as i understand it the you know the parties are preparing to are in the process of exchanging documents we're preparing to do depositions to go to the questions for example of the impact of the regulations on on prices routes and services so there is


think that this got on its face that he was mis advised he would get one year if you pled because the whole hearing the whole purpose of the of the forgoing the trial tremendous precinct many trees were lost on everything three strikes application


a long history i don't think you're outside the spirit of the scheme that's the language in this respect and i'm not going to exercise it on your behalf so he got it is you're saying it's loaded with john yeah i think she did the best


based concern and that was the coalition's position on those concerns it is entirely lawful for a health care consumer advocacy organization to attempt to persuade plans to change the terms in their plans and to


you're saying that there was substantial evidence to support the march i think was march fifth onset date ok but even accepting back she


know this sometimes happens we get up here on appeal and it would be better if it were raised then the judge could say well either i'm surprised he i do or don't need to have some kind of fact finding or form i need to make a determination you know beyond a reasonable doubt whatever the case is but


jingles and occasionally with williams trafficking in drugs with maurice and with find out what the jury found in their verdict was that the general said not supervised organized or


one and a half minutes so i mean i think i do wish to put the case in context in the courts already made reference to it this is a very very strong case for the government we had a confession to count one we had the work of an undercover agent over


of the ten students in the class seven of them on the first exam finished within six hours and so and then the person who made the decision to have a seven hour limit mr kilpatrick testified at trial subject to


objection and furthermore the court went on to consider the article three question of whether the that supervisory rule which would cut the district court out of the process and even cut the court of appeals out of the process of review whether that would violate article three and the supreme court held it would not


can in some cases the court is sort of limited if you can into that particular scenario although again the breadth and reach of buchanan i think is a little bit up in the air but even if the court is troubled by the second rationale certainly the first rationale this unilateral rewriting of


might say he's partially disabled but he could do for we don't know what those records show but i guess the question is who's burden is that to go get those records and submit them and i will i will argue it's


board's policy statements or memoranda saying well we originally were applying it as bodies found in two contends then a different interpretation held sway for a certain number of years and now


violated its policy on harassment and upon inquiry mr peterson confirmed their suspicions they were intended to be judged mentally they were intended to be hurtful they were intended to condemn practices they were


registered at least thirty two thousand seven hundred gives almost sixty thousand apiece what's wrong with there's


remedies there's other violations here in addition to this alleged pretextual closing of the plant absolutely killed the bargaining order well awfully based on those other violations which both the district judge and the


make this business successful they needed manpower that they could control and manpower is the word used by john won on the wiretaps he tells other people i have manpower you don't have to go out and get it on the street i have people who've worked


with the to protest that the fact of fleeing itself makes him a car makes him a danger to the community and i would suggest that that should not be a basis for allowing


is qualified immunity recognize that an officer may be mistaken at the time a decision is made but it asks if it says look if you're going to put these people in the situation where they have the obligation to


going to a public form and said look you're you're misrepresenting the agreement which is going to affect them around the communication between bargaining it down generally speaking not to mention the fact that you're taking money from us that we agreed would go into this


for the operations of n r r g which for an insurance company is ultimately it's insurance coverage which it provides through insurance policies if thirty nine zero five


that's what california recognized twenty eight sixty in us in that it's unjust and inequitable unjust and an unjust windfall to ensure to provide a


nothing but i'm asking for a minor participation adjustment of two levels thank you graham


that the pretrial conference will file them ninety days or sixty days in advance so that's what they're ready for disposition of the conference but we will not file them until your honor sets a pretrial conference and then the trial is not scheduled for


ninety days to sue about this part of your polling and so the fact that she happened not to have technical legal counsel at that point really is irrelevant she was on notice to task which she was supposed to do and she did not do it


established in the district court record and the record before this court during the hay vs proceedings there is nothing in this record to show that there was a challenge to chechen streams original finding that using capable of knowingly


i want to hold you know if it was his testimony of that he was not part of any conspiracy or plan to rob or commit burglary i don't believe


case of fraud by deception and you're allowed to do that because cover property means properties of others for which you in transit subjective have arranged


but the expansion of competition is their claim of harm


potential alternative or alternative which negates the need for all of this capacity that they have a contract in the future for they've attempted to get rid of the capacity at least half of europe


the complaints the things he was involved in at the time in relationship to the cases he had going at the time he kept all asleep and the furious together according to this according to the facts alleges complain you know what it means when he said the plaintiffs amended


know my attorneys that are you satisfied with his performance well i want you to you know he says to the judge there was this one hundred twenty month offer he said he was going to come back to the jail he didn't come back to the jail the judge there's


against the bad ok let's just assume for the sake of discussion we were to hold that you can't do that against a surety would you want us to remain and the case to the district courts that you could pursue stake claims against the contractor


though it didn't have to to make calls to internet service providers subjected to fifty one b files requirements and in doing so the commission expressly cited the federal communication commission in its ruling in one


ninety day period remained before service was in fact effectuated on that on the defendant and that if we do know from the record that in that case the coleman hospital people were served within one week so it's


court should treat that pleading as a motion a criminal procedural motion or if you're treated as a complaint and the court never reached the alternative to the motion the second alternative which was to treat it as a complaint the court


made up the evidence in her declaration of april twenty four teams she states that having done no investigation of the alibi when it came time to present evidence in support there


conditional offer in lieu of term the nation and the july ninety nine you section ration of the terminations she's challenge that twice in front of the whole life civil rights commission both times this is the civil rights commission concluded there was no cause to believe that discrimination based on national origin


law and he argued in the trial court that fifty fifty five point one was preempted by federal law the trial court never reached that issue that was insecure court well the case is removed from superior court to federal court he


multiple agreements between the parties one of the parties commences an action based upon one of those agreements one of those agreements that does not contain an arbitration clause the other party responds with the motion to dismiss


presence to talk about race in the workplace it doesn't have that age remarks and comments does not rise to that level of animist that one might find if it's comments based on someone's race or ethnicity or even religion


the issues in the case so i'm not going to belabor repeating all that i'm just i would just like to point out to the court that this is really an issue of whether there is an a material question of fact as


evidence in this record showing that that the situation that they want to get out of the real estate business i don't think it's properties anymore was part of that bad faith decision on their part


decision to sell a property is wasn't made on a per property basis the decision was made as we're going to sell all these properties and we're going to in the course of selling these properties put in a system for suing to


of that business when you're a franchisee subject to their right of selling the property that they own on which that business is located if you're right it's not really a true analogy but if you're a


the judge at the trial court level in this case essentially found the due process violation mr starr was not a named party mr serry did not have legal notice now i understand you're arguing that he had practical notice and in the real world he had noticed


issues found in the mess in the investigation you know if if which i posit is what was happening was that the administration had hired investigation investigators to come up with a way to get rid of


proof that if they accepted that that the case would have settled for the seventy four thousand out of mana dollars with that and when that suggests that the case that the demand was more than seventy four thousand one hundred ninety nine dollars if you're willing to settle for a dollar less


second ground on which the plaintiffs are taught the trigger that this individual is excessive it's part of the loop that's the commerce clause and you haven't heard about that because it's not involved in the other case so i'd like to begin by discussing the commerce clause


state of the record right now payments are being made the bank has been making the payments yearly to the debtor in the dispersing agents on the other recoup portion three hundred less the one twenty they keep for five years the one eighty is being paid out and


a court robert climate of late and walk ins on behalf of consolidated freeways nor folks southern in getting into the donor to the ten of the shipper and whether or not a constructive pressure be imposed


when african american players were then permitted to play in the major leagues we're saying that classic stands up to one nine hundred seventy nine when the laws regarding the persians for pensions and medical benefits changed my question to you is


and a half hours at a time with no change of


this is the best evidence that the funeral home is not a unique protectable and as a matter of fact in this very situation there was a writer who claimed in new york in a separate case


six feet under who's the dead father and comes back and and basically tells everyone with what everything's about in that case he came back in a fantasy sequence in the first episode ends and basically said this is the theme of this


elder excuse me the girlfriend of the elder son tries to struggle against her particular mental illness and she can't do it the younger son's life struggles against a sexual identity he can't do it all of these things and they all try to get away from their


defined in any meaningful way in addition there is no indication that the liability for participation in a scheme can extend the on the quick federal officers who


transaction they could have been reported properly and then they would have been no misrepresentations i don't i think that's one of the quintessential definition of aiding and abetting which is providing substantial assistance to someone else who's doing the


is absolutely a word for word it goes over the page paragraph three seventy four explaining the falsity of death


or investigator has the power to conduct an administrative search he can walk in any can conduct a search of the premises for items that are related to dental business the one thing he can do is he can


would like to point out that this is a case where dr hasan had every opportunity to pursue his lawsuit and he's not being precluded from action


give allies the issues the same way that a court would under the ada hey i know you feel differently about that but if i were a lawyer advising you have to say and you're saying if you have you must choose between an administrative review and review in court i think i would


information that i'm alluding to right now this is strange to the complaint was provided to the insurance company as best i can ascertain on october fifteenth the reason why the information was not previously provided it


this and make a few changes based on what's necessary to comply with the trial court's orders so no a lad was not on notice had no reasonable way to know that these ongoing negotiations


recall well i don't recall exactly what the second trial court said about the matter but i do remember statements and i'm sure


original designer of the whole juniors line still williams died is that she never was going to use roxy by itself when the line was introduced because no one would have known who roxy was at the time the company was trading upon the great bank and


ground for the core if roxy's uses the standalone or if it's used as a product mark before camps the first used then that would be sufficient to justify the court making the ruling that it did under rule fifty


terms of california the cigarettes were going to be sold in california but if for the sale to go to missouri it would have state in the trades name and then sold directly in the story i'm sorry to the company in missouri who would then have the responsibility of paying the


then taking off and taking from peter to pay paul it won't cost the pension plan anything all it really means is that the funds will have to be real reallocated if the court were to go with the plaintiffs


stayed in that account plan why should they do that because that's the fairest way to do it with respect to all participants it treats every dollar in the plan exactly the same way one wife from the just be a straight


but i submit that in that the obligation to employ the medical service for yes


examine the statute you'll see that even if it matters which statute we're going under which we can test and even if going under twelve thirty one a for now would moot the case under some theory


degradable among reason and i don't think there's any question that on both aggravated felony and on moral turpitude this petitioner has at least met that standard


minimums really changed the scope of counsel's responsibility in that regard and used to be zero to twenty with zero to twenty and the important thing to tell a client was this judge is fairly lenient this judge you know will be interested that you have a family that you need to


the evidence most favorable wasn't there was no investigation being conducted we established that we established that not one witness provided by appellants who for nine years has been trying to get an investigation conducted not one witness was


member of the county and even myself have to accept fully represented or ruled against the plaintiffs in every matter brought forth in every forum what has occurred is the plaintiffs are attempting to use this court as a sword not a


speculation because we know in ahmanson the court is telling us where a shareholder is deprived of his opportunity to transact shares we don't know when he would have sold in ahmanson we were deprived of that opportunity because


exponentially higher values the that donahue got the choice when to sell his shares mr gimmick did not under those circumstances mr donahue profited from


stock options should be excluded well first of all there are several forms of compensation in the documents that are specifically included in stock options are not one of them second that the second part of your question relates it goes back to the


that rule thirty three providing for the grant of a motion for new trial that the seven day time limitation for filing a motion we really have read you have basically the bottom line the bottom line your honour's is that rule for it


vehicle get away from your vehicle and so on that


the pleadings should be held to a less stringent standard just her first attorney as a pro bono will turn is that you know this appeal had been going on for a while until i got involved as well the case the facts are undisputed that appellant was a biologically related a


believe their basic argument is they didn't need to because we didn't meet our burden of proof i don't know to expert declarations comprehensive declarations from the doctors it seemed as though we met our burden of proof and shifted the burden to the


coach and the new track coach doesn't want a two hundred metres they want a five thousand metre star from my school they put in their match criteria in the middle of the recruiting season so the patent provides for that and this is what claymates all about the patent provides optionally


two dimensional case now you say you argue that that means that that's because you're just referring to two dimensional being the general circumstance but by the way that that is offset with the time i've implied that you're only talking about two dimensional


very specific it says it by interleaving technique which uses in combination that sets forth the invention the environment of the invention to any reader of skill in the art and there's only one that's submitted evidence and he was clear about this and that's in the record


descriptive although ironically enough we actually had a registration for that for about thirty years and the office didn't find it distinctive to begin with but this is for other services that are not traditionally chamber of commerce services but what i do know


and at that point they started looking into what was going on there was this issue with transferring from directly dealing with o p m to going through the the national finance center and then in the process of looking through what was going on that's when they realized


regulation we have you know it came first it was the district court filing does it make a difference to the fact that the district court filing was not to make a case it was


district court to see how that's going to play out and how that will affect the work your station the district court was willing to go along with this very dismissal but there's a simple rule in the regulation that whichever came first is the action on


explanation is in artful but i think it does a good job of saying that administrators are views about assessment of duties and if you go back to the decision of two thousand and four it talks about that too and it says


partnership return the government's problem is not with the treatment of those items on the partnership return the government's problem is the treatment of outside basis on the individual partner's return so in effect the woman says the


proceedings they object to this you know pay first litigate later policy that was adopted in one nine hundred ninety seven this pay first litigate litigate later it


not cite one case to explain its holding there is no case where it said well in this services versus goods case well they are sufficiently related there's no cases cited and your honor i would submit in every services versus


in this case as you know the i think the law requires that the foreign producers when found to be dumping and and injuring the domestic industry have duties paid for the


might be a problem to using them as prior argument that were your purpose then maybe the judge would have a job and the judge have only were ruled that we could only use two pieces of prior art the the catalogs in the drawings of the


prior art that would have had to have been some examination of the differences and whether or not there was any motivation to combine various references to reach that conclusion it would have had to been


and raise obvious this in that we go into another round of it i don't think that's the way to go there has to be a line drawn at some point procedurally rule twenty six you have to have some evidence of motivation to combine some evidence of skill in the art


from taking a power but putting it on top of stabilizing a structure when you accusing me of infringement it's because it's not a top frame and as used in well but i would


those sites to read the language and i submit what the court should find is that there is no step by step analysis which they claim there is between the beginning and end steps in the means for processing


to be a product shape mark at a flawed functional and secondary meaning analysis of the mark the evidence submitted by maggie


and then the supreme court would on a set if buyers are assured the product serves its purpose by seeing the operative mechanism that in itself serves an important market need it would be at cross purposes to those objectives


right to say that bart has no evidence contrary to any of that none of the other gore employees who have disparaged cooper ever once denies any of those documented contributions


as it was part and parcel of his original main one nine hundred ninety nine but one i suppose and here's my question suppose that the board said sure you know we've just read the bond the session and we've


really was prospective and they also added that it was essentially equivalent to an injunction even though they didn't specifically request an injunction so it could differ somewhat from this for the sort of the classic


permanent easement and number two that the before and after test which is the conventional test for measuring damages in case of a going to say it sounds totally in inappropriate to me the before and after test almost as inappropriate


false print so even if the government were to prevail on the notion that this is a permanent decent your saying that a whole new evaluation would have to be done as to the product


of federal claims determine under those circumstances the correct measure of damages your honor i would propose that the court look at this from a slightly different perspective the question is


instead it was reduced to the one hundred amount because eleven hundred dollars really really it's a clear call that ass as opposed to something that was uncollectable for example under ija so in in that particular case yes it would be it the appellant should in that case


i had that that the court is going to review whether or not in fact this was reasonable or or unreasonable that is the application of lot of fact and then there would be no jurisdiction obviously to the extent that it's just the interpretation of the just that you this court and then of course has


the government's position was quite clear if they did not implement the statute and could be consistent in their view that the statute didn't provide for payment for correspondence courses that the


under energy capital this court said that the damages must be directly flowing from the breach boston innocent that was a a deal between two private parties the government had nothing to do with it so now what they negotiated is between them


i believe the hercules case where the settled with a claimant on i believe was agent orange claims and then turned around and sued the government for breach of contract and not that those actions that the that you hercules took


to the agency interpretation here is unreasonable they are saying there is no need to make any adjustments at all judge respond any gave the case back to them gave them clear guidance to address the


a rules so it's vital dating what i've stated why is that not an indication of the value of this particular product you've got to have that to get on the market and you want to share


the government's view is that even if you disagree with us on the statute of limitations even if you disagree with us that this is not a substantive rule the most you can do is say this rule is invalid and it should not have been applied in any of these cases you should not


extraordinary at least that's not warranted here when they do have an avenue to get the relief they're seeking albeit we recognize a difficult one but if what they really are striking down the regulation of the queue claim i'm trying to think that and what can


reasonableness of the position of the united states that i think you could be right that partner would apply but that's not what the question is here the question is could the better and scored for any purpose consider legal


of how you interpret the claim i mean you're supposed to be interpreting the claim based on the view of one skilled in the art of the time that's different than saying you can't ever use any task to show infringement or not infringe well you know i don't think that's a correct


panels as claimed meaning a rigid bottom panel rigid and panels and flexible front and back and so they're all out there but now they're out there but all the court did was selectively picking from different places and say well this is all simple technology it would be obvious to get


feeling at least there you are going to question whether it was in i don't think there was any dispute that if communications medium is if the meaning of that phrase is understood to be a network for transfer data it was


the machine test one of the ways in which it did it was by virtue of the algorithms i think it's it's


more in your honour's the analysis of the section one hundred one issue is exactly as judge dyke expressed in his questions to counsel the way you look at the four twenty seven patent for compliance with section one hundred one is to first


i don't believe that it was addressed on summary judgment if that will be that that was going to be an issue at trial and then the court found that the patent didn't satisfy


construction in the district court somewhat reciting then then said at the end with no other saw you present in the salling solid solution and yet example one expression


if i can respond to that in a little more general fashion the issue of whether separate consideration would be required for the april fifth agreement should never of been a trial the court had ruled prior to trial and that's why you don't see them


definition you should how you should read section three seven so for example the provision that allows pre issuance submissions by third parties with respect to contact with patients that doesn't take effect for a year expressly doesn't it's eight b one twenty five statute three sixteen


specifically that the retroactive application is no reason to question the soundness of the validity of congress action because the court said congress has authority over patents and by terms of the constitution is planner and so then i think we move to this


not there is a picture of his genitals on or near a child's put the question is does that create a pattern of activity which in that mind the court may have found that it did i mean that's not that but the


that we would urge this court to do is instruct the district court to carefully consider whether mr boykin needs counsel for two reasons st of all as the events of the past few days have unveiled the exhausting question this case is going to be more


government offers post talk justifications in its briefing for why the judge lawfully could do that they're wrong and i'm going to address that in a minute but i want to just note that there alternately irrelevant because the district judge who were asked to determine whether he abused


the discussing the charges the district court had crafted its own instruction and the government at that time did not notice that no one had dropped out of the instruction and the government missed that it's an error the statute should have at minimum be


here today to argue solely for the pattern of structured and i want to make that clear to the court time and i appreciate your honor's point that leads us to the nd part of your honor's question which is where there are clear requests for the pattern instruction i


had at least dr coleman discuss these specific impairments in a way that seems to line up remarkably with the listing and is otherwise a functional comment and there's two main


believed was not indian lands and in a facility that they believed was an ancillary facility they candidly admit in the hoarsely declaration that's in the record that they began losing revenue yet they took no


i see what you're saying and that is what it did but then it resulted that dippin you in here resulted the interpretation of it we contend resulted in the sale of property of one person namely a corporate entity to


court injunction against the marin county share which would then find itself in the position of having conflicting injunctions one by way of this consent decree one by way of a state court judge and is that really a situation that we want to invite as opposed to permitting the


factored into his decision not to challenge the status quo dentures in front of the jury and you don't really have a great night if you knew right and i know that he did not know from talking to him to talking to the first


out well and the split away from the basketball theory basketball game theory is even stranger because that involves getting home committing your three murders perhaps changing it's close enough no one says he goes back to the basketball


correct he had to rely on the state they gave the cellmark d n a profile over to the prosecutor's office and said there is an unknown man an unknown female d n a on this please run this


creating a distinction that we hadn't been thinking of before but oh goodness are just so many reasons why that might not be enough to bring mr hanssen home so to speak st of all that is it


response to one of mr henderson's points that that may be true you're talking about one life sentence this is seven life sentences two of which are mandatory and the idea you


not dependent on where the insured is located if it matters where the insured is located it's more about the contacts or the relationships that the insurance companies have had with the insured in that particular location and there are not i'm so i'm


you have to address it and that may be the best way of doing it again though the ultimate conclusion is that the l g a have to actually explain how they


points to it some context is helpful here in twenty thirteen through early twenty fifteen pearson was dealing with the various struggling aspects of its business its an educational


proceeds that is revenue that's coming from a lawful source mr anderson let me tell you what concerns me about this and you can you can address it we all agree don't we tracy is not required we all agree that jackson


there was no reason that this church could not have been accommodated and allowed to continue the church expressed its willingness to fully comply with parking the city in two thousand and seventeen gave us conditions permit process and says here are parking


loads that he would coordinate for them to try to complete those two things misses the point on the ostrich every argument that council made really goes to will tend ship didn't know that's what every one of those arguments was about and that goes


and the supreme court has said that bringing a dog for separate canine sniff in an area that's open to the public be it a hallway or a porch that is a violation of the fourth amendment and people who are leasing a spot


here we need to think about what's actually in the rules your honor i understand that we're in the situation that we were in and the practical realities of that situation we did not believe that it was any violation of the rule


immediately with notice under this plain reading of the contract the longest possible terms of the party servicing a personal relationship was june first two thousand and two approximately four months ago


well the count was finished there was a specific count for each and every one of the one thousand two hundred thirty three customer accounts that were transferred the suggestion is based upon a draft spread sheet


on the eve of trial and they were gonna so why should we not cut them a little slack just as the district judge cut you some very important slack to allow you to file a motion at all


heroin on behalf of a local drug that sounds like evidence of distribution to me well it is some evidence i mean if you believe it and if it's corroborated and if it's not impeached i think sharp yeah ok


we wouldn't be here we wouldn't be bothering you we wouldn't have bothered the trial judge with it and he just did not occur to us that we thought that we had done with the rule requires the rule requires that they know who the person is and they knew it they they


home solely for officer safety when he is not posing a threat to anybody according to the officer's own testimony the alternative would be to say let's get off the porch let's move farther away


put out for a one hour by himself and finally on the noticed issue i don't think there's any suggestion in the case law that we would add documents to the record about what would have gone in the you know if nothing else those cases say reverse


with a with somebody who is believed to be and there aren't business that officers will and should protect themselves by doing a protective sweep recall that they did not even ask


there were two opinions related to security that were appealed they concern the number of security which relates to this security ratio of one to two hundred fifty we had three times that amount and then there's the opinion


you agree with them that there might be concern about vagueness in a context where the prosecutors have never threaten prosecution you say come back to us with an as applied challenge if that prosecution is threatened or the third thing if you want to


claims that the i u plaintiffs asserted in this case including the ones that are poor this court and the district court's judgment itself was brought by individual human plaintiffs as well so if the court deems that i you is not a proper plaintiff in this


tissue is only unlawful if there's a transfer of possession and ownership at least because of the that intra university or entrance transfers they say they double down on that proposition i think by saying when you look at the most


and i'm saying that that would lead to ridiculous results where he wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for perjury but he can't be prosecuted for contempt because they're making a distinction between no testimony and untruth less money that really there is no distinction because the written agreement here if


at i mean that's my procedural problem with this you may be right and a lot of this substance that her failure when she decertified to explain exactly which elements have persuaded her that this is no longer suitable for class


individual gems further down the chain of course yes it is but one other bit of evidence that we think makes it plausible to believe that the bank agreed and knew that there was a substantial probability that the money would reach as bold


hundred fifty million dollars to is bull and the key with which is iran's terror arm in iraq the bank says that's coincidence and it is a separate conspiracy and we say no that's a reasonable basis for a


right and no i'm i'm eager to hear that the answer to that hypothetical as well and but i think is a principled matter if the theory is just you are contributing resources to a state sponsor knowing that that state sponsor sponsors terrorism if


here one is conspiracy to provide material support knowing that it will be used for certain purposes but the other is a conspiracy to conceal or disguise the source or ownership of material support the district court completely fail to apply that standard and that fits


doesn't mean mr mr rahman doesn't bring that up today and not in court but that's primarily the argument that's raising in the group mr richards to not raise or even hint at this issue and district court for that reason we


he did mention that he had to but he mentioned it only in the context of whether a reopening was appropriate avenue chairman that was not he proceeded to properly employ a did novo review of the evidence


think that shows another flaw in their argument that they didn't have to prove anything to the district court in the us versus a tax will held that the government had presented evidence proving the appropriateness of the request really again that didn't occur here and


then there's been some talk this morning about extension and whether the district court basically didn't do its job and simply gave in to what the illinois u p a did with the consent order and frankly that is flatly


provide them no training whatsoever you're you're essentially as culpable as if there had already been those same violations having occurred a pattern of them because you know it's going to happen in other words it's not some lower


periods to be reasonable and so you know given that those facts and if there was an obligation to defend certainly we would have been required to reimburse the defense costs incurred from the date of tender and i don't think there's any dispute


does but she does that by in our view a faulty application of the five g one point three because she separates fences implies separation be five g one point three b two and five g one point


view when that can be modified at any time if it is improper delegation of judicial authority so here's your suggestion is it that it can be modified i


was appropriately justified by the district court it's our position that the court adequately and within the statutory framework justified its choice of a term of supervised release regarding the conditions of supervised release it is difficult


the record shows the revenue that that the school was deriving from these clinics but there was also on disputed testimony from the chief executive officer that the costs of operating the clinic more than offset the revenue and so to the extent that


so because we are here on plane air the question is whether these this confession was so inherently unreliable the judge miller had an obligation without prompting to stop and conduct or a liability analysis this transcript just doesn't


and that's what they mean by the independent following his purpose in davison which is the most recent case and it's also a mob action case where they upheld the felony murder conviction on very similar facts of this case they probably went to their greatest effort to examine


federation to stand in front of this court and say there is no plausible way to interpret this agreement to mean that we have to see player cessation approval when they do not contest that they explicitly told their sponsors this is on page one


incorrect well i don't understand what's their wrong doing there wrong doing is continuously selecting the sponsorship of nationwide for the dio after the business relationship was over and


information your honor no i answered my question and what is your choice i asked you the g s if did you tell g s g s f couldn't


the only witness grimmy between the parties in the entire business relationship between the parties there's not a single word in the contract that talks about the deal they failed to advice she has self when the terminate


be used by someone who didn't request that so just as in a model where this court ruled that you need a routine non investigative process to fit within the ordinary course exclusion and in


activity would disqualify her from work and there's plenty of evidence in the record that activity increases pain


transport it was not it was not in steel who lost any interest in and property is not a transfer you're a transformer he can't be held liable for under project transfer liability also because


so the fear that the district court judge and the probation officer would have to go through these chemical structures which i got to tell you is not fun for those of us who did not have chemistry since they were summers and college they don't have to do that


panels had not fully understood that we overrule that but the critical decision is booker and the guidelines have been advisory as of two thousand and five that stalling apart and there we are booker directed the district courts to begin


intent was plainly present here given what occurred and given the subsequent guilty plea of mr roscoe oliver so so in two thousand and nine all you have a lead with least you have a claim


from your perspective first americans original complete what's the what's the best theory or set of theories for cover


found otherwise the state of mind evidence that judge would refer to earlier is is very important here as well because you know his relationships with these women were not very long three four weeks except for the one who


much narrower than the limits before the road has arrived but i mean you could have made that argument there are a lot of things that if you do it any whether it's extending time for an appeal or whether it's other things it's easier to do while you're still inside the period


court was reasonable an equitable and allowing us to correct it on the day after the one hundred twenty days that had run as the preceding finished by the way i understand it chugging along it's briefed in there there


and the enhanced pleading standard under rule eight the supreme court imposed on those rules but i think you think the standard is much higher than the supreme court thinks it is if you look at such posts


ultimate responsibility at trial are the same so they have alleged that and you know in some ways i have the feeling you're not really disputing that a prohibited transaction took place you


proper analysis of impediments again we think that would satisfy the c enter requirement we don't have to show that anyone had actual knowledge otherwise you probably you really could never bring a false claims act against a bureaucracy like this one for


are a danger to others and smith versa shuttle forever for seventeen years until they do something to prove that they are no longer a danger it happened but that's like a mysterious reminds me of the castle you know franz


himself was a gang banger that he meaning the valentino had been a gang banger to suggest that my client should have known that he was a gang banger and that he had access to hiring


needed to be signed the only thing that needed to be signed between the years two thousand and six and two thousand and fourteen is that one form the declaration of electronic filing in that form which is exhibit appendix


some of these problems on an assistant and the bankruptcy judge found that that was an intentionally false statement that these filings reflected your client's own decision now you could argue i suppose that that finding is clearly erroneous


tell you what my problem is with your argument we are here on planar review there was no request to withdraw cleon the district court ruling by judge


entirely in attacking the complaint on the retaliatory act on a rigid formulaic element of a cause of action this hearkens that although all the way to teamsters the supreme court of the united states a set forth that you don't think that can there and the relief in a case to not


hit the void court said if the plaintiff alleges that the employer's decision not to approach people of her status was itself illegitimately motivated and shows that but for such a practice she likely would have been approached then also must do


essentially arguing just that the city was engaging in a strategy of strategic delay you notice too that one day before the statue of limitations had passed the city filed a motion for extension of time to enter otherwise plead now let's


t r ours that were submitted to the other side there's no indication that there were any other officers involved in that aspect of the case obviously later investigation office during the later


that came after i presented that the ten documented attorneys that i documented their address and phone numbers and i explained in that in there that i did it a person really because i'm regularly in the court


service convention which pakistan did not opt out of and then finally regarding this court's alleged mandate in the prior case the court's decision is not meeting place in that


that every claim submitted for all hundred one patients was fraudulent in my sample and i don't know if that's where your stress was in the district court i completely understand why the district judge threw


that is a constraint add that practical concern is also a constraint on aaa zwilling is to do so because there are a business to a non not for profit business but still a business and if nobody comes to their door because


that it was selective because he didn't consider two other officers but those two other offices or one of them is of mike dixon who who actually


specifically know that they're dealing with an entity which is the case that we have here so if we go back and specifically look at people in the light and why why they don't apply in these contractual cases


from this particular jury instruction i went through it in my mind many many times i've read the merrill decision a couple hundred times which is why a lot of like


on intended third party beneficiaries it wasn't intended to benefit anybody who was in a party such as say avon capital who is not even mentioned in this nine page single spaced contract in fact that my client is very careful about the


be different but it's substantially similar to this analog drug over here that's been labeled as a controlled substance on the schedule one or schedule two list woodhouse and


guilty i have no idea your honor i wasn't there second in regard to these comments regarding knowledge and controlled substances i direct the court's attention to


but the facts of this case when you won one of the requirements in this is the comparison of the award in this case to other matters when comparing to other matters plaintiff has not brought forth a single case in which under similar facts this type of


argument that mr conway makes which is the motion for a new trial even assuming that this court does not reverse and remain for entry of a judgment of acquittal it should vacate the denial of the motion for a new trial


is if you gave us the the consecutive page id number it's a lot easier for us to find your arms i'm sorry about that your honor so to talk about the bullet points to respond to the key ones he's using well i'm not sure which ones exactly he's using


may first transcript mr klock oh says referring to the dan in case that that issue was clinically and scientifically proven and you presented the same challenge to the den of defendants that you presented here and we said if they can substantiate


wilson's was before and taylor's was after on the sixteenth taylor sixteen so and both page and wilson's were entirely consistent with what happened as was miss taylor's miss taylor's was on the sixteenth and that's what the district court found


reflect directly talks about the issue of timeliness and how it was untimely found untimely because these other evidence this other evidence from attorney simon edelstein was not admitted so if that's the case and the board in its opinion


in my mind how do you say to this guy no matter how reprehensible you want to or people agree the conduct dia's you want to say to him you're forty three and here they are but you need to get out


a carny knew that mr collon faced a substantial risk of harm as of fifteen p yes your honor what is the evidence to support that he knew in connection with this


facts prove was there that he was deprived of this ability for this therapy and deprived you know the possibility of survival or survival he did die approximately forty five days later after this after it was too late to give him the


mental condition is non disabling co morbidity what what else can liberty do but send the records out unless you could find some doctor that has a specialty in both psychiatry and orthopedic surgery or


of the shoulder which not only shows a probable level tear which can be extremely painful but this ongoing chronic super spin artist tendonitis that she has the major tendon between your neck and your shoulder is also evident


neutral or content based and if it's content neutral whether it represents a reasonable time place and manner restriction on speech a majority view for determining content neutrality which has been


missions way up in brown sign shall mean anything excluding a billboard supported by uprights braces or base or stem of any material placed upon the ground and not attached to a building although if i if


minimum under the range that he's just applied to that's right i wasn't quite sure whether there was he saying it's the bottom of that range but you don't think there's a mandatory minimum even though some people thought it was i do not ok not aware of a midterm


and you got to get off of this case different case not here you're saying that judge evans should have waited until each of those sixty nine cases came up to him later in the year


professional mr said that as an intake officer if you get a yes the consequence is an immediate mental health referral so these are people these are people that serve different jobs they have different tasks and they have different powers so miss mason


for a reason and it's because suicide is a serious issue in jails especially when you have five to seven within one year of my people that are not of there's no constitutional requirement to discern that it's only well well there's


clear history of being bipolar and requiring mental health treatment i know obviously based on the genders he wasn't a new mother like ms procmail was and that was one of the questions that was on the form that miss franks ignored is there anything notable about your family life


hold even ministry judge bowman recognised that wasn't done in this case to identify the key players in ensure that there are a lot like trying to compete for records are preserved wasn't done to cease in the deletion of emails


nonetheless we did have to go through this electronic discovery the electronic discovery and this is a case where electronic discovery is being used there's five thousand dollars it is sure tronic discovery is being used the first time they do the keyword searching


we've we feel whether we're obligated by state statute or not we entered into this contractual relationship just doesn't make a difference in a deal how does that issue difference should not make a difference my time is up well let me just make sure you have any


here is a court and say well it says years we're going to apply it we're not acting as very judge mental judges but if they said something that was close like forty two instead of twenty four and it said forty two we might just say ok it's forty two if they don't like it they can


involve sexual conduct in the gross actual imposition involves sexual contact and you have you know testimony all over the place concerning what did or would did not happen in this case we do not know what


conviction that the age of the victim the or that the fact that the victim was not a minor had not been established in any of the court records and that therefore the offense could not qualify as a predicate


you don't get to the documents under the modified categorical approach you do you just don't get to look at the facts of what you yes we're all struggling with


further the further questions from assurance right thank you very much a case will be submitted it's my understanding that completes the cases


on the second you get that's correct and again because we don't have the timing of the fingerprint mr goes if he'd been there once and there's some indication based on two years testimony that he'd been there more than once because he


subjected to notice and comment isn't that correct while not not not the one that i was reading from i thought that's what you were attacking effective august first twenty nine c


laws that temporal proximity alone isn't enough but temporal proximity with something else and here the court said well temporal proximity alone is pretty close but undercutting any causal connection inference here is the fact that you had the


around that time well and that there was testimony that there is a preference to hire local individuals they identified a person cooking tank who was ready to take that spot to that they


they came to this million dollar evaluation or what formula they used or how they came to this tax result and certainly a taxpayer would have a right to know how they came to an amount how the government would come to an amount of what they


q thank you again now let me i guess begin my rebuttal by talking about specifically this illusion of choice that is brought up and i think it's pivotal to the first amendment claim on the association part of it you know when i think about this illusion of


fact that he's entitled management and that he has some responsibilities which are identified as magic management responsibilities is not enough for instance the bring us case and on which the district court relied


overtime as he would be getting paid if he were being a salesman at thirty two thousand so it seems to me we're making this more complicated than we need to salesman and averaging thirty two thousand but he makes forty six thousand right


and under your hypothetical the question is that instead is to go to the second factor in primary duty which is the time spent performing example work and under your hypothetical you're saying the employee would would act as the would perform the manager


your client i would agree with that your honor but it's also important to point out that my client was held to a higher standard and i say that because he was called substantially more than either of the two other or is there any evidence as to why that i mean sometimes it could


it's not in the memo but it's important because you know that came up after the fact after my client filed his complaint with the michigan department civil rights that was never mentioned especially it's been as it came up after was


fourteenth two thousand and eleven tiff committed fraud by the unemployment same thing nothing happens nothing happened until after my client's issue with the unemployment front came about so that shows disparate treatment


past again this is coming from the unemployment commission was there something that the n b a reported owing unemployment i reference by that is what happens is that there's the state of michigan sends the


proposing in expressly includes an h for settlement and they've agreed that it's an age for settlement so just to be really clear if if if your honour's agree that what they said is


important point because that covenant not sue may not be sitting directly in front of you but i want you to know that covenant not to sue specifically stated that it did not go into effect until we issued a notice of completion for the entire work at the site


four hundred thousand and we'll talk about dr threshers in a moment dr i'm qwest had approximately ninety six thousand dollars in grants dr thresh had a one hundred forty seven thousand dollars


with an order from the court of appeals when there is an appeal that moves out during the appeal is that one month's in where is all about yes or no yes munching where is it isn't that cases well it is your honor


nothing in the preamble refutes that and the administrative law judge at every place and i'm looking at it the her opinion appendix at seventy five seventy eight seventy


judge given all the new evidence i think you can impose this same sentence with nine months of home confinement of which he had already served the judge disagreed with that and imposed what courts have recognized this is a potential penalty home confinement is a


know it's it says well it's not terribly persuasive when somebody is conclusory as a general matter and i think the other thing that's changed a lot on or since the last sentencing is that there's been some


the holding and accurate information if that's that's one of the arguments that were being presented with well your honor on one set of the allegations were that the rules at ohio state had been


just standing outside for two minutes and not without any other action at all again he's you know you can't it's not a middle of winter it's not in the middle of the night it's on a friday afternoon in august when it's


trying to get it done too quickly


an avid golfer i don't know that much about golf honestly but one of the things that i've learned studying this and reading about it is you know part of the call is what the experts said the record is the purity of experience


burglary at the time that he was in jail and that defendant and during that time and at the time that he heard the confession and at the time which was two thousand and eleven i believe by the time he went to the state to tell them that he had


question to you is please explain to me how this proceeding based upon the nature and extent of the adversarial proceedings that took place to dish different receive a fair trial based upon what a reasonable


fifteen you know you're going to be if the record bears that out i don't know that that might be the case i don't know if you know that from the record here because it bothers me too that everybody in the courtroom missed this it seems much more


the one question what is not was not an objection to the foundation for the opinion that the order vehicle accident had something to do with the findings of dr lynn byrd so i think it's very clear that there is no


quintessential versus car type of expert testimony testifies based on his medical records which were very detailed his own personal recollection and he


testified that they had seen the dogs if they saw somebody on the other side of times they would come charging up to the front teeth baring brawling and they would the only thing that would be protecting that person essentially was the fact that they were there was a barrier between them which is


defendant declined to testify not out of fear but out of love again so there was plenty of evidence why doesn't read to control even if it was error there's no prejudice because the defense too is plenty of evidence to support the jury's


brown that individuals listed on the state's answer to discovery in the had a period of three or four years to bring that person in to subject that person to interviews or indeed elicit that testimony at


only person who testified about your cation you said it was not a request for information we need to up hold the beyond reasonable doubt standard it does not go up the wind window when you're on appeal what is a question but for


it is that the state presented to suggest that that her own contradicted testimony the victim was that they were alone in the room before and after the accident and they had been in the hotel for about a month and they had


was ever a path the path so by judicial sleight of hand what's happened is the trial court has basically created well that would look like that would be a path that would be right you don't you'll go to all sure bella's like it would be of ethical straight to the door there is no more


this case this is all this is a funny case by that i mean mr stanfield walked into miss warbirds office and said by virtue of the self assessment i feel like harming myself or others most of the time i feel out of


is it is always a factor i don't know


related you know slogans so there was no question that there was some gang interaction here and it is not a circumstance where despite the concern that you know the courts


the input for the city field for the county code for us citizens over so by a man are you asking for a list of all the different cities in the frequency the number of


to say that there is no evidence here so the next question is what is there no evidence because there was no evidence or was there no evidence


of the police powers in differentiating and prohibiting not for profit uses he's out of the for profit business if i can't discern the word there it is not discernible what the reason for the exercise of the police power if


you know he had been in custody for a while and had been question several times judge perry did allow and he mentioned this in his ruling he did allow the defense to bring up the fact that he had been interviewed a certain number of times


for armed robbery with a real firearm and so that tells you they thought it was critical to their case to convince the jury that yeah there are some questions here by and you can believe this but it's testimony because look he was a pariah in another place in


addition for the gas raise that he is expected to be fully discharged for a supervisory sense of temper twenty first and then in the interim has he can be a death threat and dan has there been any indication since he is


defendants are common law causes of action defamation negligent intentional infliction of emotional distress breach of contract none of those are statutory and that's what makes this different


was able to put forth their theory of the case each side was able to attack to attempt to discredit the other side's theory of the case the jury was very attentive to esther very insightful questions and true its own conclusions i submit that on


these are not true criminal proceedings this is not a criminal conviction this is not a criminal appeal there's no affirmation of a conviction and then said if the legislature wants to it can pass legislation and the


amendment that says you can offer this money but you can't do it if you're opening up the same store in a new chief district it's within ten miles of the town outside your border and


on from the defendant he says the driver is heavy set five foot nine to six feet tall the defendant is five four and weighs one hundred thirty pounds so that doesn't matter she said the driver doesn't have facial hair the defendant


site i think that that she didn't have to place yourself in proximity to that event and but again we don't know because in this particular case because they could argue that in the juries have to come back and


saying i i believe i was entitle to rely on the disclosure i was entitled to from a trial strategy standpoint be able to rely on that to thirteen disclosure to the extent that it didn't comply with the rules that i could


trying to comply with the law that we don't have that in this case correct correct but just to post a bit in this case we have your client agree the lease in the future to sell cannabis to the undercover officer


fifteen ten point one or one fifteen ten point to the code of criminal procedure this was never being admitted for substantive purposes the defense attorneys in the trial court repeatedly said we want to introduce this room pietschmann purposes


divorce and now she wants to use it she being the wife in that in the graph wants to use it for income if the dog gets his property the court knew about it give it to him and consider support based upon the


we're doing with a smaller structure there there is more privacy in the victim we have more for you only that space on foot even even so i think in your hypothetical


name or the public defender knew the name but there still wasn't an actual appearance yes on


are exactly right this case it is set for trial at least five times before it actually went to trial as early as january twenty eighth two thousand and fourteen the trial actually commenced on august twenty fifth two thousand and fifteen


continuing basis so that was obviously not true she wrote up a lot of things but never brought up any buses for bad seeds witnesses indicated that you know that was map the case i mean they had credibility


who's right and exactly and that's again why i think there's too little one which says absolutely courts can take judicial and in fact they have to take traditional notice of these kind of files where the accuracy is not


he says no you must put those you know put this friendship such as it is aside so what what value would that have had on on this post


what excuse me but the last paragraph of that particular section says the courts of method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principle set out in this


invoked period there doesn't need to be and the same analysis for non selection fourteen employees because they have a different statutory scheme for how they reach them pass this is a misreading of chicago they're not in session fourteen


complaint and that's what we're looking at this complaint does this complain give you the facts from which you could determine that the text amendment applies both district wide is unconstitutional that's a facial challenge if the plaintiffs have wanted


theft under five hundred dollars would we be in the same circumstance that we are today in this instance it was a judge doing it right yes or i still there are a couple of pieces to that but i think overall the ban on the first is that situation would not


number three he people in this case tell the story the same way and the fourth key person didn't survive to tell the tale so we do hear differences but one thing that i think there's no doubt about is the ads and i


surgeon stayed out of out of the pack you until such time as he was asked to come back here and i mean what should they tell me each other or what should nurse sweitzer have said well doctor


because and although jackson has not been applying i will say jackson has not been explicitly extended by this corps but where there has been extended by the appellate courts but his reasoning makes the same sense it is interpret the compulsory joinder statute he


this person that he stopped and recognized him as you know perhaps being dangerous or something of that matter and i would argue that's outside of the statute i would agree that that's not a search i agree with the state because anything that's in


makes the two your limitations apply to personal injury false imprisonment malicious prosecution statutory penalties the want to play ball here abduction seduction and criminal conversation what happens the next time that a court says well there's a two


really twofold to go back to what you made reference to i thought you were maybe reading maybe quoting i'm not sure about the testimony in the deposition from is it roman or that was rolling but immediately below it i didn't want to take the time


murder i wanted the charges i mean it's reasonable to conclude that the trial court in this case certainly had that issue namely a right defendant's right to a fair trial


the broad to the narrow and we now are looking at a specific request with real requests with the real application that's been denied by the municipality you've gone through the process you've said you've tried to use the other tools the variances


our ordinance and to be frank with you once you get to that point you realize there is rational basis test and you don't import all the cell factors in a facial case then you simply have to identify the right issue which in this case is


supreme court has never used the minimum rationality that is this any conceivable basis store which has never used that in his own case ever ever ever spoke of bush was a demolition case the woman let her house


cable modem service is based on state law authority and thus not subject to the cable communications act but neither the statute


which seek money damages for harm caused by the misuse of firearms which function function as the zine and intended this case is precisely the kind of case congress sought to prevent


unlawful discharge of a firearm within the city limits of chicago a federal possession minor and possession charge as well as illinois possession a charge in connection with


hundred years they were talking about barring the nuisance cases that the cities were beginning to bring against gun manufacturers in the city of gary case that we cited brett it was part of the group of manufacturers


soon as as soon as i don't have a firearm site owner firearms owners identification card i go in the hallway and one of the police for some reason shows me his weapon as soon as i touch it i've got committed a violation under there and that's not what it's about possession should mean intend to keep he meant


with the exact opposite impression of what defense counsel intended that is the based on the judge's ruling in admonished the jurors must have been left with the impression that


questions at any time obviously about any of the issues but since we touched briefly on the successor and predecessor state's attorney i'll turn to that issue briefly it is true that in november two thousand and two states attorney andrews offered a


history and character of the defendant this was an emotionally disturbed mentally damaged eighteen year old who simply could not control his emotions after he learned that his girlfriend had broken up


was certainly not in his children's in interests that would be highly traumatic for children to see it's also an example of it also sets a very poor example for his children


consider that as a pattern of drug use during the course of and leading up to your drug raid certainly there's a continuum there but just picking and choosing things that were so far removed and then trying to bundle it up in this


surprising that that evidence couldn't be a deuced here but mr smith at what point in time to d c s have the right to enter the home to ask for this kind of information there was some allegation


to strike or to soul search even killing versus state farm to nap because at the beginning when the uninsured motorist provision was adopted it required that the insurance companies make available to all of their insurers


peculiar received benefits what this court said in up holding the language that said that the set off may be applied winstead it would be unjust


i respect to submit you must overturn you pellet majority's decision now i think i would also say that i think the the zero underlying primary rationale it gives rise to a yes answer to all three of those


and they understood they had they had credible evidence that there were three potential causes of this there are different theories some point fingers at each other as mr feinerman pointed out but some blame doctors and not just doctors


changed simply because the statute has some other provisions that don't involve the judiciary at all the argument has been made here today that the best decision has somehow been eroded by this court's subsequent decision you


a thousand dollars a month that's clear in the record and now it's being reduced to thirty five hundred dollars a month which means that judy who has undertaken all reasonable efforts to rehabilitate herself is now going to have to liquidate whatever


and in given the manifest weight finding that the findings were against manifest way you should have reduced it in this particular case and of course that's particular to this case based on


human rights yeah so my question really is under that limited as a specifically defined term is a claim brought under section nine hundred eighty one a claim under the illinois


so october second filing was clearly time i your honour's i think it's important to recognize that nearly ten years ago the electronic commerce security act the journal assembly enacted this ad


due using the october second date on was untimely filed eighteen could have moved to strike the people's application for a hearing if it believed it was untimely it didn't


which is electricity and sold that it retail so they should have to pay the retailers tax even though their call was tangible because it wasn't being sold at retail it at first said be converted before a retail sale was made so the question that was squarely presented to the court was well is their


any time be made or brought against the really sees for purposes of enforcing a further claim for damages on account of the alleged damages or injury sustained in consequence of the aforesaid accident and i think that's the ultimate key to this case then they


suggests that somebody could pay for breaching party and then suit seek to recover those damages and as i did that research i came up with the fact that i believe the voluntary payment prevent such a scenario to me


addition the reference to medical bills is a fairy technical scenario in cases where there's a worker's comp case and if attention third party action in this particular instance the whole third party action was under the


what we're looking for is a frivolous document filed in a case seeking post conviction relief so through reading the reading the statute in its entirety you see that what you need itself is you need there there needs to be first a case


point and its understanding of the post conviction hearing act and filing and cases within those confines and the overarching intent of the legislature as manifest in its


right to review the thirty percent showing of interest under the old procedure in fact there's there's cases that say it would it was a i don't for a legal objective to achieve and try to do that the employer did have a little


and then their order so yes i think it should be remanded for further proceedings i agree with the court that the labor board has got to redraft its rules and regulations to accommodate conflicting interests of the parties


was a due process violation in excusing the one juror who could have saved my client's life and order than a life sentence the substituted for the


property had been sold before the claim was made right and what if the scene had spent it in before he died and even though he didn't change anything in his will it would've existed but they've proceeds from the sale would have been in the trust


combination of statutes of limitation or limitation periods and statutes of repose subsection be very clearly is a discovery based statute of limitations two years from the date that the plaintiff knows or


october twenty fourth notice and the reason for that cited rule three o three b three which has to do with attaching rule eighteen compliant orders in other words the october eleventh notice was not rejected due to one timeliness and because this court never filed


the statute unconstitutional on the basis of comparing the onus of facial challenge and then when the state went back they said well no we want to fix this we want to fix this it wasn't correct now make it an as applied ruling and he accommodates


poo bah is an adult entertainment cabaret like most other amusements in chicago such venues don't generally foster production of innovative life fine arts performances or need the government support in order to flourish


cooma decisions and in particular in the riviera decision the arizona case that the state recites the defendant himself a vowed that his statements were true as part of the language the language was defendant shall


presumption this court's opinion in people versus lawyer addresses each and every one of these points and demonstrates the problems in each of want to defend its premises


hear from ms harrison


just ask you this part of this is how many states away she went and if she left this they fail and drug test those who did those are just absolute violations of conditions those conditions are unique


drug problem i've been trying to kick it for ten years she didn't say that she said it's a moment she blamed roaming and so she represented she was represented she was


why the state adopted the policy or the city i mean everybody knew in mcallen right that was the whole argument in mcallen this whole thing is about anti abortion protesters and the court was very clear it doesn't matter that doesn't make it content


still shots of the new israelites that relining up to engage in their proselytizing in the middle of the section and the security immediately ran out there and told them please you know move your activity you know outside the brick pavement line


to initiate anything or to receive those or to transfer any of the money in the of fivers six accounts and foaming wire fraud or the money laundering there's


what the judge does would increase it almost double the god line range in this case by looking at those factors and if you look at the analogs on what you know what the guidelines tell us about how much those increases should be a contraction


circuit in the deputy c corp versus i c c case to establish maintain and for supervisory systems tailored to their businesses and that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with securities laws and regulations as well as in


don't have a name plaintiff whatever resided in that facility but once it was there you know it's quite clear that it did not waive its right to remove even under the plaintiff's theory because there's a federal courthouse within the


know it's not a great record to run well i will admit it was just a statement this is you know the remit or reman motion is denied based on the fact that there's an alter ego allegation somewhere in this


absent class members but the plaintiffs brought claims purportedly in their own right against all three facilities one of the name plaintiffs actually signed an agreement with gabriel manner and once you've got the three conflicting clauses in


you're converting you converting retirees into active investors knew that they they are making me to day decisions based on the volatility of the market when they went into their their


general reservation if i can say it doesn't matter correct you look at distribution while in distribution then you get then that brings us back to the question of the administrative feasibility and that's a general term that you've got the specific language


should and in this case it wasn't maybe no one no no no no professional no specialist no one of value weighted the victim in this case in virtually every case that the government has cited on this issue the victim the child


what is admittedly this significant and extensive harm that she's suffered based on the defendant's conduct and so i asked the court to uphold the restitution order as well so no further questions


either and i think in in most macmillan's own testimony she says multiple places that block lawyer and hatch commented on the fact that she does have a heart and she is trying to look out for the best


not sure that's gender oriented it's best quite a long career i agree and a jury could see it that way but a jury can also reject that in say that the experience of twenty years of law enforcement because of the thirty years in law enforcement is


who could bring in equal pay act playing but it wouldn't be any good because you can if you can be so selective i could pick this miss and now i'm you know it's it's not that hard to do but the point is


three years after two thousand and seven is two thousand and ten yes or you didn't bring this action till two thousand and thirteen that's correct your honor however in the meantime mr mr compas pop daddy died in february of


me an immediate lump sum in normal form annuity even if they're not retirement eligible so he's saying yeah look if you're not if you're not early retirement eligible you still have a right to get a benefit automatically on october first two thousand and thirteen well miss katherine


until the absolutely you can you look at our statute that finds a contract of interest not a policy a contract of insurance and that absolutely required to them and the one thing i would say about the jute there is this issue of judicial


that sort of thing where is that in the record the evidence in the record your honor is that our i p g worked with sun trust and its employees on a daily basis they're in constant communication and suntrust


in murray it failed to take a step and there was a question about that as well in the steal the victory thank which is a bank actually that ended up though i think a whole thing you had said earlier that in fact sun trust did not want to be in the position of bank of


lie i don't think that the letter specifically calls out evidence or the arguments concerning his cognitive claims and the letter what it is doing is addressing the arguments that mr solomon presented appealing that


in favor of these inferences and inference that they don't the delay or the time that it takes to reach a decision is causes the need for an injunction all these inferences are typically supported by record evidence in cases where tend


know he should have been arrested till he went back to his office after released and looked up the statute if any any person of light any reasonable person looking at this can see this is a mistake he's


in audubon society versus the department of the navy are a couple of things you have to take a thorough examination of the impacts and you have to give forthright acknowledgment of the harms that you


present the issue to the immigration court and immigration court could have said i'm not going to turn your motion because he this is a restate proceeding we're not going to look at that and the boy could have said the same thing


and this what i think that my colleagues questions go to that very point of agree just yes and what i think that you have to take into account is what was said to the


to a fourth amendment seizure and as far as the length of detention around or the length of the tension here it was at most three and a half hours but should also


required is a matter of of principle statutory construction principles we need you don't want that you don't read a third fourth sentence in one subsection to negate the first


banned by some doctrine that we can't do it rather than just discretion what you've just said is your agency has decided they were discriminated against we've said that repeatedly in this court they discriminate against we're right you said we're right but never mind


strict because again your honor it's a pension plan case and i would like to just give a brief quote from a man heart in the same quote was repeated in long so you're certain the us that the dish


constitutional this roads versus dupont case which is on all fours and that case there was a class plaintiff who had claims that many of which were dismissed on summary judgment they just the only claim that was left was medical monitoring


his ability to to fight an adverse to sit or a decision that's adverse to class or vacation and brother counsel is correct again when he said that we did not file a rule a petition under rule twenty three there's numerous reasons for that one the fact that we've never had an ability


something other than well things have changed in hundreds yes i'd buy it probably is probably what the most effective part is be that as it may my client still qualifies for withholding he certainly met the burden for withholding he showed


neglect the way in appropriate delay or damage to the property in fact i would point your honour's to in the joint hendrix one of the exhibits at the government presented at the sentencing


its made its made its case as for the amount of restitution as mr pronk to his credit exhibit knowledge openly to the court of the issue of bank of america buying the countrywide


substance offense whether it is a crime involving moral turpitude was specifically reserved by the board of immigration appeals in that footnote and corn that we've provided every what we would contend to the


aggravated on the end of the i and it's a matter of this court determines to know and that's true whether you do it under your jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction or whether you're reviewing the board's denial of the motion to reopen review their band employing the


is the same review and approval process it occurred with respect to that manual that tells you how do we stall whether aboard the ship or how to build the boiler and it lists every single part of the boiler including dispenses containing parts


down then what are your theories of liability here how many counts do you have claims there are there are several it's under negligence strain liability strict liability


standard of care in delivering medical treatment for the deceit and in the middle of the trial the jury was bombarded by media coverage that was extraordinarily prejudicial and directly related to the


indication they didn't follow these instructions and the problem is is that this evidence is terribly prejudicial in a mid mouth case it can't get any worse and what happened is the court


was wrong so if you want to reverse what the judge said then but we think he was correct in his discretion there somebody should have been on notice the judge said he was clueless had no idea and that it was not only


not sufficiently detailed or if it was not credible that the other sources of evidence from the experts in the country conditions could stand alone power the petitioners failure to


record where the district court did that because that was not my reading of the district court's order i v i'd be happy to do that your honor is there particular language in the district court's opinion from which we can glean


but pretext can be used for tabasco whole lot of different maybe you simply didn't like your client maybe there's something else what in the record is your best evidence that it was a racial animus as opposed to any other kind of animals


because he was his his national guard and arjun was considered as positive upon hire so where's the evidence that he would have done a complete one hundred eighty degree turn and decided that that was going to be the determining factor in the decision to


gun cases as well as a kid of burglar tools are not entitled to do so so this case should not be entitled to the same protections given to a suitcase a briefcase


afraid of him i don't we know this i would be afraid of him the prosecutor the jury views the prosecutors having inside information they always think when you choose a jury the jury says you say you have any


because you can't remember all footnotes from law school or whether they're going to be able to verify and make sure they don't make another mistake it would seem to me your auditor there's always going to be a balancing any document any one of


before the district court it was fully briefed by the government and by trial counsel and the judge judge malloy essentially turned the entire issue around to a question of whether or not


at ten thousand feet looking down at the case but but the reality of this case was slightly different the owner worked hand in hand with its design team from the very beginning of this case to blame the contractor and they levied one allegation after another at the


plans and specifications the concrete we submit it complied in every respect and it certainly performed in the field specifically that advertised in the proposal that we gave to the engineer and i tried to point out my in my brief and as i think all the testimony from all of


attempt to downplay her son's role in this because the defendant is so dangerous that he's going to come and get us and that was that would also have emphasized that the reason why all these witnesses recanted there was evidence in


prosecution case came in and stealing witness after witness to say i didn't identify i didn't even have an interview at all with the police i don't know what you're talking about and then relying on that and keeping the focus on


of persons or for carrying on business there if i had some definition of saying we don't just mean building a nice ordinary sense we mean all these other things so i think why why is that unconstitutional


cases coming out of the nevada federal court district court we believe we met that requirement there is no heightened requirement for nine hundred eighty three actions and we believe we met that requirement and that those cases in


us although you've prevailed here because you still have litigation going we're not going to allow you to pre qualify at seventy two thousand one in two thousand and two and we also within our complaint set out every date


beyond two thousand and two in two thousand and three because these other cases that i've started providing information to the court on were ongoing and as we continue resolving them in our favor we said we don't believe that you can still hold this over our head and not


there was an implied stance to search the subject residence based on the presence of the landlady at the residence the other two issues are whether the landlady had common the story


extremely limited because all it's doing is now you're answering a what what does he have to allege she's alleged i think literally and firmly read that he's housed and that he's concerned that there's these communicable diseases which he's going to contract if


want to bring an action under the federal securities laws this action is limited to state law claims only now i thought i heard mr lewis our say something surprising when he was addressing this


six million dollars and you should pay whatever amount is required by the got probation department upon his release as well as if you gave upon his release as well as when he's incarcerated you are saying


he should have had a good idea there are police officers when he acts that is when the vehicle finally came to a stop they ran in the woods in their helicopters and dogs and bull horns he should have had a good idea they were officers when he turned and raised the weapon to shoot at uniform state troopers the dog


constitutes that substantial delay has not been clarified by the california supreme court and therefore this is not an adequate bar also this that is unlike the dixon bar that does not have that


california supreme court's reason to deny the petition but when it came to the paragraph where it asserted procedural bar it just said procedurally barred it didn't say it didn't clarify which bar of the four of the california supreme court reliant


indian nation the confidentiality was concerned with on their part the sensitivity was that people on the navajo reservation not know that the income stream to dish needed


let me start again is critical in this case because there was a decision on the merits both by the california court of appeal and the california supreme court it wasn't a lengthy one it was a packet denial but the california courts


compulsion so which one of these because each one of them is going to rise and fall on different legal standards so i think you need to separate among those if you would it would help me ok thank you your honor i'm going to start with a


trying to somehow minimize it and getting back to him he was so nervous why did he make the statement that if they deported him he'd come back by kayak or bicycle that nervousness to that was that's just what he said to the officers i


is right now insufficient and not sufficient perms the testimony of the bank witnesses in their depositions was that in these types of situations the question is who gets left holding the bag who is going to take the


here this is just a hunch that's all the c s i some another offshoot claims to have seen him there before and therefore he's back therefore he must be back without permission therefore there's probable cause to arrest him for trespassing and i think


doesn't preclude us from looking at those records to see that it all has not at all and it's just like the marijuana well he smelled like marijuana but how do you should have how can you look at that record can conclude that he was driving under the influence of


secretary has the authority to do it any way he deems appropriate now if the secretary makes the choice that they want to comply with state law and they lacked not to use of a home traps they're free to do that they're free to do


that but the question is whether the have to do it and those are different issues that takes me to another question i want to ask you and that is this what if any is the effect of the fact that the a t c a was amended subsequent to the


distinguishing factors of the penny a case or the the witness and that he's committed perjury he lied to the us it is falsified income tax returns for that reason the panel indicated that jail time was only marginally


vacated it comes back to the second district court judge for reconsideration in light of walters to the second that is district court judge simply does not address it or it goes up to the


returned to work in his deposition indicates that he couldn't return to work and he indicates what he would have done differently is he would not have used his f and now lately even tell all of his other leave was was gone and that's not his choice you


i don't know i mean i think i think it's the same standard for ask from a different different viewpoint but i think what the court needs to do i would submit would be to look at the language of the threat and to determine and whether or not a person standing


and admission was not we are conspiring to deliver five pounds the admission was we said we're in spare it's inspiring to deliver five pounds but we were just kidding judge


critical element was entirely circumstantial and terribly weak the government's theory of the case which was driven by the forensic evidence was that mr ziegler died from intravenous drug use that much is untested


definition under the washington statute as a member of the statute still apply all true yes it does property or yes it does your honor i have a copy of it


isn't necessarily the best vehicle to use here what happened was you specially with i think probably more so with children because they don't quite understand the mechanisms of what's going on here but through the repeated questioning hand and


change which respected as i have some uncertainty but looking at the context of his testimony including questions asked by the prosecution he was clearly a competent witness because it's not always the difference between


students have to provide in the motion supporting declarations of your claim the suggests something further more or say in this case i mean we may not be able


door to room two ninety three was opened along with him was detective brian black of the great falls city police department and sergeant dan calm and narcotics officer with the cascade county sheriff's office the factual findings


given the unique facts of this case and is there any indication that this was or the consent included i give you consent to look for drugs absolutely not in fact the district court found and detective brian black


duty to or that further and in this case the question was can we convict and if we believe the government's met its burden of proof on the elements making up a forty four hour i but we are not


compiled what was not compliant with what was required for billing so the analysis looked at the true state of the facts comparing what statement was made to the government that is that we are billing for a service that is provided in a certain manner and what was


to anyone until four days later so this is six days old news before ms peterson even mentions it so ms kinsell learns and says what should we do and she says we'll wait to see what the lab results are because of the lab


a hypothetical question about how long properly packed blood could be left out and then called spectra to arrange a training so spectra never got the word that anything was wrong with this particular shipment they never had an opportunity to control for the


noble but there is you also know that there may be it may have the effect of undermining the government to you you're you know you want to rescue somebody from captivity or you want to i don't know i have to think


there any harm to n s p if the terminals are delivered on those facts by april fifteenth and it doesn't matter if the parties are sophisticated and it doesn't matter if n s p determines that it can purchase the same


if the city council is the victim as well so as the chief of police he's the one obligated to enforce the laws so when his money was stolen he filed charges the fact that the argument that a mayor can dictate who is and who will not be charged


and that we've talked about it at nauseum but the operating agreement it has two key points actually three key points six point zero three day says there will be no obligation over ten thousand dollars without unanimous consent of the members number


in no way relevant here and alas the court has any additional questions for me ok thank you


instance at the lower guideline range based on the lower mandatory i mean the lower statutory maximum or do you want to judge a new trial what is exactly what i think i'm the only thing i asked for was that it be reversed


to later guidelines or areas which was the career offender that because he because he had higher higher statutory maximum his career offender level was raised and then using the wrong guideline manual the judge when they were going through the correct


text messages to his girlfriend in michigan that's why mr page wants to launch his investigation he conducted a shakedown of mr sanders barrett he did in fact recover a cell phone the hearing officer had the actual cell phone in front of her had


in the building she open the letters she read them and screen them accordance with a t c policy and when she saw that they were evidence of a rule violation she made photocopies of those letters provided them to a b c security personnel and then forwarded the originals on to


does make the does not make the enrichment unjust most of the plaintiffs argument is to talk about how somehow my clients have been enriched because we haven't had to pay any fees but clearly emersed system benefits my