expert the concern is reliability is the basis for his opinion and this is not a challenge to this sort of testimony as a general matter and most i have a hard time set that but i have a hard time seeing how it could be limited


scrutiny again just because s k offered as she certainly had no duty to transport the students so the parents were entitled to transfer to the transportation benefits under state law and


up give me a piece of paper i'm writing and letter to the judge you know i don't mean during trial your honor i believe that after a trial in a post trial motion if something was done a letter could have been put in each i mean it's tough i mean he's and even in


in the supplemental appendix it is denying post conviction relief on the failure to contemporaneous object that's one ground yes or right in this court has said that that is


thanks to both counsel it was taken under advisement


because she talked about in her post statements change her story a little bit as it went on but she talked about how st he didn't want to send these wire transfers to a place in mexico where they didn't have any family members and then ultimately he said he would


adaptive functioning in two thousand and seven agency examining psychologist dr henry diagnosed mild mental retardation for the purpose of the d s m which by definition carries with it of common opinion


functional capacity and then questionable creational expert and said if someone has this functional capacity is there work that this person can do and the occasional expert said yes there is work that's the standard for


the and after considering all the factors the court stated in the if will twentieth period and eighteen u s c thirty five fifty three was sending the defendant to eighteen months so if the government is asking unless there's any questions that the


in your brief this was not the seems like the answer to like the basic question case so i'm i'm i would like to hear it but i also am curious as to why i'm hearing it for the first time now and it's because in their reply


status he can he can bring this issue right up right now and as far as the putative class members are not part of the kaisha case hasn't been certified now with the theory is that you don't have to wait until you're injured to


have appealed their dismissal on the basis of their lives building a supervisors in their individual capacities because they're liable if they know of and disregard of risk inmate health and safety they admitted


the superintendent testified that he tries and he can't say with absolute certainty that there is never just one guard per dorm but it should always be two and in fact on the days


it shouldn't be the decisive size of problem of the tax the victim the impact on the victim certainly doesn't outweigh the time available for preparation for trial or the likelihood of president approaches i'm sorry or the defendant's role for


the supreme court and this court of held repeatedly that the prosecution cannot rest alone on uncorroborated corroborated statement of the defendant the statement must be sufficiently corroborated to establish its


and the informant they can't stand alone the medical case doesn't say who did it and the informant cannot get this evidence again unless it's corroborated by something and here it's only corroborated by the medical


you understood by all wisconsinites then perhaps that's very clear he can't go or they can't go to those things but what's not clear is when the government provides examples of you know you can go to the theater just that's not the primary sale everybody


either because the case rides or falls on the cooperators testimony not being able to discredit them and show the full motive and bias that they had to live and to see and cooperate with the government to


ever but we know that d if so if you possessed two substances under the subsection that's one offense if they were elements that would be to ephesus and so we know that these must be means so we think this error is plain


that have been identified and then separately they weren't taking notes they try to say he sees jumping in before the end of the sentence he's not allowing the thought to be completed it's messing up the syntax it's well i'd say


deficient performance argument we're making and there's certainly nothing in the record in and of itself that is what established any sort of plane air what we tried to do and i think successfully i would submit success we did to demonstrate that point is we supplemented the record


granting forbearance and then ultimately delaying the foreclosure process which resulted in it having to sell the property at a far lower value than had originally been purchased


and or that it could have or should have had that knowledge the bank witnesses testified that the defendant's actions installing the foreclosure proceedings the quoting these false representations about this status of their development and the status of their


anyone was in danger of death or great bodily harm when he was pulling all for on to the on to the rack so that the other factors that are required under this section are not met under those circumstances so what


ten robberies right that was not lost upon him for a second and so why isn't it fair against the backdrop of that pretty clear transcript to read the eighty four months through the prism if you want


sentence as a total term because in the federal system by statute where there are multiple terms of imprisonment they are treated as single aggregate terms and that's why it appears that way


all right they waived a right to have a security interest in aspects of this that and filed a u c c three three terminations statement here it is the same exact thing they under the contract under the


investigate the properties history hadn't even interviewed the leap on the fourth of providing his report the reply brief science sheltie accident noble paints case but


such as this receivership order is a contract and should be interpreted as a contract so it's a contract that not only did it specify what the standard of care was i e gross negligence it's something


about so but let me give you an example we see this commonly in drug cases what's the drug amount that's the aggravating factor is it more than twenty eight grams of cocaine


requirement timely objected and it would mean that the defendant would be able to ask his counsel to help him factually rebut the convictions or legally rebut them and it would also mean that it would all be done at the initial sentencing rather than years later on collateral review


figure out why the op why these officers stopping these individuals what the facts given were related to the shooting the color of the car color of the act of race of the occupants and then geographic location and


all he says is there was a shooting event the put the argument is made that that's the reason for the reasonable suspicion also a gray car also three african american young males within a half mile of the shooting location and within four hours that's what i


understand the government or the city to be arguing with regard to the basis for the stop with regard to that we've got the two videos right we've got thirty minute video of the one minute video when there's a there's an overlap with regard to them so we're able to get a little bit of


however the facts in the record show that for the first year under this new act of the college utilized one of its h r employees craig aren't and he was able to easily and


he could have found her disabled as of december thirteenth two thousand and thirteen the date of her application so and that sort of amending is something that would go on at the administrative level with the ministry of law


a lying on an improvement then there has to be some sort of bright line that says ok well she got better at this point so she's no longer disabled or the l j has to address what was going on in the earlier period and show why she was disabled anyway he didn't do that


a place of court brian writes for the united states i hope to address all three issues raised here by mr pressure but i want to jump in on the bats and claim and answer judge sweaters scottish questions i think i'd like to make at least three points st of all the district court did make a


the court in indiana was reasonably foreseeable so st of all on the hub and spoke mr brasher has admitted that he was in a conspiracy with shelton so the only question is whether he connects two other spokes this court requires two things mr


merely had hopes and aspirations that mother might be able to come back to the united states with elizabeth i would submit that the district court confused what intentions


that the child's official residence is here and that the mother herself remember only went back to colombia after a police stop and the police stopped caused agitation understandably in the family and the shared


three questions that they had to answer and there were three counts there were only two counts must we be unanimous on all three counts interestingly in the initial debate among the


undermines the confidence in this court that the result was right because the defense was so strong because the issue even as evidenced in the first question was whether all five kilos should be applied to both


it is the fact that the city has a proprietary interest in public bidding projects the way the state statutory scheme works the focus is on the lowest bidder in the record we have


circumstances or transactions occurred after the parties entered into the settlement agreement and it is our position that the answer is yes what point specifically in the record but pointing to that would show a material change that came up after the


being offered generally by a person for sale to the public in a business transaction that's the that's a quote from manning versus aquaman so he it is true that our position is that he pleaded himself out of court but it's not


also discussed how they came to be open mic conclusion and if there are you know discussions of how you come to the ultimate conclusion developing that agency policy those could potentially be covered by the older process privilege but when you have the discussions


factors that the director can take into account in such breadth that they encompass essentially the entire police power the director and they consider among other factors these are the steps of the list is not exclusive to health


standing and this regulation in almost it's identical form has been in place in massachusetts for over a decade as has the minimal requirement and then my dear cannot come up with a single instance where the content of an ad was tied


and i'm puzzled that your office just doesn't have a clear rule that it's easy for all the prosecutors to have you don't put your toes on that line don't don't don't go in are making such arguments are there particular


told her it wasn't an option and she wanted to present an extra who would say that was flatly wrong and it was an option and it would have changed her diagnostic alternative that wasn't part of his disclosure what is just what was or


sufficient evidence in the record as this is what the district court recognized that the animists celie call or cost of the defendants to find these violations and some of the violations ya legations violations on their


face are so pretextual for example he's not a professor and i happen to disagree with you on those points i don't think that argument you know on the face of it it's so absurd it couldn't


all right and the most important component of fear and just reason is knowing voluntary and intelligence we don't argue with it is probably the most of what you value is fact right when he comes to his decision your honor he does not abide


voice on the defense side on that issue was that of a paid expert who met with the defendant for two hours three months after the a fact and reviewed some of the records and the judge in our view rightfully discounted the evidence


enforce the agreement they had to find that he was entitled to commissions and the only place where commissions come into the come into being here your honor is in the context of whether or not there


from what could have been said and would be relevant to potentially saw in a different sense when the issue is before us on this record and how much of what's missing is not in the record i have quoted


inappropriate sexual thoughts about eight times a day and he that he was masturbating to those thoughts several times a week and this is something that was concerning to judge seris in addition mr wetmore told dr greeny that he was


yes you're going to lean towards what defense counsel say but if you look at the rebuttal argument in total you will get the true gist of of the where the comment was coming from governor believes that this this argument can easily be dismissed because the rebuttal


what you want i could say that it is department just policy to now include those factors indictment so going forward


that her supervisor and sometimes a fellow coworker with a leaf through those and choose which ones to hand her and other people and it was in fact this is just to explain a little bit more this is exactly what was happening to her soon as she told wal mart she was


strong direct evidence of bias and retaliatory animus when you take out of this case the traditional stuff of discrimination cases you are at the door this case but they've let


to pick up where my good brother just left off i will simply refer the court to exhibit fifty six in exhibit fifty six is the advertisement for the total joints specialist the position that dr


one that the legislature would need to create as opposed to the court i would point out that creating such a duty and imposing it on my client there is no accurate record no that's all


declarations and you work your way through the contract what you're going to see is spoilage is treated specifically in indistinctly as the result of direct physical loss by way of example on page one sixty


creditor relationship that is the conclusion that the department of labor reached in its brief to the second circuit in favor versus met life it's the conclusion that the second circuit reached


required to undergo sex offense treatment in fact some people just on pure pure policy grounds might easily conclude that it's the wiser course of action because it's the probation officer who is most familiar with the


just based on the fact that there is a federal question under the tcas to whether we were effectively pretty good from providing services in the town of rome i am not sure about the answer to that question but what i do know is that under the tcas


was in the driveway just outside of the house that the defendant is likely going to have some difficulty getting over are several recent opinion that has similar factual circumstances but if the car is somewhere else and


charged in that will very often be quite different than what a complaint might state so in terms of putting someone on notice about what's going to be proved under the indictment i'm not sure how relevant the complaint would be do you


five six and nine dollars not a twelve dollar drop point now why why do i now say this because those two informants were the


this is a case about entrapment this is a case about legitimate and at legitimate business men looking for financing for their companies my client was one of them mr jordan my


loosely legitimate clients where they go when they do a lot of due diligence but they're all micro cap companies they go in they do a lot to do diligence for example if you like a drug company with a when they analyze the patents and they do all that work and they have these flyers


the final verdict of this of the jury and that was not as the government asserts easily rejected that was three days of deliberations or honors with respect to the counsel you're making beyond to me the same


i think the judge in the sidebars with counsel was of starting to express in frustration with the technical difficulties with me inability to find exactly where the starting point was there was a little bit of pent up frustration with the process and then with the judge's


compensatory up until the point the full compensation is given there's a tipping point that depends on the facts of each case after the tipping point is punitive and that's exactly what judge would lock did here by presenting this question to the jury and to say


consecutive that's what he wanted the district work and then it's a sort of a funny situation because we know at the time he revises it that he was running the risk that the judge we want to put it that


for the government to have to show you could obtain a conviction under you know federal law the offense that occurred in the requisite federal setting you're talking about that in effect is what you're saying is the element by element match


standard that the government want to seize we're asking you to do is to look at the prior rhode island offense compared to the three federal fences that we list on page six of our brief and ask whether in terms of seriousness


categorical approach there might have been consideration of the state indictment which we now intact attached to our den of and by the way our position is the categorical approach doesn't apply and even if it does apply you have to give us the benefit of the


of well heeled well thought of well seasoned class council they got it wrong i'm not saying they did it deliberately however when they found out about it they didn't do anything to correct it once they


clauses side feel and non h e agreements but act have as doesn't actually talk in language like that so from


to do the thing in question and by the way there wasn't that issue an activist an exclusive license term like what we're now talking about here so the court had no reason to specifically address that issue


complied with that part of that intent of the judge and that's why i would take issue with what you just said like but regardless of that when the preliminary injunction expired there's been absolutely no


strong evidence of the profession judgement used by word in minds are mainly adopting and considering what the psychology examining board found so it's not so much that her license


respect to intangible personal property specifically no but burlington northern are your are ninety five decisions where you're talking yes i mean it certainly can't that can erase the the singling out exception right nor did it purport


then the the judge has to give the lead author notice of that an opportunity to withdraw that's one of the castro case that reasoning seems to me would apply here and


illegible i think that's mentioned somewhere i don't i don't see any reason here that's a ballad to reject that opinion not not in the context of deteriorating and fluctuating diabetes


that there could be some other postural activities that are other than lying down but no matter what your honor the point is all of those three activities being taken off the table leaves twenty two plus hours a day that according to his


what mail fraud is what wire fraud is and we're not getting f b i and so i think that you know that's that's one of the main concerns here is because the elements are basic due process the supreme court's made that clear several times


these go to whether he understood the charges and to whether he had that intent to defraud scholl had the same retained attorney for them nor the two members of the district court perceive they


true even though you knew and presumably he knew because it was a different chronology at the deposition that much of what was in the complaint was in fact false so you submitted a false affidavit no your honor i did not know it was false because here


you had to know it was false because everything that had happened before that in the litigation demonstrated that the original allegations in the complaint were in fact false in several respects what look material respects that i get into those those facts one is the


terminated the contract in the terminated the pensioners benefit when the plant closed in august two thousand and four and that's why mr cruz got in unrebutted evidence told people if you want to get your benefits for life you better retire


his presentation and i think beginning kind of with at the at the end there is a statement that the bentley trucking was somehow obligated to


overdrew the account with her more than the customer had they didn't notify the customer when the customer found out because she was charged an overdraft fee she went into the bank talked to a manager filed an affidavit explaining that the withdrawal was improper


you reading from a consent decree right and then it in then is that awkward did not take adequate steps to implement reforms that it was legally obligated to implement pursuant to the two thousand and eleven agreement so that agreement in two thousand and eleven the original agreement was


myself in this have had an interview that didn't go very well that doesn't necessarily make the process the interview process wrongful or the decision for the job unlawful or discriminatory and mr byrd's case is not a remedy for a poor interview


we do that binds the department of justice to abandon its litigating city but once a court decides a particular case the decision has to be followed out unless of course the supreme court reverses


done the judge then has a standard sentencing memorandum procedure which was followed all the memoranda were submitted by october however the court did not schedule a sentencing hearing until may of


completely different cases where people were shot in the back and so forth but on qualified immunity i'll move to that if if if for some reason there is a would be a need for a trial an excessive force there's no


quite the opposite the cases say specifically we have to ask what is the class of workers actually engaged in international brotherhood in this circuit specifically says we have to look at the class of workers and whether they are in fact crossing state lines whether they in


that's only helping us b p made made it clear that floor it in their brief review made it clear that flora was hired to be a safety group on the site making


disclaimer what's an acceptable remedy and then it compound at that error when it ordered relief so limited that it failed entirely to address the harm the defendants caused and ceded control of the mark to the


it was not going to nd guess the state court relevance ruling which is a state law determination and that was the end of that argument and that should be the


despite repeated requests by mr thomas that he needed such a permit and during that months long delay mr thomas had to climb painfully up and down the bunk using his broken hand mr


direction to a district judge and how he or she would would view this desire to intervene right so i think i think this is actually it goes to permissive intervention as well and so under


our position is the court doesn't need to make any determinations about that for purposes of defensive intervention but we are we are part of the state of wisconsin and and would be seeking to defend the statute that actually put this in this case doesn't implicate any interest


because it did not have an underlying state statute giving it the right to represent the state and i think also that the one house didn't have an interest in the legislative districts so i think that doesn't say anything to


court to weigh at what point that evidence becomes sufficient i think that additional evidence the district court certainly pointed to you could have had some vocational expert you can have a vocational expert identify what


mixing all of that together which again i do think undercuts some of the ultimate opinions in the absence of other supporting evidence because there are normal examinations from other physicians


precisely because this regulation is meant to protect the rights of aliens and therefore to accord due process to the liens we need to form a little of this right prior to even taking


that quite a bit there intimately acquainted with what is persecution under immigration law and i i think really need to open his ears and listen to what's going on before him in the courtroom and needs to listen if


country because of specific to bret's that he was under a threat of being murdered should he


position is that those discretionary decisions were correct we do think it's important also that even if they were correct if you look at the entire case and the strength of the evidence submitted we believe that even without the evidence of the prior judge conviction in the evidence of these


was actually denied and we would also hope that given this court's review of those discretionary decisions that is something that could increase public confidence to a measure that these decisions were correctly


capacity evaluation as well as a review of the complete medical record at that time the ministry of law judge discounted this opinion upon the basis of a factual misrepresentation of the record and said uncritically accept the findings of stale say agency reviewers of no


not asking about whether someone has approved something ok i'm asking about the state of medical research are there are studies by people who know what they're talking


begun they have a call a process for that very purpose they're expected to call in every day to an indicate when will they return to work and mr phillips didn't do that he didn't even do it after he received dr that the doctor's notice indicating that he was going


there would not be issue preclusion because the advertisement issue was not essential to this judgment there's not a claim preclusion other words if there's it's got to be essential to the determination and here doctor


case is not about what is clear and what the record makes abundantly clear is that there was no attempt in this case to try to sell the point of our recovery practic anything there is no advertising directed to the recipient of this is also new


evidence and notice of the ultimate decision on the at one hundred and thirty dollars s plaintiffs have not argued that that address was incorrect that they never lived at that address that the agency sent notice to an incorrect address and again have pointed to no statute or


inability to to prove that they had standing to be before them and i believe that that is the biggest issue here that plaintive simply like standing to bring these claims or use parent would


external to the person a district court peers have to leave so although this court and others have used the phrase external object they've also explicitly said as in the long part of case that we cite in our briefs


yes just to speak a little bit to the argument regarding whether a beneficiary under indiana law has standing to sue for a denial of access on behalf of an estate the probate code is clear on that


possibly maintain a claim under the i r p a whether it's for user names names voices signatures anything else are those individuals who are generally recognized by the public at large morgan freeman voice or johnny carson's


for the district judge the district judge has been there for the trial it's inherently something that requires the exercise of judgment it by definition applies to relevant evidence that could come in and the


payment in one dollar particular tax year would be what was necessary by the time we work through the tax tables to upset that end and that is what was or was not the world's most complicated


now they suggest that you counter factually if t c s didn't steal this information and behave differently maybe the measure of damage should be what it would have cost them to develop the some other way in other words had they had


refresh your car logo that appeared on defendants product packaging with the infringing product names their st car logo is not part of the work mark being challenge but even considering it is distinguishing power is not


he does not get the benefit of the exception for that payment because the exception only it's five to a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniform service as defined in section four ten am


minute left i think we understand these arguments and there's three circuits as you said that have also weighed in on this one question i had just as a practical matter how much hangs in the balance here depending on how we decide in terms of a


britches congregation beth joseph and cetera


paragraph where we're discussing this issue and his opinion insight into that paragraph talks about the concept of a search for responsive information he used that exact phrase and then said you know the search came up empty and so i think


valid countries three hundred and thirty three times the country changing yugoslavia one time would change in operating and only through you can use documents from different countries to say that i have to go over there and get them when i came here they told me that there has


require certification that there would be fines with all of the civil rights laws that exist in the united states civil rights laws absolutely because congress made those apply couple to federal financial assistance or to understand the meaning of all the possible


nexus between defendant's actions and its purported harm and he has failed to show redress ability sovereign immunity independently barred plaintiff's claim as the district court found and the speech or debate clause also independently parsed plaintiff's claims


that's correct and i think for this court's consideration really focusing on judge bryant's notice where she explains all the factors that she considered imposing the senate and that notice which


fixing certain kinds of jurisdictional issues in the original cleaning of a complaint but before the court gets to that question i think it can and probably should decide this case on the narrower ground that none of the problems with the firing of this complaint are actually properly


because when the sentencing commission created this guideline they just referred to congress rather than using a perp approach as was done with other sentencing guidelines the guideline results in sentences that concentrates


or suggested by its question so be it that is not a securities fraud case that is as this court well knows and shareholder derivative lawsuit there was an independent committee that approve these transactions and if the shareholders didn't like it


three the w t c captive misled the plaintiffs in bad faith at the time of negotiating the final settlement agreement and for the battery park city authorities negligent acts are not covered by the indemnification provision of


disability under react yes and the hernia is a disability under colwell versus suffolk sitting and lifting are major life activities and the hernia would


so the move as the principal testified allowed her to teach her preferred class but remove her from that environment and finally with regard to the hostile work environment claims the majority of the


racial comments we have a series of disability related comments we also have a long series of racially officially neutral adverse personal actions which the district court summarize for us in the opinion at footnote


coverage work on top of it and in addition to the defense work which we're not seeking except for the bad part of the case there's no case in which independent counsel has been deprived of arms are you sure you're not you're not you're not seeking


really receiving that what are death declaration that says this the students tendency rights are at x and it would identify the elements of that educational program in


clean august of two thousand and fourteen just so we're clear the promotions we're speaking about started with her in august of fourteen she was reachable at that time she was not promoted in eight males or the males were ryan marquez


her and apparently the defense the defendant's recovery from jihadism is so tenuous that even when her psychiatrist goes on vacation for two beaks that she will immediately snap back and


this because the onerous term that he still faces matters to him it mattered to him within five seconds of leaving that courtroom and it matters to him now and the court failed him and his attorney failed him and that


represented before probation revocation revocation case which the case the criminal case that i would try for was put to sleep so the state presumed my probation sneakily under false pretense and they had to capture a male


that all inclusive phrase means to say that in new york where contractors have a special statute where they can sue anyone under any circumstances not only one somebody does something


obligation to not use mobile equipment and they don't have operations involving the warehousing of others because from the deposition they learned in fact this was taking place for years and then after that


the camp which was the candidate between so the reason why and we don't rely upon the general allotment is to the right but we look to the general allotment at to show how congress how congress i'm


photographs that issue was authorized and getting images had no reason to think otherwise the undisputed facts show that video images obtained valid contractual rights to display and distribute the photos doing on broken chain of authorization that began with zuma


motions for sanctions before the district court and further burden the court with with the plaintiffs conduct here in order to receive attorney fees under the copyright act we're not


and ninety three because it wasn't even in the complaint and it can't be remedied through some a p t o it's got to be actually in the complaint and the one minute there's been no no request for an amendment to the complaint or


many different parties and many different agreements this case that's now before the court is really rather simple it's a straightforward indemnity claim and it's governed by the terms of the in them do you agree meant that the appellant


claim was not listed in writing on the pending on the assets of mr is not is that right that's correct but i just wanted to point out one thing to the court at the time the form that was used


development of of the model and in for you there is a well recognized presumption of correctness to agency declarations unless there is specific controversy in fact which we don't have here well you know i


she specifically says that staff were aware of the model could be released at any time she specifically says it was releases were not done because it was final and approved she says she never looked at and never approved these things for release that they were released when the public was most likely to use them


underhill found that there was an th amendment violation that the conditions specifically at northern that he had been subjected to affix dream social isolation in fact violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause


valuating was the district court was correct in entering the permanent injunction as i mentioned before the defendant had well over a year to make any of those changes the nothing was done until the permanent injunction entered in this case


required by strickland with respect to the st ineffective assistance of counsel claim and then with respect to the nd as we as we argued don't believe that it a direct appeal is an appropriate time to resolve


possibility of promotion or advancement or new work responsibilities or with that not be enough wouldn't it isn't the point of constructive discharge it's not an actual district doesn't require showing the person was going to be fired by the employer it shows that the person made the


option absolutely not your honor if in fact there had been a finding of wrongdoing as in green where the chief of police have found that the employee that stolen items and engaged in duplicity or if there in fact were


positions that were available to her she was told you have been to the agency with your complaint about harassment and if you don't return to work lee you have no place here that is enough to drive somebody from the workplace she could not work for somebody like this again


place of which all of you mentioned whether it can or can't your friend the senate didn't happen when in the thirty day period right well in this case that they're not happy with in the thirty day period why should we decide that question well i think you should not cite that question because there are a number of district courts


tear or the amount that is attributed to the packaging are things that are not actually the weight of the product defended counters this well grounded evidence by suggesting that human error is the reason all thirty three packages of cupcakes are


kind of error that here the initial laying back could have been an error that happened that you know that one time i mention when it was initially determined you know corporate headquarters were never happens that might have been one


probabilistic or percentage and put you into certainty if whole foods had some evidence that any of us cheese any of the cheeses were properly weighed that would be one thing but it hasn't it hasn't property anything to support


and to the follow later is to go ahead with a case when the government would not or could not intervene so that's one thing the nd thing is that this case is more like the case of the michael flynn case where the government is seeking


district court's decision is its conclusion that the prospectus only applies to bonds sold in the united states the district court wrongly interpreted the prospectus which


and she understood that that is able her to bring the case in the southern district because foreign sovereign immunity was waste here on any bonds of any issue and that was in a prospectus for the


they established to the satisfaction of the district court judge a violation of the injunction yes and on any other on any topic that is specifically dealt with yes injunction yeah i agree yes ok yes yes but


class that there was a can thirds majority of interests that accepted the plan so he's deemed to have accepted it well he is bound by the acceptance we know that he personally did not accept he probably rejected well


why did you never see a stage of discovery that would have been the simplest most direct cleanest way of avoiding the burdock discovery for both parties if you were determined to pursue arbitration that


i completely understand the argument that if that evidence was insufficient the denial of the directive or it was an error you have separately told us that although that was evidence of course dealing it never should have been there but it


cases that the government sites including breton which is just a three hundred and forty month center twenty eight years post trial and they got that of that to judge their ass for seven hundred and twenty months but i think it really fails to adequately


really a mediation and then both sides both represented by counsel come to an agreement that one point six whatever million is the present value of the following stream of payments correct why


unique tax status that tax status remains in effect today and with respect to the nd our friendship so it's talking about that but that's only the nd half of the sentence your honor so if you go to a footnote seven


would like to make one related point which is the abuse that our client suffered was not simply the physical abuse but also the emotional abuse of which statements like that are directly relevant and then when the sorrow pointed out


thousand and thirty nine under article thirty four dollars the buildings were owned by fifty eight dollars swanzy the fact it oracle for says insurance a gator must be named on insurance policies as an additional named insured


except that argument that would have to be a legal error in the government could would be up in arms about that and say the two to somehow vary the sentence because of the relationship if you put it between the child of the


so i can say what might have happened i can say what is usually supposed to happen but that is not necessarily what happened and i think it does not


have pled guilty well we're in a strange you procedural posture because this is not a two thousand two hundred and fifty five dollars nor motion to withdraw the plea this is an appeal so what we say is there is insufficient evidence


thirteen family members accompanied him while he was there while he was there he admitted the suffered no harm suffered you know no incidences that he claimed would be


be any reliance on the general credit of the railroad was violated both by the security arrangement and by the lengthening of the credit period to sixty days under a formal contract accordingly under the authority of boston in maine in most of the


now and the fact that mr mendoza sanchez is detained should not impact any of the rights accorded to him in terms of having the same amount of time the same opportunity prepare that anyone would have


this whole case that's not going away but i am arguing that the court was completely without the immigration court was completely without jurisdiction to issue the deportation notice because of these failures and what about the district court


the defendant was able to see the miner testify via closed circuit and just to clarify what happened with the computer glitch it wasn't it was moment tain it was moment it was it was just for one moment when the government


own property doing its own thing which is a case that would be akin to richardson our situation is is this this is very specific and it's exactly what qualified immunity is supposed to provide force to provide that immunity


acts by others which that added or not was a reasonably should have a set in motion the collection of the feet because the contracts were if we carefully examined the the provisions of schedule d of each of the


the fact that we do not have an administrative record in this case and normally you don't answer it a p a questions on the merits and suppose


purposes st to define the school of the investigation and


simply because there and the thing is it's really important you can't disentangle this from the fact that it was the motive of this officer to make a search of the car from the inception of the stop that was clearly found by the trial judge


prepared and that call was made before sergeant mackey directed that the vehicle be stopped that testimony from both mackey and triggered by ta was that communication was made before he requested that the car be stopped i think those surrounding


knowledge known to the officers at that were involved in the larger d n a investigation as you know in our brief we think alternatively the record clearly supports a finding that trooper to


effect of a poll tax and i think what it referred to was the most restrictive voter registration provisions in the country that those kinds of provisions help to voters out of the process they


constitutional right to proportional representation in the molehill case and i quote the court has strongly set its face against the claim however freezed that the constitution somehow guarantees proportional representation


means is that they weren't filed before the sentencing date he didn't seem to be a plea on there was a discussion during the sentencing the defense counsel mentioned that he had some letters and


take thirty four dollars of thirty six dollars had already taken an oath that was modeled on new york so that's where they took their oath which had in the presence of almighty god and so help me god the very st act of the government of the united states never mentioned in a federal case on the establishment clause


absence of any evidence to show that you know the original estimate was the product of so you know shortcomings in the investigation or other unfair and set of kind of what accounted for one hundred and thirty thousand difference well oh


but they were supposedly friends with money that it let you well i mean even if that's true how is that ages commission it could be somehow nepotism it could be cronyism as this court has had before it but that doesn't mean it's discriminatory because of her


being made but b d then any news story that contains defamatory statements is subject to the yeti slap statute that wasn't the purpose of the statute and the law court in maine clearly recognized that there's


to be engaged in petitioning activity in that case the it may very well follow that the newspaper


we should be far and i'm asking for clear air but if that if the court believes that the record isn't clear on that that she never never discussed attorneys ajax testimony and they no way to find whether there was no credibility determination maybe there is a clear error here that


multiple occasions there is simply no direct evidence in the record one way or the other addressing the question of serbia's intent or assent to the terms of the sub license because sylvania crew no testimony by deposition


result would be any different i don't think that's the matter before the debate but if we if we stick with you on that distinction so we say they've got to justify sublicense to sustain this particular ruling it unless i'm missing


requirement because judge jury is question is really reminiscent of the way the th circuit as chosen thing analyze this matter if you if you treat the notice requirement


challenge of course so if you have one instance of it then maybe we look at contextually with all the other things you're talking about we need at least one instance i get going so what's one and is there more than one and what's the account you would give in response to what you've heard as to


specifically instructed members of the yes i'll ask clay to go kill savalas when in fact he never gave any such instruction what the record could reflect is that you know our client


is dependent on the jury believing that your client was unaware of that statement or whether your sufficiency challenge proceeds even if the jury could reasonably find that


understand your position from your belief what you are suggesting is that this court in precedence following wants have misinterpreted wants and


his fingerprints are taken now one of the arguments i think the government is making news that there is this booking exception with respect to fingerprints that could make that's perhaps not as broad a proposition as george bush was describing but that is


looked at all the evidence yet and we believe especially with respect when you're looking specifically to mr stuart's testimony that his friends together a number of mr stewart's


charter and they are claiming that he had a relationship independent of a fun day these are be the boat so he was the master of the whole thing and the chair company had the funding had nothing to do that's the argument with respect to


bias and go after those initial ones from two thousand and six ok but then this is what i keep coming back to two thousand and thirteen august of two thousand and thirteen when the deal finally did was because that's when the


states if i could start just by clarifying response to judge of this question special agent has testified that he obtained a search warrants of approximately a half an hour before


rehabilitation for a number of months for a period of time after that he returned to work for a few years before we could no longer do so one of the issues that we raise in the case is that it's listing one point three


because they may be hacked and your information may be out there these are intangible harms that congress can identify and they could pass a statutory scheme but a simple violation of the statute isn't enough for standing you need more you need a


recall the judge palmer and the amount in controversy does not exceed seventy five thousand dollars that's going to judge palmyra believe that she was initially she said she didn't think she had jurisdiction but then later on


even arguably authorizing an injunction against a state court proceeding even arguably what i'm what i would like to submit to the court is the is this


developed this code with my brother before this call it's a something that is inferrable based on the fact that they had this agreed upon code that they both comfortably used throughout their several contra quarter conversations and this code was used for the type of drugs


than they're still barred today we didn't mean to make a change or congress didn't mean to make a change but fourteen seventy one wasn't there and the new fourteen seventy one gets moved back and becomes thirteen thirty four but it's an entirely different provision


members of this corporate family we at least have a substantial claim that we can pierce the corporate veil and reach some other parties and i want to stress to the court we're not asking the court to resolve that claim no one should we don't want the court to decide that they fail to be peace pierced


let the nice thing about it from day standpoint there isn't any commit your it is so the contrary when they have no dealings with the district court i think


so you need an oral or written agreement in other words an express agreement and here texas u joints is not even arguing that there was an expressive agreement they're arguing that danish should be forced into a perpetual business relationship based


first page of his order when he says that the second complaint supersedes the first minute complaint he went on to discuss how the documents that she provided with her second complaint made the first time in a complaint implies but that's


with the federal law well and also the state is talking about putting people in almost home kids or institutions they're actually shooting themselves in the foot if that's not a suitable response and i think that district court noted


yes but again if there are not nurses who can provide that care that might be then i guess that was the judge the course seems to have thought that if you were doubled your efforts you would find this significantly more care takers and i


know should be denied that's not to say it's not a proper rule sixty b motion it is asserting look you denied my motion on a procedural defect that infected the proceedings but the court could say no i didn't denied not


and then that focuses well as as as you want to on the finisher's work that was being done before the split before the shift in two thousand and nine with the focus of the statute on the problem is on the laborers left


and the elderly did rely on tests and determine the intensity the persistence in the functional impact of his symptoms that particular testimony as well as report statements


would not be acceptable for us to presume that he was listening to the conversations taking place around him at the planning meeting even if he was not actively


need of an injunction well your honor because that's what the statute says you know the statute is not that clear and we know that we the reason for


connelly's not the owner anymore and neither of them had any interest at all in the ownership of the property as it is today with regard to jurisdiction your honor brought up a good question and


me please the court we would like to make two clarification's that makes plain something that appears in our briefs first we agree that this if this were a review of a district


second case for the day a t m alliance nutrition versus s g a farm lad


says that there are certain warranties and representations that can survive termination of the agreement unless there waive the released right of what warranties a representation is in the purchase and bring that are you relying on to support your claim that they are


a i know that he's resolved whatever money may be involved with the b three point two but i don't see any reservation in the settlement


is you're looking at the paramilitary organization in a police department it's got a command structure when somebody at the top makes a decision those below them are expected to follow that here what happened was that


sleeping the prisoners in tight it wasn't an appropriate time for the prison to be sleeping because the prison was supposed to wake up and go down breakfast today and then wake up and go to breakfast what the log entry referring to was at four am i don't believe that was the


be the april first two thousand and eight charge because obviously this incident occurred before she filed the charge she provides no evidence that this incident occurred because of her lawsuits other than mr of the ways on a general statement about


really like to focus on the issue concerning what the proper test should be or what analysis should be applied in deciding that issue because the board maturity in its


including some of those extraordinary remedies might still be appropriate or whether the mix is changed enough so that they're not but that that would need a fresh look from the board and other work to read man yes we just don't think that it's necessary to


under the plain error standard and even under molino that the court that the record as it exists supports the fact that the court did not rely on an iranian slee calculated guideline range and in fact imposed


grant one is that in cases like this you know our job isn't to review per se what the trustees of indiana university did or whoever was the


her family and she has a very strong personality the first point that we raised in our a brief was the insufficiency of the evidence claim that the evidence


going even if we were to agree with you that when all was said and done it was a mistake not to have something like the arthur andersen language in describing what corruptly meant even so


have a bank account and so that was that was the financial support that i can write member


make your owners please court i represent tom how the plaintiff in the underlying litigation obviously we think there's a question of fact as to whether the force used by officer smith was excessive that's why we're here counsel's right it's our burden but that burdens a


knew about the heart of the officer knew about the harm and proceeded to act anyways and that's where he got hurt so what we're doing mr hollis based saying i'm the guy who meets that situation also makes clear that you could have a situation where the officer knows there's some


privacy but also this property interests is that play in the fourth amendment and here there was no intrusion on any protected property because the engines never left the lobby were low as much talk about that lobby for a minute the lobby was locked yes ok


blue court had first consider is the representation justified and then if so is a fee necessary incident to that representation and that's what the abboud court did court held that the principle of exclusivity was justified by the labor


lab no submitted a report report that he created some cream half months after this search took place where he quoted mr jones as saying there is nothing in there anything now go ahead and search there is nothing in there anyway but there is nothing in there


out at the last minute i don't know whether there was objection made that it's troublesome to me judge in some cases you would defend against aiding and abetting differently than constructive possession but not here and let me tell you why the government's one and


of the people that were employed by the daycare that indicated that their kids were being built for time they weren't there this was a handful of witnesses your honor so i know that there was numerous other when a suit who came in who were not involved with the daycare other than


so it is true that from a standpoint of the chemicals exposed to the particulate matter exposed to the duration of the exposure of the intensity of the exposure and the frequency of the exposure it is dramatically different across the six


been a lengthy discussion of that issue a week prior jury and the pretrial conference mr baldwin also did give his side of the story there's nothing to show that he that he did not in fact he testified at least two times


however that procedure was not in effect in two thousand and one right now but the concern that i have is that under the system it was employees there was an awful lot of vagueness and discretion


that they should be we can't because this court has ruled in this court decides me others so am i but they're really arguing is for you for this court to rewrite the statute and if congress wanted to do that it could have put in the cea or in the i


then she looked at the key point which is the the date of allocation and the gate of allocation was when for instance f c style would would transfer cash into a customer segregated account


context of a motion for summary judgment and the port of course is supposed to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nine hundred one rather than against the nine movement and we would submit that in this case there were multiple inferences drawn


jane no del running as an independent we have democrat jared carter and also progressive perry freeman want to make sure i got that right a pleasure to share the stage with each of you thank


finally if if a if a particular ballot measure is you know has some sort of legal and fair media and it still is passed that's what the courts are for if it's unconstitutional it's struck down so there's no absolutely no excuse for not allowing questions to put on the ballot that have


prevent overdoses everywhere i think we need to provide test everywhere as pot that we can i think it should be something that's limited axis as well as we need more sober houses we need places for people to


possible i am not at all prejudging how this will turn out i think that is simply making the discussion possible so i think that melissa i have the same concerns as tom and i totally agree with with you meghan that there is nothing wrong with


burlington i would twenty three pound dog bite there is there's no parking next to that park by the time i walk my dog to that dog park he's all peed out there's no there's no


i think it was one hundred twenty four thousand dollars somewhere in there with a six percent increase and you know stephanie will talk tonight we're doing a lot with proactive kinds of things that i think really helped bring our rate


just i'll just yeah yeah no i just want to give it a kind of text and there's even been conversation between peter taylor that you're right to say that in this maybe we need to start thinking about having some trained election workers


inventory both the pickup truck and twenty passenger mini so that's just you know projected cost of maintenance there in our contracted programs and driver's education


there so a lot of that has a revenue offset to it but this is the expense number that you're looking at here all right see i hadn't noticed that there's a difference between highly recent ashley parker so i've learned to make sense here


meet the requirement that we have to show is there a way at least for budgeting purposes that we can kind of consolidating some of this placement namely the reflection of different directors over a number of short term years here


drugs on some of our patients we have to have specialized delivery systems in order to do that type treat the medication at the required rate for example of five suicides that we had an all in an eight day span each one of those


to the other yes so i think that's a about it oh and i has an announcement for those of you who were here last months


name is jean bergman and i have lived in war two for a really long time with my wife wendy cool raised our two kids and i am the former senior assistant city attorney for the city of burlington after


tax if you're between ninety and one hundred twenty thousand and there's kind of a graduated tax we're probably making spam out of this our legislators are probably going oh my god don't let the school commissioners explain the education fund but


thanks the question one question i do have is i when i was in college i don't remember such an infatuation with fireworks i hear a lot of young students near where i live watching fireworks at all hours of the night so first of all i think we've got to do something about fireworks


is trad friar still here


believe that councilor know dell who was on the phone but was had raised many concerns regarding the nonprofit so i wasn't sure if those two sentences i didn't feel


and turn it over to the mayor


this was not an uncomplicated exercise to say the voters off arise nine point six million dollars of total spending exactly how much of that is left a good substantial amount of effort has gone into this and it


what i what i struggle with figuring out is and maybe you can just explain the phonies structure here in a six year period how we retire that large amount of principal and are we essentially using


into given the current uses sort of the impact on our operating budget i mean i don't appreciate we've got the funds to pay for the project but what's the impact sort of going forward we have and i appreciate the uses are in flux but i don't know if you've


if district what are the other projects where we have active spending that are you know within that district currently we have eco project that was part of the point six harbor


we'll you know keep our fingers crossed and see what the vote us because we've got two members of the foundation anyway dan o'rourke and mike and john baker who are adamantly opposed to any more taxes


facility focused on basketball obviously to get youth morning age to ask a ball in the sky and with their great presentation in class today they said we're not sure how much it's going to cost well what they presented with no help from me at all was


financial pluses for having open space and in terms of wastewater management or storm water management the ecology of the


confident that you all knew i'm confident that your management has changed its process to the point where it's got you know that process sitting in chairs now that it wasn't sitting before and there's other things clearly that happened to you know as well


community who's attending all of our meetings not a member of the committee but been very active with us nick anderson like flash policy recommendations like to have you look at tonight and we also


on getting out we have a separate committee working on that piece of it and then we have another committee working on the format for the meeting itself so and we have so many ways that the timing is well


the public hearings or any member of the public who wishes to make any comments regarding


part about that first whereas i wonder if it should reference i don't know if it's a policy but we have a replacement schedule and i just wonder if it should reference that as opposed to the thing i was find difficult about this i don't


building there is a bit of a slow cross this side of the building is proposed to be set into that slope to some degree i would read twenty two point nine one about the train as meaning not really


last round any other question from the board you know ok i'll leave it i'll leave it with please pay attention to are the board's recommendation number six are there any criteria that we went


cent increase and move forward with main street and the pool and maintain high levels of service to our to our residents of think you know when you really thought about a potential eleven to eighteen percent


long standing in the nation do you support the city's economic economic development strategy and what do you think the city needs to do going forward so my message in general is the growth of the city of


angle i think this is a great idea again talking about lowering taxes on residence and on businesses maybe not inside the downtown so they can you know grow in virginia that kind of add to their properties this downtown improvement district


chipping county public safety authority this would basically be more formalized mutual aid for dispatch services for emergency services i believe the idea is that it will shave a few minutes off response times for


creating a situation where we're providing some preferential treatment here or there they're actually using the property right that's the eight acres is in use and feels a little bit like a farm like an egg


scoring projects in the growth center is good we we step over into the r c d which which is you know no slouch this is another place the towns planning for growth right we serve it with sewer we allow three units per acre and our highest scoring project


membership drive absolutely up to the donation and that's the case and we won't write we will bill for the ambulance piece how how's that working out for you as that is that of a push is that like a


to think about doing one where we are on the shooting ordinance and some that people may want to to hear about and open for other other suggestions if you have any


you know and hours of the time and are having a map of force blocks and that's going to be a basically that's going to create that whole issue you've got all of the water quality issues and air pollution issues and those things there are certain


inform that discussion on the sets actually paul and others have been working with a group of students from the high school to put together some history and some data that will inform that conversation as well and those students will come and participate


assume that one of the topics at the orientation would be orienting people to this process and why it's so important that we had discussed the importance of the new council really owning the


to consider who to vote for and as we knock on doors over the coming weeks i really look forward to meeting some of our community members and really look forward to the opportunity to serve on city council and and help continue to do this process of making great change in the city thank you tim


i am shaven spencer director of public works and thank you for making it out tonight for a public forum bike share and scooter share so we are going to run a efficient meeting tonight and


case because you found there was no contract california supreme court authority makes clear that you can win a contract action because there is no contract and that you will get your


walters even saw that remark about that a closing argument so then to go from there to say from a twenty five thousand dollars on two hundred and twenty thousand dollars require these folks to put up one hundred twenty thousand dollars in cash for the right


mr such the judge leyland really was led into believing that he was more than a minor player which he just wasn't the government made three general allegations we disproved each and every one of those three


fryman right after trial mr campbell remarked that even going into trial he doesn't know who the person he's supposed to identify is and that person is selected for him by the police officers and then immediately


concern the judge says i don't have jurisdiction i guess feeling that the suit is is a suit on the prior settlement agreement and not a real federal


the places doctor didn't fax upon that she was permanently disabled delta still put it through a functional capacity examination which determined she could not perform the flight attendant functions delta's doctor who's a contract doctor then reviewed all the medical evidence and


in this case i know i'm not asking for an indefinite time she didn't ask for an indefinite period of time but the employer is obligated to give someone a reasonable amount of time to come back in this case from cancer to return to their original job and the cases say it is not required to


about the overall veneer poundals that matter it certainly would have been better to have to know more about it but my position is that three out of nine is sufficient to raise the original in friends on the


confused but i see that the the facts that are there the poor dear about the structures perspective jurors were highly compelling facts that any prosecutor would be


of freeways and parking structures in roadways and there were essentially a variety of different entities that they would contract with and market to and that essentially was the nature of the claim that was


bring all appropriate relief to a purchaser can quite often i'm standing here defending it plan because my actual client is the insurance company who has funded the benefit under the available into the plan


abstract of judgment states that alvarez was convicted of section two forty five eighty one of the california penal code would your position be that we can we consider both documents i mean i realize that they


me in the record exactly what the judge said because i read the judge's opinions in this case i don't find it so you show me in the record what what what we look at in order to find out the merit of any of


you claim are there are there you're saying that's wrong that's wrong well where and by the way we are in the record do we find that where do we fall in your opinion where do we


but it's clear from his additional motions later that were filed after the judge's order and he had some other concrete objections that he didn't make during the


seem a little bit lickety split to have sixty days but not know that you have sixty in other words if the judge said you have sixty days and they didn't get it in then you might say ok i'm sorry it wasn't in


talking about folks who are trying to be adjusted as managers under that the management exception that applies only to a very small sliver of people trying to get adjustment of status as


were fabricated that the injury that he had was something that he acquired i believe that the food for less parking lot where he would occasion to drink with friends and i just simply was not ever here and if there


enough just in the wording of what was that that's clearly structure argument i think it's clearly structure i think that you do have to context that's what the invited response case is to say and i think the most recently from this court is the weatherstone case that talks about that but invited response doesn't


reflect that mr cole either was the one who took that very clearly stated conditional plea and it was stated any number of times throughout that transcript it was a conditional plea as part of the global settlement global settlement with from the judge used global settlement was the


labor i would say is notorious for not properly revising regulations we would say that in so far as two or three why the fines the term that it controls insofar as this


a rule it may have been unclear and people weren't doing it because it was difficult to keep them in the right place in the ambulances there was not much room but to make clear and the memo that went out said remember you got


to the court as to what the what you've got it done you have an exchange of letters you have you have handwritten notes we have not made a proffer of evidence with respect to this and i and i would very much like to hear the test no need to speak it was resolved by way of summary judgment before any of that was before


robinson that this issue has even a resonance and that was obviously what led to the order which is now on appeal in reversing robinson


concede that the court says and just we are facts we are demanding if it doesn't answer the question that the court has to decide you do you then have to deal with that void in which there is no case law and you have to


petitio a potential for something that went outside of that that was not under that umbrella in order for for the fraud claim to be allowed without destroying the underpinnings of the l


situation with respect to this the divorce being under care treatment the care of physicians we quote on evidence that from the beginning to near the end well


rights act where the government certainly can enforce the the rights in that statute here there's been no there'd been nothing there'd be no one to do it and it's not completely unknown for the court to


field if congress never intended that there would be a period of time where the electricity market operated without any valid rate how could there be quick action or going back to just canby's question


would graciously request this court's permission to have five minutes of rebuttal well to let me start out with with addressing the issues that have been raised by my


became aware of the case after the court issued its opinion the government has important interests its own sovereign interests before the iran u s claims tribunal and also an interest in protecting the sovereign in perspective or in states in united states quirks in


the there the question was whether an agency or instrumentality should be liable for a claim against the cuban state at that point the agency instrumentality no longer existed and all there was at that point was a ministry which


down at the border and somebody doesn't know exactly where he got the car and he's acting nervous and you like yes and you look under the car and you discover a metal compartment that's non factory and you've worked as important structure for all those years that's


on a matter of the intrinsic test tell maybe that for example if the notes are pure or an imitation that wouldn't be the case what i mean are imitation if you look at a measure with six looks significantly different and different when you compare measure to


intended it had it wanted to craft the statute that the court describes it certainly could have done that instead what the legislature did and we believe this was kind of a gimmick was to take a statute that already existed and made it easier


is you know she is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony she was looking at the facts of this misdemeanor and trying to engage counsel in discussion regarding the facts


was already observed here there aren't any of those analysts retail outlets out there that are available if i may i'd like to hand up several exhibits that are undisputed these are these are


to stop this immediately but if we with ninety percent market share do it i guess it's ok that goes dramatically to their intent in doing this and it's an anti competitive intent the second site that you asked for the s m g


but retail services for its items is coffee coffee things drinks salads prepared foods items that is that those are the same exact retail services they were offered at the thing for now the thing part


ever want to know in one's life ok i want to i want to stress a couple of things first to respond to mr mr glick's comment at the end that you don't have to be injured and statutes of my dispenses with the concept of injury the title


enforcement of an agreement between the parties exactly and so we still left with the fact that we're not talking about the kind of parties in a diversity case we're talking about f h a case there's nothing in here


form selection clause in this contract justifies to arbitration is focused on disputed in front of different arbitrators in different cities at the same time no one in trained into the arbitration


reconsider its summary judgment based on no those four factors however yes they can but were not even limited to the grounds the judge made a summary judgment ruling on absolutely not your honor and i do invite discussion on the essential elements of this case


depositions in this case everybody that had anything to do with anything at amblin universal dream words of world are closed there was no nothing in the record to show anything contrary to what i said


if her accommodation took the form of a transfer to a light duty position and this court said no first we have held a c b a provision does not trigger preemption


formation requirement incentivizes committees to form early so that the commission can add eight days to administer disclosure therefore it's a disclosure provision what the government misses is that the so called disclosure provisions that trigger


distributions such dots that's pretty convincing your honour's if we take a look at the other state statutes which do require that the court in order to determine what those the jury have to find beyond a reasonable


that's not a factual determination by the district court that's binding on this court instead what you have in the record is that morgan has admitted that robinson believe that the statements made by morgan were false


exactly that's exactly right your honor but the loan was it was toxic loans predatory it was from two thousand and six those loans came to light few years later they weren't given i have in my fax section were and unfortunately they didn't keep their


case your client knew the funds committed to his trust or to the responsibility of the corporation of which he was the head and he had the financial


late march two thousand and finally the bankruptcy court determined mr harris acted with the requisite scienter necessary to committee file cation when he quote decided and quote to use the funds intrusted to him for other purposes including payments to


on a subject and when you have a subject which is like michael who was you saying before the taser by hope that you brad was submitting are you talking about when he's


i think it's paragraph six of the transcript where i tell the court


amount and then what the what the petitioner or what the pizza pro did in this case was hire a mathematician to explain that if you look at these two benefits that present value


must be the one prescribed by the secretary so we know from that that congress expected people to use a mortality table and making these calculations


that there hasn't been a case in nebraska where they've been forced to apply the public policy against intentional wrongdoing against a contract that went the other way on that so if it is said if your honour's were to find that this actually fit within the


you still exist and we had been serving homeless on this way really all way back to the ninety's actually and so the question is were we is there any evidence on the record that the plaintiff


criterion is classic evidence of pretext we also want to do that the application for the for individual say about or didn't say anything about what wages they would accept it didn't say anything


and to your question about about hiring him is because the board found that his conduct the overtures were unlikely to continue if you listen stated and that is because he only well for two reasons really he only reached out


that the facts that is correct and and so those would have still been on carney's dime had they had to do it but they were told that they didn't have to do that they would rely


by substantial evidence that this was a voluntary choice to stop providing services if you only have three weeks of provision of services and then you stop altogether that that is not primarily engaged i do want to talk about the arizona surgical center


possible conflict and that's all the case law in this court to the more case the kemp case which dealt both of those dealt with overhead reaching all that has to be identified as a possible


door however even their solid game called and threatened sandra during this call demanded that sandra begin a sexual relationship with him in exchange for protection recognizing the imminent danger that they faced when sandra


contention here i'm happy to confine mine as well if the effect that any of the judges have any questions about other matters please feel free to interrupt me any time with regard to the family as a particular social group in that instance the court the


phone in be themself in the head in the phone till he was bleeding and caused him to require stitches a couple things to that were that were pretty


medium risk because of the prior suicide because of the failing to be honest about things and his he basically stated he wanted to see the doctor and one would be out of the infirmary of the next so


gone the day of the suicide and she was required to do checks hourly checks on him and when i asked her she said she glanced in the cell and shoot him remember seeing them at all


know sitting here right now i don't remember if he was in that i don't remember if he was in the cell at the time or not it would have made sense if you wasn't in the cell because as you pointed out judge kelly the way the system worked out


remain so but when it comes to the phrase of the actual cost of construction and engineering it isn't historical study that makes a projection that this is the way in which construction bids generally are higher and


address that one additional topic of a man if there excuse me if there are no further questions i'll tender back the remainder of my time thank you


policy makers are determined by as a matter of state law a state law in this case is that the final policy makers that phelps county our county board a corporal at the jail doesn't have final policy making


this court overturned the bankruptcy appellate panels decision and hearty the court focused on the amendments made to the statute which those amendments were not analyzed or viewed or discussed by the bankruptcy appellate


government assistance based on need we would have to state that that money is based on need not just because the money would go to the lower income individuals it's need but any payment under the minnesota property tax refund act which would be subject to exemption under minnesota


what what makes this issue so straightforward is that mr vargo admits that he and he alone created both of the policies that were challenging he admits that he alone


is a policymaker who has taken over the position of his predecessor and what those cases what policies are set by the presiding judge and i think that's that's the that's one of the issues that's before us now and you say


on what i haven't read all of the testimony but your description of what of their motivation is different than than jackson's quoting quoting in the materials if you jackson's testified


you can't have a non arm's length transaction and not have closeness that's why i'm saying the bankruptcy court committed error in finding out there wasn't closeness and examining all those factors in light of the fact that it found clearly found that it wasn't an arm's length transaction


looking for whites or the forest well and as i was just about to state this is not a usual voting rights act section two case normally there's a much smaller minority population that's more compact and that's not the situation in


candidates so the question is is the court required to analyze whether the proposed system helps or hurts the minority we believe it as the district court must when determining liability under tingles


of the local parishes within the archdiocese are available for the for distribution to the archdiocese creditors regardless of whether that particular ny i've ever


various levels of evidence with respect to those entities and i'm asking you what you know we're going to look in the record sites for are we well certainly there are there is there's all kinds of intermingling with respect to insurance issues there's a there's a


supreme court in leon to say well we think we can authorize you know a good faith exception without the warrant process basically you know suffering for that but here it is because they're not


that is united states versus turner seventy one f third three seventy four twenty fifteen that's judge kelly writing for the court in that case you know and really it it becomes when the government says this is


face there isn't good faith which i think there is but assuming that there isn't and we reached the issue of the addition of evidence i'd like to address the the argument by defense counsel that


if you if the government takes a cause of action away that's a cognize a bill taking under the federal constitution and so the issue becomes then whether we're time barred ok and we're not time barred


well that's contrary to everything we do in court you know at the very minimum we go to the probable cause and court generally is in a civil case where it probably a preponderance but what they're saying is we've got some evidence over here


conspiracy if the recipient of the information doesn't even know why has it that creates a whole different problem it seems to me but could every person conveniently say then that they


district court for the first time so i don't think there was a stipulation on that and i think it's different than p f c custom in that regard the other thing i just want to note is that in p s e custom all you had was a listing of offenses that could result in terminations and then a just cause provision


sentence but so you're talking about a completely different judgment i said the amend the amended judgment is a misnomer because it's a new judgment and that judgment hasn't been challenged that's the point we're trying to make it has not been


would we enter a plea agreement like that that's absurd then they also have to read out of this the last pork which says that the government needs to establish amounts as compensable under the applicable rest statutes it's compensable


yes you could decide this case without ever reaching the constitutional analysis but you know how lawyers are and so i think it's protective of this


damages and when we look at the complaint you have to consider the statute that is relied upon as the basis for the sole count in the complaint and when we look at that statute we see that it's not a discordant it's not an equitable remedy


the fact is true as counsel said the jurisdiction issue did not come up until judge cheyne brought it up it wasn't brought up by us in any of our motion to dismiss and


is they've given you your name address telephone number a date of birth in this case the wrong one and the last four digits of the security number you know the person is the question is is that enough information to tell you at that point we should not be digging around this


violation but that's not the law the legitimate business needs permissible purpose is an exception it's not the rule further as this court addressed whether the settlement agreement gave the issue some legitimate business


drastically different skin tone and facial features mr gonzales is a decade younger of off than off our aguilar and perhaps most notably mr gonzales has several very prominent physical deformities he is missing four fingers on his right


no meat saw in two thousand and ten that had any guards different than the meat saw that we had here there was no evidence and in fact their own experts said that what he needed to design his meat saw was not in fact available in two thousand and ten he says that it page one


to what extent does the act of state doctrine allow or require a court to figure out whether or not a government official has the authority to act so for example if you if you had a let's


has been indicted we have a letter we'll address that next week but we have a letter from the new government condemning this trust arrangement we have a national assembly of venezuela which has condemned this trust the


that you also have different considerations and when you're dealing with equitable relief one of the purposes of it is to try to deter future conduct which is one of the purposes for punitive so that issue extends beyond that on the punitive issue beyond that


united states of america versus the macgregor gale stages here for the appellant


explicitly say i don't recall but you look only to the state of the law and that is something that a score is least as well so there seems to review as the district court


question did you ever see any crew members using them answer i saw crew members dipping their rags into the buckets and wiping the table and then she was asked what did you see at the


the motion he indicated that the shipowner could have known about this dangerous condition that's not the standard in that in the facts don't support that kind of inference your honour's i would like to move


like to turn with the court's permission to the a p a finality ground that the district court and the government principally rely on and i think the easiest way for the court to dispose of this issue is just to recognize that us


one the answer is no your honor for the reasons we say in our brief i think i've run out of time and i really wanted to address that invited error question if i could have thirty seconds to do it you


simply to say that he didn't have to be a x number i think it is your honor but in this case we do have a lot more than that is there any case that is ever held at a violation of


that instruction itself covers the basis or that instruction is fine i understand why in those cases that might be invited air nothing like that happened here there was no discussion of the specific instruction and nothing


lawsuit but the strength presumption in its registration cannot be extended to anything other than plumbing fixtures for the likelihood of confusion else consult the faucet now go back and say oh now we have an


requires an unbiased review of the facts so it's her by her own statements if our methodology requires an unbiased for you but yet her entire professional career is primarily


i just would make quickly about that one is just because the district court didn't find her accountable for that doesn't mean that it couldn't have based on the evidence that mr bashir said which is that mr nas did say that he had been contacted by the


rubric i think the jury made a solid decision here and i also believe as to the nd issue that there was absolutely no abuse of discretion by judge walker or judge hoc in the administration of this case


was over a mile long it cleared a quarter of one hundred feet clear cutting trees and going through the fields it went through a grove of trees mature oaks and removed twenty five and left


qualification because he's familiar the court and the case law here deems an owner to be able to give a valuation opinion of his own property both before taking and after taking yes there has to be some places that i mean these


thank you the standard compensation became the center point of the trial was referenced nine times in the opening statement full compensation was referenced another eleven times during the


argument at its answered re sixty seven to sixty nine but there was no evidence the government brought to trial to the sentencing hearing where it showed that anybody else


you know at the twelve b six stage we understand that the appellant's pleading is assumed to be true so from a procedural perspective we can't really dispute those figures of course substantively


only reason that the disqualification or that the the withdraw was not approved at the outset was he expressed on the record a concern as to whether that would preserve malpractise claims against mr moffat and his firm ultimately it was determined they would not and he allowed the


accommodations well there are there was one actually that the center for hearing recommended which was assign a three person manager communication team so those people can be her go


it reasonable for a juror without any evidence of understanding what a mortgage broker does to know that a mortgage broker would be passing along the information from the contract not disclosing the


half of her commission that she's getting from the banks to defend the common law wife the hairdresser and i guess you're arguing on that would be well that's not to the hairdresser wife that that was getting that so we can tag him with


not and under florida law the concern your honor is i understand is irrelevant to the legal analysis that's the point there's a there's a florida statute on point we cited in our brief section six hundred and eighty nine dollars when you have record ation of title which happened here in transfer of possession which


eight the consequence of belonging to that category is not the status that we have requires we have requires that you're in this status not that you know you're not permitted to have a firearm and what i was getting out before in the tricks case tricks


to a religious leader or to somewhere outside of the boca raton and here is the number of a doctor that can do those things for you each and every one of those things is absolutely permissible under the ordinance if it


as as strong data wise as you might want it to be to support a speech or section that's louis is your honor and what you're quoting from is just a very brief portion of a very large


the court my name is dana maine and i have the pleasure of representing the city of sandy springs in this action having some i'm going to try to address some of the issues that appear to be important to the


legitimate distance from the threat from the false alarms your honor it is significant that this ordinance only applies to situations where there is a


for and for other types of of relief if those if the claims could have been raised in the petition for certain other thing your honor i think that it's important to keep in mind here is that is that this is a two dismissal


forgot to imply there over with their notion that like oh when congress put dodd frank in place that they didn't they forgot to include contempt in there is somehow there should be implied that's not what the supreme court has said


with eight hundred and forty grams over two years and the evidence about the defendant spending money on trips cruises gambling and buying vehicles is consistent with eight hundred and forty grams of crack over two years so we're you you know i mean i'm


could think also have motives that maybe not tell the complete truth sometimes they say you know out of the mouth of babes and i'm just wondering if you're in the if you're the


issue in this case not an issue of the amount is not an issue in this case is the is the entitlement to fees final then


in two thousand and twelve the state of florida didn't take his information down from its website even though he had completed his sentence and moved out of the state well that's not action the information was up on its website that wasn't taken down and his submission to this


whatever the whatever the be a file requested in its motion to examine this is what i'm having you show up on ok and that's what courts do you ask for relief you get some of it you get none of it here we got the show cause order and that's what the


party on the term is subject to sanction by the bankruptcy court


subsequently your court in north jersey media group versus ashcroft at three o eight fed it fed second third one ninety eight in the same year rejected the troika free press versus ashcroft


about three factors in front of john and john and two of those factors the second in the third one extent the the legal issue involved for the number two and the public policy


see we're not we're getting the signal that this is not de minimus gee this is important and then my goodness you must have rejoiced when you saw the the fear ward right twenty two hundred dollars twenty five hundred i can't imagine mr bruno was very happy about that


prevailing i don't question that he proved liability but he didn't prove damages which is why he got a buck we don't question the fact that he's prevailing party and we don't question the fact that this verdict is only what it is that is a


on the merits can just about anything be fashion into a weapon in in the prison setting absolutely certain and i'm shocked to learn that prison and ministry just choose to use padlocks


that's presented in argued by everybody and render a decision because wrong means wrong means wrongly decided which in this case means even if we


issue and he did and it did no go looking at still nielsen so all along the arbitrator did exactly what the parties authorized him to do and he followed the law he interpreted the law and we all know the standard that even if


to the court of appeals as well as the the state courts in addition so in looking at mr hartman's legal ackermann and legal ability throughout the litigation which continued even after the summary judgment decision


and continue with how is that any different from this i mean what this goes back is in the government going to make that argument and isn't that argument have a pretty darn good or at least a pretty decent chance of succeeding


was clarified because the board's general decision was just that any statement or the judge's believing that there could be zero there could be a benefit was enough which it's clear by the other circuits and


that standard i think that comes full circle to judge the rigorous question about what the jury instruction would be mr dystrophin of the district court also relied at least to some extent upon the


start with the variance there was no variances about the contrary to the representations that the appellant makes it is a breeze the government's theory of this case was clear and consistent throughout the pendency of the matter below the charge in the initial indictment


surprise a trial were clearly captured by the language of the superseding indictment the notion that there was going to be evidence of post closing conda was explicitly referenced in the superseding indictment litigation was explicitly referenced


so then if we take it a level lower we go and look at the specific language of the superseding indictment or again at a point where we can and this inquiry because the indictment superseding indictment explicitly referenced these types of evidence but if we want to take it


theory or or or possibility presented then the government presented two measures of actual loss that the court could also consider if the court did not agree with the government's reasoning because the government presented one calculation based on


you look at the court's orders the court understood and conveyed to him that his calls would be protected from the prosecution team the prosecution should have been using a taint agent they should have informed the court at least ex


case like this where a chord is being asked whether the filed rate doctrine applies there is no case like there is in other in telecommunications or in utilities that has gone through the process of the terming whether the underlying


even if they go back thirty or forty years now the supreme court also said in that same case that it recognized that this could allow liability based on very very old evidence and this could be a problem for employers and the


controlling opinion is there anyway is there any way to distinguish cool without just saying oops our bad it's difficult it did not