony but ultimately they can decide who they find to be the


understand i believe some of your clients are neighbors that they live in the neighborhood break it every night and i got if i should've made more clear at foxborough if it was against planned parenthood is is before the court on behalf of its members who live within


these cases has to be looked at independently and if you find a case it's not all force you're probably going to get a prize for it because the various you know such thing now you know counsel is going to get up and say the word is bad and should go away i mean i know that argument i've heard


so i guess i guess if you could explain to me the connection between this prior inconsistent statement and the accountability theory because because there's just no evidence that gene charleston and smith work in concert is to this


books i think i know why but how many school districts participate in the durham program to your knowledge i don't know the answer to that i know throughout the county they do but i don't know how many different school districts are represented


we needed to come forward with evidence when they didn't couldn't get their story straight themselves but parent determined who was residential and who was day don't you pretty see which makes each human gets a huge piece of this equation correct right and


it was actually the most unbelievable story that i had heard practicing worker's compensation law for decades it's not possible that when i first introduced by self to them and then tell me that i would be here


the oldest property that destroyed the over an acre of that land for firm purposes and also that the farmer who was leasing and operating the property had


that there were drainage tiles that existed that if you come cotton over time that's a disputed fact what is undisputed is that they put in new drain tile in october two thousand and nine to drain your half of the property


come in here and ask us to reverse the jury for the guess what standard issue for us to reverse the jury's verdict it is whether or not the jury the jury's verdict was a reasonable one of the facts of the case assuming that the evidence that


but i think maybe maybe the point is all companies seem disqualification you know at the point where the witnesses testimony or the witnesses so we will testify that he or she should not be on the witness stand but otherwise i said before what better testimony could you have than a witness


argued or any statements that court had made on the record there's different factors to consider that are outlined in the case law for the courts to not require to consider every one it's clear that one has the trial


and more specifically in that first whether the trial judge applied an improper standard in determining that there were no issues of material fact and then also with whether the trial judge erred in finding that there were no issues of


no other i hundred piece of evidence is the fact that everyone in the title again including the state's witnesses all said the only plan they had that night was should go to one party and they were about to come home so if you take one step happy


what the weather's like i mean i know what you want to do that you have to do you don't you have to give the other side notice of what you were issue is before you got be and your motion for default did not it's over you don't


by he said that he talked to a police officer to make the decision that the body was no longer needed so we have to sort of make the implication that he didn't talk to anybody want the body and she's got a couple sisters why would they want


the i s l are merely acting as agents for all of these parties they don't have the resources to buy and sell tricity nobody would enter into agreements for the basis for this kind of right to meddle with the courts and the supervisory goodwill litigation that it would be madness


they use the same language if you look at the firefighters they use the same language but the problem is the regulations are implementing that language differently so supervisory administrative is be it well equations


from me did you ask the district court to separate out those two leases at that point and say that as to those because this is pension had been i'm a state that that there should have been a separate independent taking time as to those we did not


anything that had to do with the court or client and all they said was something very simple that the board that the contractor does not have to be bounced around to the contracting officer and then back to go to the board under default


breach of contract action against a private party that precludes a takings action against the government there's simply no authority on that the government expressed he made a decision not to raise that argument here before the appellate court and therefore i would argue that it's waived that it chose not to reveal


how can you have a medical theory how can you say the temporal relationship is appropriate for this type of reaction but the medical theory isn't there how can you say that the medical theory of causation we know that m m r vaccine


come to the ultimate conclusion that the board didn't fact come to which was that this information was not substantial and so prejudicial which is the standard that this quote laid out in stone and mortar and if you go through the factors you find that it does appear to be


importantly the supreme court has said that these statements have to be considered in the context of the entire record they cannot be viewed in isolation just in terms of the posting itself the entire record here establishes that statement run you little bastards reference and you practice by


was never given the opportunity of the investigation stage to explain himself talked to the other with the other trainees and develop that record in a much more detail and fortunately we don't have that investigation so we're at a disadvantage when we're looking at the facts to support


two hundred hours it sounds like a lot but when you really think about it in scale of back you see that that my client testified and all the judge said two thirds what it i know he said two thirds to seventy percent was almost the same the same instructors


wall that there would have been a document that would have come from the central office after the appeal that would that with memorial or his memo requesting approval to pay her higher amount yes and then unfortunately when he


document so what does that mean it means that she is confined only to a general geographical area like a husky she can as her testimony demonstrates


well i don't i really i don't believe the department could go back to classifying these people want to turn know that i mean in terms of future hiring i mean it seems likely that if if they're going to be subject to appeal rights of they're classified as indefinite and


the transfer of assets and liabilities approach because there's a lot history of congress not wanting to encourage trafficking in tax benefits as a reason to merge and section three hundred one of the code is an example that


for the charges or the specifications to the extent that i mean i think that in the in the removal action he did say that it was taking into account the


correct or decision that it was incorrect so that it really takes the whole case out of that specific specification and now the


it is it your position that even if there was a violation of the grifter are back in two thousand and five that we can ignore all that because of everything that happened after the fact the standard for of


the two thousand coffin this report didn't exist but here are we don't know and there's no way to look into the minds of that but i would point out to you and this is kind of goes to an answer to your question that you had asked earlier one of the things that the


of force of any right i was just wondering what do you think the standard or review is that applies to her reading of the memorandum of understanding well i would normally say that it's a clearly erroneous standard as


statements and i would hate to paraphrase to be wrong so i want to find the initial decision and i will in a second but my understanding of it was a he did question his wife and despite his misgivings about whether or not they could actually make that


jobs and that they may have to move to a totally different job which would allow for their limitations or it could be the case that there is no job within the organisation that could work out for them given their limitations


you and i think they do need to read the review drama but this court has admonished many times that especially in a situation like this where you have a negotiated for chairman with the best value component that it it there's not to be a substitution of judgment


incorrectly classified and there's no evidence that anyone has argued that that was what happened that when mr hayden received the g s eleven position in two thousand and ten he should have it should


were spanish speakers and we needed to get rid of a couple spanish speakers there's no evidence of any of that and they simply don't have it so with to answer you what about that the evidence of of the e mails and they say that the tone is


army or the air force let us say and they say hey how do you guys do it at centex that you pack all the planes with all that stuff and he says all we do this this and the said at fedex and you know you are we the reason why we have a reservist military is we want them


conceive of a scenario in which the board could back away from credibility terminations associated with our of alga stepha can stand can all testifying consistently that the decision but the credibility determination was oddly was


the post downloaded post parse post compiled code they're talking about the server side code in a markup language


it may be determined if the properties define a command for the event if no command is defined for the event the no branch of decisional step leads to the end of the process


shells change was february two thousand and nine and as we say the reply brief in two thousand and seven e p a did lower the amount of benzene that was allowed in gasoline so this is one major benefit of the patent you take reformation that has been


record i want to return to point one that i made which is the point that she gets an evidentiary hearing a lot of the arguments that are made and there is a summary of it there's a list of them and i think we've responded to them in our brief


testimony is found on a four thirty five


and it's online so if you start a line for it says question ok and you did consider whether there were any kind of alternative sanctions that might have been applied here seven answer i did not and she continued


every single day i wasn't sure what the task order i know what an option is that's what each one needs to redefine and i know what a contract is like the general schedule contract but i wasn't sure what a task order is feasibly those two


where you have an alternative ground that you didn't put in an alternative legal basis for the conduct that you have involved that you can't pressure on rina and if so what cases or case says that


important issue finally i think that the special master ignore a substantial circumstantial evidence case reproach which he should've given


by the school systems our own procedures you have a look what happens there if they if they make a determination of no foul what happens what's the significance of that they send that to the school system and then the school system can use it


regulations or basically say if you any employee sees something that may be considered child abuse you don't have to come to the conclusion that it's child abuse but if you see an a touching that you think is


and if they did occur what is the evidence to suggest that the penalty in this case is unreasonable or not usual in this kind of a situation


sort of getting an m b a i think what senator carl levin testified to is people would come in and tell them that this was proprietary and he would say i understand and they would show the star of or the materials or whatever to them anyway


perhaps if the people board was issuing a decision that was completely outside of its authority or based on something it didn't have statutory authority to do that that decision would be reviewable as well so congress needs to be


this statute was that it allows the secretary of veterans affairs to remove senior executives from the department for among other things poor performance alone that is a change from prior law before this provision was in acted a senior executive could be


with consistency so again i understand the point i think though that we all ought to be obliged to follow congress's directive to provide for a very fast administrative hearing and twenty one days although very fast consistent with the rules that the board has


and and this court also gave it credit that he fired mr mccarthy based on his legal memoranda so that factual finding has already been made there's no reason to go back and start all over again and over and see this court


the government took over negotiations with morgan stanley and goldman sachs there is disputing the record as to why did it but there is no dispute in the record that they took over those negotiations and that they


or is it enough for me to decide that it was a rational interpretation of the set of regulations and of the the sequence of events that there was an error do i have to decide that there was press


but if that person is not being deployed then you have to say well he's none the less supportive a military operation because he's replacing somebody who's engaged in a military operation or


in support of military operations likely your honor yes yes it's a military operation as if it's if the military is only likely if military out your honor if the


that every single person called to active duty is automatically entitled to not just the standard fifteen days but the extra twenty two days is it your view that the statute gives every single person called to active duty regardless of


easy for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the complex system of sky with the mobile terminal of pilots to arrive at the claim one for example the three five seven pad there's nothing to support that statement in his initial declaration


undeniable that scott had all of the limitations of the those claims except for a handheld device scott had a laptop that had gooey control doing interaction and control of irrigation equipment


as the board stated as lindsey has conceded is not sufficient to change the shape of the goo itself because it's the border is the outer border of each building they were most concerned about and it's where the reason joiner we ask this court to reverse the


well what else is there to do with the statutory assertion that forty three twelve any together give a white


really he hasn't articulated a reason why remain and would be appropriate for the hostile work environment clean he just hasn't even then it's an issue of burden of proving that the agency had some sort of


things relate to the structure of that database just like in fish was focused on the structure of the database it was a set it's not this is not a self referential database but it still is focused on the structure of the database how you orient the database


may be that the agency isn't title to to test everybody who was involved in the lift your position is that because of the peculiar circumstances of supervisor hope that was


make sure you don't do it this way then why is that not in continuous use if you're following that advice because the materials development case at ninety seven says continuous use means


will read it's necessarily the case that is it it is just an inherent showing of finding that the board rate here well i don't believe it is your honor i think judge moore asked me earlier


with the identifier is the name of the product product category several to appeal to or manufacturer website that next sentence starting at line two in column twenty three many other data fields are also possible


paragraphs one forty one forty one that this is a method this is a process to do in its right after injection molding processes so the board was guided eminently so by this court's clear jurisprudence


there is reasoning and then there is a conclusion that comes from that reasoning in the conclusion is what went into the claim charge and what the court says if the ha does not define intervals when the hub will transmit to the remotes and when each remote will transmit multiple


to go forward it was not often used but it was viable was it ever used i guess at that's the question the question is there a situation where it whether you sero a whistleblower where


was a full hearing and they were unable to prove their allegations so that it's in similar situations when they come back with the same evidence the board can't ignore that would happen in the first proceeding


by the record not just by dr dyer but by the prior art references and so here's the way it went in summary and i'm happy to point you to specific references there was art about interactive mixtures


specific that it could enter add and or adverse judgment or those actions would be considered an entry of adverse judgment but then when it came to the issue of voluntary disclaimer it was clear that that would only occur


of the court expressively holds in the very next sentence so i may have a claim construction that is based upon judicial notice a claim construction that i would assert is wrong in light of evidence that was in the record on the summary judgment motions that was before the court at that time when in the


adequate structure in a claim term one reads that claim term in light of the intrinsic record to see if there is adequate structure disclosed in the end that intrinsic record and sometimes in a case like this if the word program is used


pointer using the new invention that's not before the court so we get to the elements about midway through the claim period secularly graphical user interface executes one or more function this by the completion of the


technical sophistication understanding of technology and engineering if then moves on to consider testimony by s p i as corporate representative witness was advocate who says when asked what level


not required or mandated by the specification and then there's they're trying to use it as a subsequent panel for the board recognized to distinguish between certain intervening components but not others so i think that


agree it's possible to have a single logical circuit that's very large for two things that have absolutely no sort of information chip whatsoever that's a different question from whether or not sticking the memory in between two things obstruct the control a ship because it


decisions that say that the same term across multiple planes should ordinarily be read consistently and that's omega versus rate hike and the upright tubes of claim fifteen to define corners of the baby crib and whose outer walls define an outer


the what is dealt with in this case is a question of how three point one five sixty operates what was contemplated by the secretary when he wrote that


second that problem required a technical solution to facilitate the delivery of an upgraded public and private data from disparate websites and third that solution in the seven fifteen patent as was the case in


to the office action it was made clear that it doesn't include its foliation or let's just and i know you might have an argument that says that that's not right reading but let's just assume for the moment that


pointed not to a vague incorporation by reference cause and i agree it's very ambiguous you pointed not to the eight seven eight one seven disclosure alone but to the patent see point to the patent he pointed to those to those very two columns columns fifty and fifty


so we're really doing it whole cloth if i could touch on claim twenty five for a moment this is actually an important aspect of the invention what claim twenty five says is that the engine torque in the system is not to be


briefly and usually brief the that the conclusion that the board reached was that our experts testimony on motivation essentially was on support but it would be in our view respectfully improper


with customs in continuing this conversation that they are free to do so and ultimately at the end of that process customs will liquidate their entry and at that moment they can protest with addition and again come to the trial where and under subpoena graph a and because there are these two


based directly on construction the the board found that the matching arbitration number and matching random numbers and so neither for her is required is a necessary condition for memory to be printed under any


palace he's talking about the extended release coatings of the invention and he says there continues it's a continuous film which would support going all the way around but he also says it's permeable


the other embodiment either because the last element of claim fifty one has you checking the van to determine if it's authentic right so this transferring of fun stuff in claim fifty one the last piece of it that's based on whether or not the van is authentic under their


have to cosign on your note did not have any authority to appoint her to anything and if petitioner claims that there was a failure to appoint then a failure to appoint really amounts to a failure


way to make an express request as you would need to know this case in the express for christe ultimately was made even though the box was never checked no your honor and express request would need to be a clear and unambiguous request so so it


that's right and there is no reason to think that congress wanted us to continue to live with this broken process going forward intil every application filed before two


case basis and determine whether the pat knapp in that act reasonable i have three three points to make on the air on one first of all just because setting a general rule if that gives saying that general goes against the statute you're outta


army and the accreditation board if you go on to paragraph sixteen and count two again it's clear that the allegations all all come back to determination for employment same thing with count three same thing with count for us


just giving you more reasons to defer to h h s is the church determinations under chevron and finally the contract point congress can change its mind judge moore is completely correct that congress whatever that does to the statutory claim that gives


exceptional circumstances became but you have said nothing that even comes close to answering my question you well because what you've just told me is the fact congress decided to do it my question was are they allowed to


because of the oral instructions and the fact that the jury did the right thing in the first instance the sum of the moment says if the jury does the right thing in the first instance you have to go with what the jury said but i don't understand why the judge has to accept your


notwithstanding that it was untimely based on his interpretation of rule three to actually say so this was not a decision based on the district court setting an additional rule sixteen deadline whether in an order or verbal yet the hearing and therefore five not filing binding


component and that is the carve up here provided that the album will be allowed to make has me use design manufacture distribute and sell to any third party that the op was standard register the other standard register it is merely


you say they excluded it is i read the record i mean it seems that at one point it was sent back by the board in may of twenty twelfth and they are at least the record says the board found that the opinions with the fish and not probative


not fully and accurately analyzed the record but i think this is and they still didn't satisfy the remain and order because they never got us right which i diagnose and we don't we don't challenge that on appeal that is in the veterans court's decision we're not


as a class whether we call it unsaturated h f c's or whether we call it follows it doesn't make a difference and so the semantics is i think where the board got on the wrong


agency has taken is that the analogous rating provision covers not only i guess unless the conditions in the set in the sense of your hypothetical if it's a joint that's not listed in the diagnostic code schedule but also


prematurely conclude the evidence lacked showing up in service occurrence without first make a credibility determination of the layout of this that's not limited just to the in service statements that these events are being being drugged and taken to a camp


sixty by the case law and accepted you know as not entitle ing someone to sixty b really what am i missing oh well your honor the cases are clear as as i said that attorney gross negligence can be a


of the a an agency is looking for a sort of an isolated and you know what we're doing is a perfectly rational reasonable interpretation and we think there is a broader e p a problem here that requires the court and the engines we should have looked


to start with a reset as to what the dispute as to the scope of this claim terms at the district court very clearly at the claim with traction state and again at the summary judgment


retroactive evaluation of the disability that's what these two medical records did they reviewed that disability the disability that he was granted service connection for and the


however on the basis of the record that was before the veterans court which included non realistic consideration of dr schwartz opinion was dr mcnamara's opinion so efficient as a


of how they read it how the lawyer that represented the time read it and i think even how the government read what is unsaid here is what happens in the case of a default in terms of the government's obligations this court has already ruled on that in the massive decision because those terms are


pro veteran canon of construction comes into play only when all of the chevron analysis has already been exhausted but doesn't that mean ultimately that at least in


we don't have the guns this gun that supposedly mr murray somehow did this and shot himself in the back of the head and i can't even do with my finger with only a gun somehow he did that and shot himself in the back and well


grounded in the claim language in the specification but it clearly has and and this court's opinion on the merits the first time around expressly recognize and at page eight thirty one seventy four which is the slip up of the of the opinion this court's opinion on the merits


situation in which the veteran sees a report and says this doesn't make any sense and then questions whether or not look if you look at it but the v a is a more sophisticated body i mean why put the


talking about vaccines and their ill effects remember c f s is a diagnosis of exclusion you have to have six months of it before you can get to the diagnosis and you have to eliminate other


member in hindsight i agree with you your honor we have four days of very long testimony and i'm sure it's looking that we there are questions we wish we had asked but i believe that the evidence in this case is


were related to the seven year lease extension memorialized in the seventh amendment the other three transactions were tiny compared to that very large transaction so the commissions my client were entitled to on those three small


in this case actually that's our position yes that the amount they're asking will result in a huge profit margin after the rosie is paid and such a tiny one for us and it


principles the contestant was robbed of being judged and with this come there are certain examples that mr frankel provides in his brief for example flipping coins throwing darts on the wall those would be clear violations if that was uncovered in this case a persuasive


important language here there's a distinction between a claim and all of the underlying elements or factors that make up that claim and here mr so this is claim was for a claim for service


or gradation curves where they take and test some of the material that comes out of the borings to determine its grain size critically in this case the profile of the bottom was


decision so you can't challenge the v a s adjudication of something through to you unless we first start from the point as this court has has explained that she is a


the second thing is that i c p i think said that i


so you can't bring it up now that's a legal error because that is extending this is this issue exhaustion idea to something that was reasonably before the board of actions appeals and more importantly than that it's a legal requirement of d n a so that's illegal or but to answer


is your honor it is going down the line of reasoning that the department of veterans affairs is using that ms dickens has to raise this duty that v a hats there's a clear misunderstanding of that that's


have to be in or i definitely think you can do it as a panel because this is new statutory language that has never been interpreted by this altruistic personal jurisdiction over the personal jurisdiction point i do think that you can do it as a panel because our


i'm trying to find a linkage between your second round of funding and the interests of the government well i'm not sure that there is an interest


individuals or persons putting them here we generally speaking your honor each of the one hundred ninety two transactions involved one partnership l l c and generally it was one individual's


squabble would apply and that's because maybe i was wrong when i refer to not mutual issue preclusion in fact since it's just the diversified group and paper that is the penalized


for the reasons and bases that they articulate the correct standard it is certainly regrettable that the the board used that language in one place in different language the


or greenland yes greenland is a semi autonomous i understand it so so it could be either but that but either one of those is ok and so you read that and then you read that in combination with the language that


from danish sources hundreds of sources in this picture and we simply wanted to make the point that in the r c the r p only required offers to maximize our contract related purchases


roberson or any of those are going to exist but all that just to start being concrete about it and and i guess working backwards since we were just talking about the doesn't notice of disagreement what do you what is the


here is trying to get sperber ask a question of the early stage of the claimant that might cause the claimant to think maybe this is what's wrong with me or if i say it this way we can understand everything better and the ball gets rolling quick of the bus goes down the


that there's just no basis in the record every we explained in our briefing and i can certainly touch on that more but we explained in our briefing why each of the reasons that he raised in the both decision in this order


that declaration and mr dickson statement and medical records were not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling and that case was brought up to this court because the the secretary had denied mr dixon


court as well as the veterans court's decision itself i think you can look at the fact that we stated that we needed medical opinion on the potential medical significance of the slate statements that were submitted we argued that that


court tells us explicitly that in determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious neither the particular motivation nor the valid purpose of the patent he controls what


secondly the doctor johnston's declaration was all premised on the proposition that lab tech was limited to a pair or a lid ministration for dissolution in


by the court and was not addressed at less all by the war that goes to our second argument under seventy one of four a that the court primitive the board to rely upon total speculation


the v a is required to additionally consider section four point four zero to see whether there is any additional bases for functional loss such as pain lack of insurance lack of coordination lack of speech and that situation we have here


which also it's a very good copy and that's from the same doctor dr james placing an irish history of present illness it actually says he suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome


can separate the first question about whether it's in extraordinary circumstances from the question of whether someone was prevented from fallon whether he was prevented from filing does not turn on what he


benefit you have a choice to incur the benefit and sue for for compensation or you can choose to forego the benefit and sue for what they would have paid and i don't think the


in a criminal trial even over the objection of the defense counsel and you know as always of the right to testify how do we know that didn't happen here meaning how do we know it wasn't praise lawyer fully anticipating that mr prey was going to testify that mr prey got cold feet


the defendants believe they do have a consent defense that that would be the essential issue with respect to what everybody else in the class but not your client but it just seems that you have to make an individualized question regarding the consent i mean how can like be sure


is a different question than whether there was a controlling opinion yes and my only point is that i'm not asked i'm not suggesting the court should willy nilly cast off everything that has come before it clearly what the supreme court said the


is going to say no relief and another player in that sense is to say no really and the concurrence is going to say no relief right in that circumstance i think yes just a sort of my oars concurrence is the rule that will apply against the more narrow of the rule it's it's a common sense


that's already been provided it's a it's the one piece that vibration didn't resist in producing so i think that whatever requirement there is for the court to consider that it was considered here i certainly don't think there'd be a reason to remain and to state explicitly what the


submitted by fire engine about the cost and found it not credible because of certain statements in the affidavit but nonetheless work with the parties to significantly limit we believe the discovery requested really the discovery that's at


carve out eighty five zero and by the way two years later the california legislature added to carve out similar to what we have in our buckle they added that there was no collateral estoppel effect if the findings were


fundamental standards of relevancy require the admission of testimony which tends to prove that a person other than defendant committed the crime that is charged it's just a it's but again you're drifting into this per se area you have to concede


it's such an easy rule to say and such a difficult rule to apply and in court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted you know and when you have multiple layers of hearsay each one of them have to meet a separate exception and that is because


excerpts of record page twenty five where the truck court said and they do not challenge us on appeal courts and quote point is do not contend this statement my mr wrenn constitutes a threat in itself then quote all he said was have you


could be but again on the record of the case there is no testimony there's no evidence that the distinction between a problem and charlie designation had anything more to do than the order in which they will be adjust they're all considered to be important issues


that precludes any finding to the contrary but again on the evidence of the case here mr pease was not involved in the decision to discipline or terminate nor was he nor were the decision makers aware of this argument that


and at that board meeting of sea shepherd australia they resolved to take you know you give me a lot of details about the not some bulls i didn't ask you that question you asked it was his choice at the time we should


two preceding campaigns what had happened was the sea shepherd vessels would find the japanese vessels the japanese vessels would stop whaling and take off and so that in the prior in operation divine wind which was a one


hundred miles an hour exactly so why don't you know where the telephone company is liable because they set up a system that allows the correctional officers to engage in a violation assuming for the purpose of my question it's a violation but i don't see how the


calls were being monitor your honor that's not what i said well said we know with all that he was aware that the calls were being monitored where of the potential i think that's the fundamental


as well as every other circuit that's considered the issue is that if you file an successive class action that doesn't operate to toll your stats or limitations you can piggyback a class action to


cases where the label does not foretell the result i think i think the court has said that it is a rare case that does survive strict scrutiny as we've seen with uli was such a case that can occur that can occur there is


white then you're talking about involvement in in a judicial candidate own campaign but in some parts two through five we're talking about arizona's talking about keeping digital candidates for sitting judges out of trying to influence


and and i can speak to this rich variance but i think as bank you can't do it doesn't the legality of campaign initiatives often come before the courts in arizona if you every two years if you look at the superior court decisions in the supreme court decisions there are challenges


with with respect it did not applaud work or criticize it simply neutrally reported the fact in the footnote that this case had had raised ranjit also mentioned realtek and of audio and the it didn't come out one way or the other in fact the federal circuit


any rates that resulted from a circumstance where nobody had too big a market share were just unreasonable and the commission had a doing that for decades and that is fine again but but given that you've acknowledged that there can be raids that aren't just


but it is not the verbiage that a witness testifying as a lay opinion witness who had demonstrated or testified to fact showing adequate familiarity would would use somebody who was adequately


say low level mid level high level no i agree it doesn't but back to my point isn't there a conflict of interest that sort of created in the government think the government is trying to save money


within his intent if you look at that little excerpt he just said if somebody is convicted they get zero and there was no nuance there was no shading it's unfortunate that we don't have more to


end for instance in morse the court of ari granted he sent the case arbitration it was just retained jurisdiction that you're not proceeding to take it back and tossing you out which i have no disagreement just i'd have an application in my mind to this particular set of facts let me ask the question


tested positive for residue even though they hadn't handled a gun if the jury heard that the jury did not hear that but they heard wrist o's testimony where he carefully explained to them that just because these particles were there didn't mean that gonzales


indication that he has expenses of litigation as counsel certainly does this was hard fought and counsel would be compensated if if the plaintiff prevailed but i can't see


actions can be brought under the theory as you describe well i think these these cases do that your honor i mean it depends on the allegations part of the problem is that a lot of times we have plaintiffs bringing claims like this one where standing is suspect where


not taken away from him it was decided that it couldn't proceed on a class basis which i think is correct and that's you know another argument that's been made but i think the wal mart case and the cosco case pretty clearly shows that the class


that you're aware of from california court of appeal on other companies where it's kind of a mixed white one reason you call cripple a is to get your car taken care of another reason is they know which garage is reliable enough to take care your flat


defendant's conduct is that sufficient when you look at the entire process i think that should be a highly realistic approach well what is what are the facts we have three years of day


therefore i think any way you look at the wall then what walton tells us you have to come down and say there are no significant contacts that would permit specific personal jurisdiction


gave icann a monopoly position in in these markets and we think that puts icann in these markets for purposes of the case law that requires a monopolist to be in competition the d l c did not give icann


right of my client be decided in state court they to maintain control it was dragged into the bankruptcy court so i don't but i'm just i'm asking a legal question let's assume that we find that notwithstanding your argument that these transactions later having been


thousand and twelve may two thousand and twelve and when is the bankruptcy protection filed it was filed i think i should know the answer to that you're right how how long after i'm going to say it was sometime later


of the of the bankruptcy so forth and under twenty eight us the one fifty seven today it isn't listed jurisdiction is it listed as a core proceeding in front of where the bankruptcy court can decide


that remand was proper but that's really not factually correct in terms of the record we conceded that from the beginning of the case it was always conceded that notice was put in the in the record in the undisputed


of shell's interests here are contract interests and of course it's basic law that contract interests and property interests are not the same and in fact if you look at some of shell's own case if they contradict what they're saying the mcleod versus quest


individual comment that you just made there the only evidence in the record of any specific statement was exactly that quote i'm surprised you could make it out of bed that's just not a just especially


veto i mean you have to you you you don't ve don't argue the statue not face is content by the face of it's officially neutral ordinance your honor but from which the underlying facts fully one can


judge wright considered in dismissing the case and as i was saying we have a situation here where they are setting the scenario removing the obstacles offering the


getting lost on the argument in the sense that it doesn't make sense to me to say it is not necessary or appropriate to include a separate state measures


there's no evidence in the record that california is relying heavily on waiver measures for filling that tonnage production because that's for moving forward at least in the context of ozone where the attainment of life is still ten years out so i just want to clarify that there is a distinction between


see that concern in term interference cases where it's deciding which particular party gets a patent there's no real public interest in who gets a patent we have a public interest in the funding decisions as dependability that the agency makes but we have less of an interest in defending


that the courts claim construction intended to measure of the broadcast by the human perceiving the event that i'm answering your question on a yeah right i guess i am still it still


and that in so far as it goes is true the physical element themselves if they were operating some way different than the fire are certainly could be programmed a person were next on the earth would understand them to do something else but the


prior art but the result of that would be the claimed invention for that reason like those cases this is a question for this court to review de novo the conclusion that the board came to after its factual findings that set


thirty eight u s c section seventy two sixty one and a provides that the veterans court is required to decide all relevant questions of law to the extent necessary to its decision and when presented and


without being able to speak to every set of circumstances that might be come before the b p a in this court i will say in this particular set of circumstances the board examined all of the evidence that was available to it and in this case without having an actual mormon says i you know you


well to the extent there's a legal issue about whether or not section three point one five three point one five five a conflict with the rovers and comber and movie line of cases that's simply not the case the court addressed that issue in


in this case the veterans court is trying to evade this court's jurisdiction by ignoring the court's president decisions as in harris the court is trying to avoid review of its decision by this court by pretending


construction as a current insufficient to operate a device we think that complies exactly with what monsoonal says you need the higher power to operate the device the issue is the construction of the claim


here is that the individuals that were named titular lee as the deciding fishelson opposed dest no discretion no authority for example to exempt anyone from the furlough which means that


template letters they had there were i think a few to couple different template letters they could modify the letter they couldn't modify the decision that is there was no authority contrary to


up these rights away so we could have an efficient rail system across the country and then have to have a situation where someone could transfer that property in a way that is antithetical to the other uses so for instance you've got a hundred strip of land


considered throwing the hearing in many submissions in the end he found that the false testimony had to be balanced against the interest in finale the jury's verdict


issue years i think ten foreign counterparts to distribute patent that exist so it didn't even specify the us it just said we want information in damages for anywhere else


the there is no dispute whatever that the ten years that my client spent litigating in germany was perfectly diligent on his part there's no one saying that he deliberately slowed it down or anything


the outright lied about it multiple times mr rena denied all three of those charges up until the eve of his age a mystery judge hearing at which point he finally conceded the first two but he continued to deny the charge for


disagree they had clear and convincing burden so i think that's where we are now on the question of the waveform patent infringement i believe is old really making two arguments one point construction and one on the evidence


that led to the personal jurisdiction decision and certainly there are the district court has wide discretion with respect to sanctions for misconduct and here we have with respect to the pleading before the district court we


that reason because the both of those limitations are missing from claim twenty eight claims twenty eight is not interested aided in the claims that depend from claim twenty eight are also not anticipated because they include all of the limitations of independent claims twenty


and that's what sort of discloses at the bottom here where sent a message to the doctor so if there is a system identifies a problem with the patient notify the doctor so that could be a problem with compliance is that with the new element excuse me it could be


a comprehensive patient management system in the interim from home via the internet and they also say they can use a c p m cd rom or d v d because i say they can come back to provide organization for example if they don't have access


patient that's not possible with a printed piece of paper that requires electronic access so that the computer system can determine when the patient logged on in access or treatment information and the system can then determine whether the patient is complying with the treatment finally


that decision on a technicality by arguing its appeal as to whether or not the board properly into both the will right with the question of whether or not it's reviewable is a technicality i guess in some solar but not really not from a reset here so why don't we turn


countenanced the the decision by district courts to deal with these patents under twelve the six months in the court knows that under certain circumstances there's no fact finding and there's no expert opinion and more


with respect to the district courts jury instruction improper interpretation of the jury instruction i would just add that that improperly creates a legal fiction that


process argument that adidas made with respect to flatten its structure which is ignored flat edges which is that imparts structural differences when you flatten it an edge or when you omit a stage to create an aperture as


seed and because of that it creates these properties of not only supporting the soil that it wanted to find also supports the seed so all of these you know the border is already overly generous in its claim construction here but even if we gave and kept


we do in congress enacts new law they fully aware of for example that the grand factors in the john deere case which require an obviousness context the patent owner be able to show that there that their claims are not obvious over the prior art of record


establish that there is a legally adverse interest fees to be in direct infringement contributory or induced infringement as opposed to just use of this is one of the elements for direct


properly found as a matter of fact that it was implicitly denied here seems a step too far i'm not sure that's correct i believe under this case but this court's decision and morgan that is not a step too far that morgan says that when congress changed


skilled in the art look what it plays into this it doesn't matter that's what the problem of the patent is solving is spilled which is i think properly construed to me accidental spills so who cares whether it


wants to extend that to operate as i would be delighted and i don't think there's anything preventing you from doing so i'm just telling his starkly the court seems to have adopted a different rule for operators and


true but it should be better exactly what you have to decide are they entitled to priority this is a c i t it's not a continuation so obviously there is the matter added and so does the new


pathways so you have this three tiered structure with a comic conductive pathways and the opposite or different electrodes let me pause for minix i think i can dress one of the other questions the panel raise there with


never ruled on that factual issue finding it unnecessary because the rightly financed expenses themselves were larger than the lost revenues previously awarded so our contention is your honor that the only thing the trial court


from the rest of the transmission of information yes if at the end of the frank so there will be a beginning flag at the beginning of the frame and then frame at the end of the frame so what figure is this i'm sorry this i believe is figure dates


transmit and if the thought was well there must be some transmission from a by mode or every remote of course their position is that they don't need to be one remote a random remote to get a pen remote it might be the first time like the time when they don't know they don't care


design aspects that are protected bill and which ones aren't so i could kind of understood archy fall off though is suggesting function functionality re something you looked at with regard to overall design not a parsing of elements so tell me


question of functionality


describing those steps and if those steps are not followed then the resulting compound is either is either degenerate story or


referred to the cases including enzo referred to by opposing counsel where in those cases what happened wasn't that the district court found that and assignment that was originally executed was invalid what they found


want to say that means something there for sure and i believe that the way that district court reached that result was they looked at the language that whereby mr kerik transferred and assigned the patent


was the quote mean it may in y close quote purchasers would be able to distinguish these marks that's the t t a b s find it so if the gift giving relatives and fair weather fans go away the


been disrespectful have played games and have ignored his rights to have his climbing her head to have his opportunity to have a decision made on whether or not his problems


the point of connection is offset from that extreme and by as much as ten percent so it's your position that even that language that the judge actually used in the construction could have been broader when he actually did


wrong under the text of the statute that it's you know it's not an element of the offense that the jury has to be unanimous on whether it was a building or a dwelling if it's not only is


edwards pleas hearing which is the only one on the record the judge never even uses the word dwelling in reference to the crime he only what i did an admitted to the probable cause the factual basis did me use the complaint to the probable plan i'm not sure if you did personally know usually the lawyers do in wisconsin so


that it's also at that point that the trooper makes the first inquiry about the availability of a police service dog and how far that is way again at that point the only grounds of reasonable are to cool suspicion to extend


decision to the agency and the agency decider around for a while them for some reason decided to publish the interim rule it relies on this need of urgency and protection but are all government agencies who are required to youth


there were two errors at the v a number one they treated petitioners asylum case and withholding case as a derivative case regarding to the fear of her children against female genital mutilation f


proceedings no i'm not saying so good but you have the brief you have the record and you're now representing him here so you you have to show how this claim was presented yes your honor that in the only thing i can point to in the record are the


facts as a whole when you look at the oh i see serious thing there were facts there that could have supported an argument yes you're making now but they didn't make the legal are the legal argument was implicit at the b


parent from their children being subjected to f c m was the fourth circuit and nine persons alice and their they rejected that claim they said that psychological harms alone to a parent are not sufficient to rise to a level of persecution to


find out how the courts have ruled on this if one at the contract is vague and two there is no custom and practice i know they argue that there was but there wasn't because of the times this one a fact on january twenty seventh he was terminated on january thirty first there was no


as an organist has been raised to my knowledge right here today what claim i'm sure the claims of the other people besides mr he gets the other four or the other three personally i think that has all been waived i also think something that was said the days inn


the rats diagnosis she typed she tends to roll in and want to be a massive exposure again she always quantified that and she also admits that it was plaintiff's history history upper illness respiratory illness like your bronchitis things


fourth they talk about they don't use the word per person if they'd wanted to say it was fifty thousand one hundred thousand dollars per plaintiff they should have said per person per person is a normal


is you know and that's one of the procedural questions that we point out in our brief and i think the confusion there comes from how did the appellant plead this appeal and she states that this appeals an appeal


point one is very clear on that so we'd have a constitutional problem as well as your wheelbase problem if the district court were to go in a different direction and say there's additional evidence that would allow me to revoke you beyond what's alleged in the petition in the particular bases the


establishes anything other than people are unhappy about what happened in therefore they're putting mr rainy back in prison well they're unhappy because at some level maybe not a level that we can reach but definitely he's being dishonest with them


will be a bad day for due process when you can allege one violation a litany of information a policy and then be told that a revocation hearing we're going to revoke you in here is wise and it


represent apple e burnet realty the real estate broker in this lawsuit i'm speaking on behalf of all the apple leaves the various other defendants and developers who are apple used in this manner we requested oral argument


liability all the way well your honor in maybe i'm just confusing the terminology you know you could either be an inducement clan that lana lakes induce these people or it could be of a curious claim that they authorized it you know there's nothing vicarious the claim


evidence of a lashing and the court found that field relied heavily on that report for all of his analysis but he ignored the portion that said the crates were last and you know basically said he picked him and he you know he just picked and


overload in a static position that's the dynamic loading that vecchio was talking about and we said that in the brief that there were dynamic events that could have gone over rough switches that could have been could've been any number of things all we do


which will stand up to whatever overload we put on that's he said again in his testimony and the court bought into it what that means is that union pacific is left with nothing


exists to provide a case by case out for people who have religious objections but it what is the substantial burden the substantial burden is the same as it was for hobby lobby


today and certainly not the federal government can decide what a person's conscience should allow and what it shouldn't club that the only judge of that


straightforward and brief cases submitted we will take it under consideration


and while it is true that the pre sentence report says that mr wong was a career offender he's really not a group and because he was sentenced in this case under that the police agreement which did not provide any rationale for him being her


don't have the information we get these packages of all convictions and when you compare the judgment and the police document in the police document it sets forth that he waives a reading of the information and then he


information also said to with bob's konica correct i mean there's no reason to believe that the information charging the same statutory provision burglary in violation of kansas statute would be worded


the wording of the complaint and the wording of what he pled to are are the same are identical and i don't think that we can use that complaint and rely on that complaint to figure out which crime he was actually convicted up then


individual chapter eleven debtors or whether it did and we thought that you had the problem because everything that has that could be said on the subject has been written well that and i come here with all due respect


to do and and if if if she said there's a protective order with the permission i can't remember what inquiry he made in january that with a relatively minor well but it became the pre writing the the the basis of the eventual


particular case he has to show that there is substantial material evidence that there was a meeting of the minds and that there was an agreement between the defendants and he has to have some material evidence that that the that there was an understanding


that's correct but that is definitely your honor but again that's a that's a development that's occurred in the very recent past so i was referring more to


that congress understood that eight hundred seventy two acted not diminish the reservation and and it didn't do so in the eight hundred eighty two act either and of course as we set forth in our brief it couldn't have because the boundary was changed i mean some of the land that would have been out of the


moment that my client jorge rojas oliveira is a devil the record does reflect that he was connected to the distribution of approximately one hundred twenty five to one hundred fifty five pounds of methamphetamine he made threats to kill people


please the court my name is bryce brewer and i'm here today on behalf of the family actually it's the special ministre jimmy gladden on behalf individually on behalf of the family members of the late bradley scott glad and we're here


just it does not qualify under the e p a well let me ask you let me let me follow up on that point which is you seem to be making the point and i might be misunderstanding and i'm not quite following but that future dangerousness judge low can mention under


strongest out issue checks and litigation that were conditioned on the plaintiff giving up certain rights including possible penalties that would have been involved obviously those communications prompted commute prompted communication between counsel and


early the roads that we've identified in this complaint and there are you know you always get disputes as to who built it but i want to address a couple of issues raised by this court and i think one


they ought to at least go through factors and explain themselves especially in the cases where it's obvious that someone really really tried hard to so so you're


so there are people who are disabled but do things that they should be given their disability because they have no alternative i think in this case the l g didn't rely totally on their activities you


which reeves was placed here in this one day between this statement than them the record reflects from reaves response to the court's questionnaire and his allegations that


violates its agreement with famous it does bother me if our bureau violates the contract it has with our clients and you say that the non waiver agreement that not preclude waiver of the proof


why he made the best evidence objection at trial saying the best evidence is the tape why that equipment wasn't used is because it's not portable it's


degradation that happens when you switch from one medium to another we believe that the government bore a greater burden under brady to make it truly available this was not notes that might have been available


sometimes was a week that would go by and not one single person would stay in this place i think that judge should be looked at all of the the evan it's from the various witnesses and came up


government could insist on the id for months in its and or the government could say that it would be satisfied with a sentence that falls between sixty and eighty four and if there is that ambiguity doesn't it need to go back to the


shows is that the court and the parties were under the misunderstanding at the time based on the law as to what the statutory mean atory minimum was that misunderstanding does not equivalent equal a


cases but yes he's you prefer us to address the third robbery or not because one way you could look at the third robbery in the firearm and say well you for forty you didn't raise this and we should say just wasn't raised or we could should say it's


conducting a custodial interrogation we do demand all of those protections exist but here what the government is essentially asking is for there to be an exception to an arrest warrants that whenever the police arrive or the search


if johnson applies to the career offender provision which the department says it dies then it's not a difficult question and i agree are there is there no possibility that there would be sheppard documents


what judge jarvis is reading to you sounds like it says the portion of the definition that they don't comply with is only the part that you can't perform the material duties not that there's has or hasn't been a significant change is that right or wrong


condition of you to fact as to whether it was ever clean correct because even though there is testimony that it was it was a lot right that's it i don't mean though those some of those people specifically recall i looked at one here if we


that's been applied in this context so i don't we spend a lot of time in the ministerial exception to answering the question i'm sorry your honor what's the evidence that major actually was there and saw us aside from the ministerial exception there is no evidence that he directly


given are those things that were logged in or is that from their testimony it's from there under their testimony which has not been disputed in any way i would also say this with regard to the i a e a report the i report who could dispute it other than


ministerial duty idea i agree with you judge mckeague this is kind of a head scratcher for me when this came up i do a fair amount of qualified community work and i had not run into this i found nothing the six circuit that would apply this and the cases they cite for the


and the court went on to hold essentially that the state courts determination that an instruction wasn't warranted was only relevant as to the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance claim before the court this ensures that we can't hear behind the reasoning of the


direct here sure the direct evidence is essentially everything leading up to this crime occurring basically because this crime resulted from the victim taking some drug buy


said i think when we talk about reasonableness of a state court decision i think looking at the fourth circuit decision of leave versus clarke is really helpful because they do an excellent analysis there but in terms of the prejudice to tabitha white there is a reasonable


in fact if you're amazon you probably have got rid of the service guy had negotiated your own contract so we're not even talking about that but certainly in our complaint in this case we allege that u b s requires franchisees


death was caused by his diabetes and complications from his diabetes but counsel presented no evidence and no witnesses to support that theory of defense or to rebut the state's theory


and it's fourth i can i can give you i will give you one and i do have one that i would point to ok give me your best if you could bear with me just for second


you really mean a building is that what you're saying your own witness said it meant a customer ok well it's a building or a customer doesn't really matter so their position was it didn't really matter whether it was a building or a customer but that they they insisted


it made a mistake because the tax court said we relied on what they said i mean i can just tell you that's not how judges think about it don't listen to their arguments were interested in what you say but we think we've got this responsibility to figure out what the law means and when we think we've got


return the statue of limitations is open that might appear to be an unfair rule that is clearly the rule under sixty five a one both in the income tax context and in the excise tax context no no my question was are they required to file the return


look at the question and that's why we referred for example to sixty five or one b four and i don't i'm not trying to be of ac because i can't to my mind remember now which each of these cases where there's a ton of these cases that say


you look at all of that so it's all is so so if you look at all of that they knew they knew that there were three of these incidents were allowed and and that there were other incidents with respect to other people we had


the investigation that's not what the law requires i look i'm as big a fan of the presumption of innocence as anyone but when you have a private previous act where the company says we're going to fire you if you do this again and someone comes


jury properly heard what the legal standard is so then we go back to what the issues are that the defendant raised the defendant race three issues they raised the issue as you recognize whether the harassment was because of


life is going to have acclimated to the united states and believe that to be home they only spend four months and much of which they're not going to be able to recall in australia in particular for the child that was developmentally disabled because of autism


the court my colleague challenge whether or not even these discussions should be entertain a qualified immunity and this goes to the issue of a clearly established right where there was in fact any anchor section with respect to the the


level and indeed that had happened up until she was transferred to the junior high without any seeking any input from her and that was completely ignored well i mean they eliminated


adopted that and ignored my client's words and that's a material issue a fact


on the other hand what is an order to know what it is a physical action that the i r s going to send an agent out or bring in your books bringing your documents let's see all your records so what happened here they just sort of a bill said hey your dear deficient pay your taxes


court held that you can't use prior conduct to justify what you're now doing to a compliant detainee that was a case in which the officer had grown frustrated because in the past the same detainee had been had resisted


taken into account it has to be help from a third party that was somehow pained by the phone either encouraged directed by the defendant or key got the ball rolling by some cooperation


case fundamentally dealt with the obligation to arbitrate and also joked of relief but the court specifically states stated in reviewed the p v g c report did not say that it was not a source of guidance it simply said


the definition of loitering it only really concerns are you in a are you at near within the student safety zone for a period of time and under the circumstances that a reasonable person would conclude that your primary purpose is for observing or contacting


while registration is fairly you know all states have some kind of registry in there they vary a lot some of them are risk based and have individualized assessments some of them like michigan's or connection based exclusion zones michigan has


the trustee and orland the trustee objected to those claims citing then prevailing case law which at that point did permit bankruptcy courts to deny debtors exemptions based on such considerations as bad faith


drugs for himself i see that my time has expired may briefly respond it shows more clearly that mr smith bought drugs for himself for personal use and then travis gentry was also looking for drugs in mr smith offered to share the small quantity that he


drugs you can't be it's not it's not two different verdicts that are mutually exclusive the same one count that if it's not a verdict you need to find the nurse i mean it's not it's a finding on an element they were asked to make a finding with regard to an


for the purposes of impeachment first and foremost we've never use this information i never use this information again i only looked at it twice the first day that mr mckinnon had received it and came into my office and said quote hey look at this


this case there was certainly reasonable suspicion upon the stop that would allow even under rodriguez an extension of the stop in order to run the dog around the car where it made a positive hit giving officers absolutely probable cause to search the


car so you're saying that because of the tip there was at least reasonable suspicion that would allow an extension so you're not arguing that it was within the limits that there normally would be if you're


there are two eleven circuit cases both unpublished that went the exact same way i haven't seen your point is yes fine aiding and abetting is different from conspiracy so that's why rosen wouldn't affect the pinkerton conspiracy charge but


they have a policy that says that zero tolerance they have zero tolerance for sexual harassment but they leave the harasser the person who they just brought in who they should have no affinity to they leave him at that store their


chain it stopped with the store manager and that he was there before the complaint took place so he wasn't even around to know how seana perry was treated by holster after the fact


autozone does not tolerate a failure to report rassmann that is how serious it takes this policy and rightly so because of the exposure that it creates for them with people that you've answered my question thank you our thank you for your time today


situation where there's no reason to think there's lying there's no reason to think anything else going on but the truth truthful perspective of that individual you're one of the best way i can answer that question and i hope i am answering your question


car now perhaps perhaps pongal took them to the took them to the talk and then left after that and they just don't remember the talk which was not a particularly newsworthy event unlike giving your son over to the priest to


here you know taking the the multi factor test as a whole where you have issues with the nexus element where you have the fact that there was no explicit consideration of lesser sanctions where you have the fact that you know it's possible that the district court perhaps could have


seventeen and made all of the response to a judicial ruling in response now this doesn't mean they conceded that the district court's right they felt it right but it had no issue but it does put you in a different position if nevada court had if the


we believe leads to the natural conclusion that this court should reach in this case which is that just like in belo harald where it held that because of fourteen twenty nine and because of what congress was doing there the district court did not have greater jurisdiction than the


he claims that when he comes back he's treated differently he is disciplined for sleeping when the others are not disciplined they take away the one chair and the break room will


is that the evidence cited by the district court these e mails and letters and receipts seem very ambiguous i didn't see a single document in there that unequivocally ties burke to this specific scheme


position where he can shoot and be one of the shooters they might assume that maybe he isn't so worried about this fellow having a gun having been there when he's used a wallet in the past he's been there listening to the seventy minutes of this


death but isn't it necessary if you're going to say he he didn't he believe this was true so there wasn't like under cheek the supreme court case cheeky really believe this don't you need to point to something that says that he didn't submit a declaration saying he really believed this or


the the injunction moving the scholarship from g i a up to cia but that's not true the injunction is very clear and this court was very clear that you were talking about an n i l


to reverse and remain michael's case the district court could similarly look at the special factors counseling hesitation in that case as well and what's different from michael's case from ziegler versus a bossy is that the rank of the officers


is necessary to punish and deter this type of conduct of counsel how do you square the district court's reliance on the eurozone a cases such as certain and style for which appeared to go the same way


genuine issue of material fact well i think it actually goes to what why the officer who's doing the shooting decided to shoot why didn't he have as the first officer appeared to be in serious danger at if you look at the video and actually look at the photo


evaluating a negligence clase case under california court law the totality of the circumstances are about waited but there is no separate pre show separate from making the decision to use deadly force unless that


defenses correction in he did all of his writing all of his might to try to argue this in the court says no you can't so we did the best it could without that and i my problem is that i can see the prejudice with


mia and i believe i was treated for believe me but the medical records may ultimately show the plaintive or that that particular person went in for treatment for another eating disorder that was not believe me or that they did not meet the criteria sometimes people have multiple conditions a


now i realize you're not worried about what other district courts do but it's significant because it shows a that they tend to view this as dick get be that they don't view it as persuasive when trying to figure out a course in their jobs or trying


that congress delegated discretion but that's just not what it says congress didn't delegate discretions and pure question of law and it can't be that the secretary of state can just willy nilly apply congress's law they don't have the authority to not apply the law if congress


and seven o two so how do you how do you how is how is it that the a p a is not applicable that's what that's what's the major bruno answers it has an answer for that question but i think we can say well you don't you there's nothing giving the court jurisdiction that's just simply not


marine life and that is certainly what the lower court and what this court can use to determine that there is not substantial similarity here and that certainly not in protectable items or elements your position is