definitely was sent to the prison and then let me just double check my notes in haiti is be different from one thousand nine hundred three actions i mean i don't think so i the similar rules


commend that and ultimately thinking through that a little bit i don't presume to know how the court is structuring administrative processes like that but thinking about something like that is what ultimately persuaded me that you know it can be workable to have


polls but polls is inconsistent we go balls i can see the supreme court saying wait a minute you're hating us does go bye bye civil rules but you know hey b s isn't just you know unique circumstance havey us is


think that they're supporting the record in a basis for the substantial basis for the district court signing that the notice and the other equitable considerations are taken into account also barred unilateral reimbursement for unilateral play placement


is only the only thing that's left is a cocaine right now the question has to be did the admission of the heroin so taint the jury of consideration of count three and count one because he's the defendant is asking for a remedy in both that there would have to be a new trial the


factors that there should been some analysis of the das factors but i just want to put this in context first this is the president judge of the superior we're looking at a state warrant for dealing in child pornography


unpublished opinion but one where that approach was taken and courts across the country have done this on occasion they simply said look the problem caused questions to close call or it's doubtful i think judge jordan might use the


seven us three forty five the court wrote it cannot be disputed that it magistrate or similar judicial authority not and c m e syrup police officer must determine the presence of probable cause in an application for a search warrant and i think that what


september nineteenth two thousand and one that same day diane ass was in the office that same day diana's sent her out for tech protests unnecessary tests my client had to pay two hundred dollars to six hundred dollars we don't have the finals


evidence as to the first turner factor i i believe that that's entirely correct and i believe it's a critical point because when you look at this this court's decisions and cases are wolf and jones versus brown if you can't get past that first step


with the federal funds to which our lupul would relate then obviously line corrections officers chaplains and prison officials in those


when you chose that domain name in zero four you knew that there was there were was something out there for mr carnaby that used the same basically the same the same words sure appellants knew that there was something out there are lots of things


the chief thing you have at this point that's that hurts your case is that there was a trial on bad faith and the court


for substantial period of time fundamental property rights is a compensable taking then you're arguing a de facto taking the floor no it's pens under definition just because the reason i'm inclined to say no to you


in this particular litigation it was not addressed one way or the other well or in any litigation in pennsylvania i mean how is the lawyer or science supposed that you no longer had


section of philadelphia and move it north to apply to the world trade center plan development site and some other sites but it exempted other sites further north that were owned by the city or there were owned by


because this whole question arose after the councilman passed the revision of the sixty five court hydrous direction we were to scheduling conference with the judge and the city raised the question that arc challenge was moot because


was the subject there in christie there was very little evidence that there was any interest in the bidding and they still found causation but to your question is really what is our best evidence of this and i want i want to address that directly because it's important


examples ok i must report i believe as one of them because i think the reasonable inference from i am s s surprise that it would be sold to a small uncompetitive company indicates that i am asked thought that an unsurprising result would be that it would be sold


of what happened the s t s was signed in april of two thousand and six at the farm became aware because well i told them we're going to sell your property the man in there and was that in right around that same


aside for a second once you acknowledge intent is in the case based on what he did is mit's is the fences and what it frankly can't and i use the just because he says it in opening the uses it in cross he says that in his closing once that's in play the four or four be intent


the fact that your corporate officers sole control every single one of this city and your honor that's an ordinary incident of the the holy own parent


does this goes out and does a some type of very in depth inspection of the approach to it well we don't know that from the evidence there's no evidence that


think that that argument is a matter of conflating sin standards because the threshold factor which is what my opposing counsel was referring to is whether the the claim is arguable merit in fact in law


when when the remaining f m l a count was dismissed we filed for reconsideration that was denied in i think may of two thousand


certainly i mean there are there are four claims as i said earlier so with respect to the assault claims you're right that we have not only do we have placement but we also have placement in the cage recreation area and we have failure to intervene but with the other claims punitive placement


sale of kyra products as well and certainly con agra products were purchased i assume by people who also participated but not as part of the same transaction they're separate and different transactions resigned validation


one of the allegations which was you've been disbarred and in new jersey yet somehow they violated your constitutional rights because they did what they were supposed to do because you had been disbarred in new jersey they brought a proceeding saying look he's been just


history or anything else beyond the language that would help us decipher or discern congress's intent no i'm actually not prepared to do that today it's not a problem


while the court has jurisdiction to review legal issues and constitutional claims the petitioner has not raised a colorable legal issue this court has held in the case of rezai ovi holder that as the


that it could have been much lower but i believe it would make sense based on his comments in sentencing that the sentence would be low and it is significant the distinction in even two points when you go back because he gave a bad a


that was sent to the same email address that they use for the retailer transactions and we know it's a good email address confirming the membership giving a link to the website link to it just felt terms and conditions so they certainly got a confirmation that they enrolled this is not the insidious


he took the same position that he's doing now that they're doing now which is that opposing the same sions against him on the merits not opposing the fees on the merits only opposing the fees as the motion being untimely filed which it


remand cosets appeal because that was sufficient because in order to show the ten years it's not necessary only to show that she entered more than ten years before the news to appear but that


are several funds and that's an issue between the parties it says that during the pendency of that dispute the employer shall continue to pay the you all are by changing the contribution methodology the arbitrator undermined and


its discretion when it certified the subclass like to begin with the claims against the individual defendants which are clearly barred by principles of collateral estoppel as the court noted under new york law there are only two requirements for collateral estoppel to apply the first is whether or not the


the ultimate question in this section is whether mr references service time while working at morgan stanley for a certain periods of time specifically


correct quite right your honor that the court has not ruled on that before some other circuit courts have i say to a third circuit decision there's also a first circuit decision that addresses that issue


court below in the second round of briefing we believe all of its cover and it's laid out in detail to the court below and it wasn't room to do it here but i'll do it very very quickly and these are things i could have been presented to and termonde by a fact finder number


initially but then after the article seventy eight he was not and the state supreme court did hold that there was no justification for his refusal to sign the arrange for but said i can argue can't argue with that here


line once everyone involved became aware that that particular patented valve was in fact included contrary to what had been thought when it was initially dropped from the litigation and when was that i think


judgment so we were timely in fact i checked the record in the texas case yesterday as of yesterday there is still no final judgment technically could fall a motion for attorney's fees today it would not be untimely but in any event even assuming the worst


didn't know and had not invited him there the other charge that was made was for interfering with an officer under connecticut law as judge merriam reciting bowls providing fake names and


opposing counsel have until the next day let's make it let's make it friday bear with me one


still a per se rule for a clearance over a theatre that is not insubstantial competition and respectfully i would just suggest that any notion of that is a not dictated by paramount


client was because of something he had done after he had made after the victim had made these statements and insist your honor what it was is the the argument was


you survey were actually your honor was was i when i when i saw a little paul the survey i believe it indicated that on one of the service these two little circles on the survey indicated the when the war was


created by the connecticut office of your rehabilitation services where half where does one find one would only find it if they were to receive one if they were to seek one


insureds under their policy they can out not they cannot now dispute that by using burlington that's what i meant that it doesn't that it's not allowed and then they brought up that in under


moreover i think the test for quorum no business supports the district court's conclusion there were not circumstances certain i'm sorry circumstances compelling action to achieve justice because peru


make out in the face of the f a a be argument that's a different one but but there is certainly a long history of treating v f l estate as different from others that well to


anything to follow up but it is our position that no such hearing is necessary because


here to actually file a complaint and then begin the process again so it sounds to me like you're on the same page as the three of us that is you want to move this along but essentially


divorce and so even putting aside the allegations of murder and a conspiracy to kill someone we would be looking at a very serious violent crime and the government would be arguing for detention and in fact we did argue for detention with


is whether the employer countenance the conduct and in or brief we lay out the cases there has never been a case where an employer knew of the employee's conduct


court used the incorrect standard of review second we believe the district court gave insufficient weight to plaintiffs evidence regarding the doctor's denial rates and finally the just a court erred in finding that under the terms of the plan that elizabeth was titled the benefits


result that you don't like it's whether or not congress has expressed an intent to preclude the waiver of judicial remedies you see that clearly in the shearson american express case by the supreme court you see


the limitations arguments on their constructive trust in other theories that they advanced but the court said we don't have to get to those arguments yes we did raise cash so the complaint wasn't violent till to two thousand and fifteen and the report


needed need pain medication in light of that how do you defend the district court's use of all the cash transactions as the basis for forfeiture because i believe there are more sure i was just pointing to in the summation had to do with the insurance


equity between the parties and it's clear from the district court's decision in this case that what informs her decision is the fact that this dispute between the parties had been pending for as of now fifteen years and i guess thirteen years at the


mr peters didn't take that step which is what the district court was focused on he didn't do there's nothing that the plaintiff the poem can point to to say well i accepted the judgment of the court and i took this step to to try to make things right they they


confinement what i'm saying is that because of the judge's perception of corruption in the town of voice debate what may have been a lesser sentence of twenty seven months never took place oh never was considered i only pled to not


in the fact that notwithstanding anything else when he's at the town board and he's a he's negotiating with this vendor he he should know he doesn't need it board of ethics he should know that it's a clear conflict of interest and he should have communicated that


prejudice there was a i think an october of twenty fourth or or so of this month there was the killer case where where they where they dismissed half of that appeal without prejudice i would just point that out to the court why would


appellee made a motion a motion to dismiss but in a motion of summary judgment the court must give the nonmoving party which is the appellant the view in the most favorable


charges if if the court wants individuals to feel like they're there are limited to only certain circumstances in which they can bring these claims it


judgment record and look and say is this judgment on the record and if it's not on the record as leader right now and when and if we agree well i'm not asking you to do this is what you can do counsel


decision sets which says you have to have intent to violate the state we know that's not the law and the other thing he says this is all about legal fees well this isn't of sending it back and having it


law the payment of a brothel or a kickback to an employee becomes the property of the employer let me understand what i what you're saying i had always understood your claim to be


town of huntington decision they all related to a failure to analyze environmental effects i think in chelsea and i to ninety one why the facts were noise and air pollution in energy c against callaway


ability is it your position that he was constitutionally required to hold a hearing on the waiver application yes your honor that was part of argument institutional law and notwithstanding the length and the speculative nature and this question of the elements of the


shrill and i know it's a challenge to the moral imagination to see and feel and understand that the entire relationship between humanity


large and fast growing populations and lower wage rates our biggest disadvantage is in the area of our high wage rights and we don't want to lower our wages but we shouldn't worsen that disadvantage by stacking on top of the wages the


of it make it a part of a comprehensive solution but let's not bring up the rear any more on these auto standards basically the problem is cars coal and buildings so you've got to address all all three of them


but also say in the process we dug deeply and we found a capacity we didn't know we had it's there we all know that and that's what will give us the ability to successfully solve these


four hundred million dollars to five billion dollars per unit and i predict that we never see another nuclear plant built this country to twenty five years and ironically i was right but it's time to review this and redo it because we


clean energy investment and it is closing fast on our country what are the chinese really doing to promote clean and if you well they have announced a grand plans of but as i said earlier i think the proof is going to be in the in the


know need to be can going to need to be contained for tens of thousands of years in a place that it's really not appropriate for now that's my reading of what the the geological survey has said about that but i'm not opposed to it as a category


i hear a lot from people who express hesitancy about this issue they say it's going to destroy our economy well that's smacks of fear fear can be very paralyzing also hear people say well they've got a magic solution nuclear


could lead to some very interesting bargains between the fuel suppliers and the industries that make cars and other things that burn the fuel and find the most efficient ways to get the reductions


know nobel laureates of pretty knowledgeable people i'm sure they've given some thought to these shoes on the other hand i don't think they've ever systematic finds them in the way that we asked them to do so they were probably somewhat surprised i would imagine that you can't be entirely surprised about your own actions even if you get more


you really are strongly on behalf of coal but when i look at the states record on on the oil and gas production that you have chosen to to do it differently which is fine but now how are you going to get the approval to do these mines which


twenty seven other states seventy percent of the water that flows in the missouri river system came from montana fifty percent of the water stored in the columbia system came from montana the number one thing you can do is don't sell your watershed don't sell the land


continue to be in the west of course because it's where the resources are so which would you agree that we ought to extend we have to continue extractive activities and their work in western states in the future sure as long as those extractive


objection so word now it is my pleasure and privilege to welcome the speaker of the house of representatives nancy pelosi to be with us today i know this is an issue that you're both


as to what is going on and also why so in this case we're not just talking about observations of temperature cetacean and so on but also the observations of why the climate is changing what's happening to the composition of the atmosphere what's happening to the sun and so on


so we're we say in fact it's very likely that the overturning would slow down and it's very unlikely that it would suddenly seize up and stop at least in the twenty first century and that's even taking a can possible contributions


minority had going to notice to find someone who would but they were not able to do that either through the scientific community or the chamber of commerce however mr roboto has been very studious these last three hours in preparing a


perhaps the advanced technology program have a little visibility in the congress and among my constituents when i meet with industry representatives while their technical staff may know about us frequently the business


thousand and seven budget is reduced from one hundred nine million to forty nine million not only are past efforts of the a m a m e p compromised but it would show that that leadership umbrella i showed you referring to it earlier has been closed by our own congress


from school transportation over the last two years tennessee and georgia closed schools for two days last year and kentucky went to four day weeks for some schools just as a result of the cost of the fuel for the school buses congestion


actual cost of gasoline is impossible to project if i project too large an increase i will lose the contract if i project too small i will lose money direct impact on cash flow the life blood of any business is seen when you compare a weekly operating cost for fuel from three hundred


contracts and long term customers and i cannot arbitrarily raise hourly rates one unique problem that i face in the new orleans area the fact that many areas are still recovering is that the availability of service stations is a factor no long are there sources of fuel on every other corner


regularly scheduled refinery maintenance and several unexpected problems that have interrupted some refining operations the maintenance is a normal procedure though delayed in some cases by damages suffered from the catastrophic hurricanes in two thousand and five while maintenance


that are doing it most of the business community understand that there will be some carbon constraint you hinted at something would it make a difference to you or any of the panel members if


almost thirty one percent and that most of their overall corporate earnings came from the refining side of the business and another report released in two thousand and five shortly before hurricane katrina hit showed that in august of two thousand and five


tax credit there that are giving fifty one cent a gallon credit for agrobiodiesel development and i assume those who are in agriculture have seen some benefit if you are on the growing end of it i will tell you the story about my cattle rancher it cost him one hundred thousand dollars a year more


on global warming the gentleman from wisconsin mister sensenbrenner mister sensenbrenner thank you very much mister chairman like all natural disasters the recent wildfires in southern california have taken an enormous toll on lives and property damage with seven


warming they would have any measurable impact on the ground in southern california what would have a measurable impact in california and in other parts of the country are smart forestry practices


mudslides and calling it an act of nature i really appreciate this hearing i hope we can continue to look at this through the prism of global warming because i think it is going to up the ante and maybe finally congress will


i welcome your testimony today i thought it was excellent and i also appreciate the service you give to the forest service and many states especially my home state of oregon and your days as ranger up in le grande we appreciate your leadership


terms of a wage and it is hard for many of these people to understand that there is a different market out there than what they have been involved with for twenty five years in terms of what they how the market


electric hybrid car at that time i raised some questions but said the free market should be free to figure this out on its own just yesterday it appears that the market forces are starting to produce the answer while general motors and


we need to make it easier for these fuels to come to market i had a constituent call one of our offices in new york all excited because he had just bought a flex fuel vehicle and she wanted us to tell her where the nearest pump was and we were sorry to tell her there


actively good fuel that can reinvigorate our local economies and actually replenish and revive the environmental damage that we have caused on my path i have encountered so many inspiring motivated and truly selfless individuals who are determined to create


communities and communities of colorbecause for many many years the environmental movement hasn't always brought about the concerns of our communities and therefore i think that this is a first good step working towards that initiative to


setting some policy decisions that would actually look at substantive criteria if you could please go over that because you hit a lot of what i would like to see occurring in some of our public


impact as i might say you know the increasing sea surface temperature threatens the very existence of our country both economically and physically the two industries namely the fisheries and the tourism are


me not what some programmers telling me so there's proc print probably there's not it's not one tool for one job job but this idea of the integrated instruction option optional unit the good


question the panel mr berger would you please mr chairman or ranking member english's members of the committee thank you very much for inviting me here to testify my name is john i program vice president government relations for the national


companies begin to construct commercial scale so i also get some plants were on the cusp of seeing that technology commercialized and it's a very exciting time in the industry it was thank you for that and so then mr


mister vieau i wanted to make sure that we had clarity i was asking about the costs both of the batteries and of the operating costs and i wanted to make sure we got the right answer i want to ask you when these


language remains in the bill and it is now law and we are doing more aggressive things i hope we can do even more this is certainly a step in the right direction and we need to pursue every alternative energy source we can and again i compliment the chairman on the hearing the chairman i thank the gentleman and i


consumer basis and a sixty percent reduction in emissions with little or no change in the infrastructure we have and it can be done in the immediate future i think it is a very strong statement and that is why we as a company have been supporting the activity of creating an after market


commitment equal to this unparalleled moment of possibility that was fiction we are here today to deal with reality but the stars are aligned the time is now and patriotic and smart americans await this


detroit outside of detroit i should say but really michigan actually during world war ii was known as the arsenal of democracy because we had the manufacturing capability that literally built the


a search from the base given all different due deference to the difficulties they push people face but i think it alternately i don't think we have to answer that question moves and forces doesn't even require us to go


the a dead in this outside the plane and during the do for the month of october first two thousand and twelve to november first two thousand and twelve that i think is where the confusion is and the judge was confused about that and my video that will


i want to respond proposition that if if the if the forged instrument would not have if would not have protected the bank if genuine


evidence there would have been enough but of course if it had been kept out a substantive evidence still to come in for impeachment because we call the victim and even knowing that she was going to recant we called her water up there she told her side of the


the actions of class representatives or class counsel nor is this a case of a union member asserting a breach of his union studio fair representation here the parties challenging the validity of agreements entered into by the union and class council


that it was not required that rule twenty three process was not required as to those complex of those claims just as it knows that just as it knew that rule twenty three process is not required for the claim at issue here but what's even more notable is that


not an issue of a specific amount but for the initial time it was a specific an amount and lawns and knew that and logs are reported in there a miles back and forth monza specifically stated there man


future fuel excise is from the letter of intent a dollar thirty eight but as we've just discussed that letter of intent is not specific with respect to price and putting aside the letter of intent future fuel cites to absolutely no citation in the


excuse me the performance review was completed was a late october october twenty third so that was right around the same time as the first pip ended but before the november first mere mess


is dated december twenty ninth zero eight after after the twelve twenty five incident obviously and after and there is a dispute about whether you are reading on the record


of the people that was supposed to meet with and evaluate mr cody's performance it didn't happen and i can understand your honor that this is disputed facts and there are there are facts on both sides but at summary judgment


duties of counsel during the course of legal representation to discuss potential plea offers of the client the problem here the factual wrinkle is that the council did not even actively seek a plea offer


this is a large sophisticated company with a huge electrical operation that they owned american greetings and american greetings maintained it and worked on it american greetings had electricians on staff including the two people involved in this incident


on the outside number to these men and never seen anything other than for ag they're assuming for a d apparently mr collins assumed it was for eighty and third that nameplate does not satisfy the regulatory


determined or misunderstood or incorrectly assumed voltage are known and obvious to these people and to their work american greetings didn't know a duty to warn of these types of


does not create private rights of action by its own terms it does not expand to modify or enlarge duties that common law we have today in our brief indicated what arkansas


assisting if congress had wanted the statute to be narrowly construed as the defense has you is arguing then congress could have easily modified that term and in fact when the


do contracts first the contract that was entered into in two thousand and five that listed until two thousand and eight and in the contract that was injured in two in two thousand and eight and lasted until two thousand and eleven the


could go somewhere else in the us to be someplace else well as i understand i understand that that was the court's intention that preemption is preempted this cause of action the state cause of action is preempted but it didn't preclude


smoke and that's clearly preempted because it has a direct impact on you know the notion that whether a road is involved has an in the do with it that's you know sort of moon is full type of attempt to distinguish a case that has nothing to do with the cases actual reasoning is which is whether there's a direct


if that's her position with the intent to abuse humiliate harass or or or satisfy his sexual desire and he went to this party where these three underage girls are he drank with them he


marlene cab was a police officer for twenty seven years and helen of west helena some of the time she was with phillips county as a narcotic soft serve and she worked a spider injuries if you see the videotape she's missing some teeth she testified


institution in which they are they are housed i think would certainly bear on that question as to whether or not they did have access to hay vs during incarceration and the rule we advance would simply be those individuals when a court can look and make the


been brought well i frankly don't see any difference in real terms between whether they're allowing internet proper high quality interpreters


media just charge you know there's this court ruled ruled out the question of injunctive relief and prospect of declaratory relief so you're stuck with the only thing he could possibly receive through this action is damages and i think you have to look at


government had liquidated the schemes sole investment vehicle lots of the transactions that we identify in our briefing happened after crown for access they had been with were dated by the swiss government and the bank knew it and then


pocket that hadn't occurred to me actually when i add it all up the if you look at the amounts total from his bank statements i mean this guy opened up his bank records for a period of four years and said hey look at this there's no evidence of him regularly


litigated and decided and then specter will have its appellate rights in state court so it will certainly have it stay in court but just one court not to


and you're working in your backyard and leave it out there for a week and you find it the following week and it's rained a couple days you can see what happens to the mel metal starts to corrode immediately in when these will sets leave these facilities it's raw metal


extend the obligation for rail car safety to third parties beyond the railroad who's the only person identified in the code of federal regulations they know how to do it and we cited probably twenty some examples in our


overall intellectual functioning is commensurate with the mildly deficient range and molly deficient doesn't mean mildly limited it means mildly mentally retarded that's the term that that psychologist


retarded can perform another number of of rudimentary activities of daily living she has a driver's license yes but she failed the driver's test four times she doesn't have a car has testified she rarely drives and she she can


steps first the uni would have to request another election then win it and then negotiate an agreement required fees here the harms as like this case help help me lucas here the parish at all challenge exclusive representation


like to talk about the just disability issues first and as the court is well aware the supreme court has repeatedly stated that there is no principle that is more fundamental to


because obviously he recognized the problem that that identifying those sources created for him as a as an original source matter so the bottom line i think with respect to i flow is that dr paulo's does not


this doesn't fall within the statute of frauds that their attempt to say it had to be in writing is alive and well under missouri law in fact i believe it's alive and well under every state's law and it makes clear that partial performance is an exception to the statute of frauds as is detrimental reliance as a


thousand and nine that was part of the step one process under half in january he received a step to process underhand that step two explicitly said it would not be


so moving on in terms of ratification mr touchin has missed fifty five payments he was already behind when he was making payments


did you really mean not to render a verdict on count one that's what happened here and that's what's wrong and that's why violence it's going to be the rules of evidence because here he is now trying to ascertain


but we need to start by clearing up one assertion by bank or self that has no support in the record there has been and never has there never was an agreement that the two thousand and five guidance is the subjective standard of good faith in this case the district court was able to skip


what we were asking for and i think judge mommer misunderstood we've detailed in the brief that in in our counterclaim in our suggestions in opposition to their motion to


to determine you know which of the the language that's been complained about which are seeking interest it's better that's going to be a large task complicated by the fact that c m s doesn't have all their files dating back


is how the machine could possibly close with the he stopped engaged and the only company that had the information originally was hankel there's another company that service the controls of the machine


record i mean i'm sorry if you look at the fields council's instructions as a whole it basically goes through it it gives four instructions it's on page eighty nine it tells the l j to consider class r f c again to do a mental evaluation


again plaintiffs offered no evidence as to what process they were they were do or that plan does offer no evidence evidence that they made some request that the school board rescind its action arkansas


and he says no it's not it's not my blood the bottom line is kramer and they're not going to say this happened but the dispute is that kramer shooting he's in the water he falls over into the water karma pulls him out of a water and


sustained i'm holding you under the water scenario ok but can we take her or her testimony as to i mean as definitive even even for you in light of her her comments that you know she


nice person lead a good life and boy have you if you put the social history in that you're saying she should have gotten it would have gone the other way it portrayed a totally different individual the problem with that is the


there was some larger goal of that defendant to distribute drugs for profit which is which is the way that the defendant describes the goal in his reply brief here but that didn't that didn't prevent these two separate conspiracy these


and your honor as i believe you can hold as a matter of law that special needs doctrine does not apply in these cases which takes us back to the fourth and then that standard the county stated reason for not asking consent


finding on volume three forty seven where the district judge specifically found that the deployment of spike strips put at risk the general public as well as others you're accepting you're not questioning that finding i think that that is


happens it's our position that the district court's order was final it had all the markings of a final order it resolved all of the issues in the case it granted relief to one of the parties the court and our judgement in favor of that's hardie


oklahoma at the moment but it is our position that in any true future land of the trust application the district court is requiring the b o h to gain you know confound check nation of oklahoma concern and to


oklahoma so recognize oklahoma indian tribe didn't need further explanation it didn't need for the definition but i'm thinking more broadly indian tribes around the united states congress did feel the


allowing it to be taken into trust for them when they have they own it in fee simple and it's on the land where they have resided for two hundred years


lead that that argument could be made that the laws clearly established so just the arena and for the purpose of having this mr prong to a qualified immunity well going back to the point whether you can imagine or not the courts in out on that issue


may i may i say this your honor this is this may be protracted as a crowbar and it may be perpetrators someone doing something wrong and beating on it but that is a hotly contested issue that would be like arguing that when you take


is never enough to satisfy the


of particular conduct is clearly established not whether the right is clearly established that's a quote from more next that you judge holmes cited to this morning


as far as who was there andrew beamer was not he did receive the memo and the memo in that only refers to one comment being made by head craighead quest and that comment had to do with out one of mr had quotes


a motion to dismiss not after two years of discovery clever which is different because glover involved a situation where they recommend the written recommendations an issue said that we are doing this because of the speech


if what brown the supervisor was doing was retaliating against vestas because maestas didn't even try to work during his medical leave would that be


acquitted on count one thirty eight which is incidentally this it's unable to twenty third of the communication facility with a gentleman mr maya who did not testify at trial that is what the second comment was in response to the defense counsel during closing


with anything like that even present in the one case that you will live on there was here you have a dramatic change of event in the fact that your client pressed confess to this crime there is nothing like that and was


then the district court is not allowed to consider it but we can yes that makes no sense well if if what is if the rule twelve c three is directed at district


and if i could talk specifically to footnote five again three times in the footnote the court used the phrase make clear regarding burke and that could be interpreted in i guess future arguments that this is to make this


owned by and in control of and in possession of the oklahoma healthcare authority the oklahoma healthcare authority is a state agency there's no dispute about that that was the evidence that was the testimony and that was the indictment and


equate the statute with the concept of subject matter jurisdiction and we do not believe such a parallel exists so it's accio doesn't change anyway of how this court has treated it in this court has said specifically again in that case that


reason cited in these cases and because they often present the tape often so that is the case ron and why didn't we present the tape here the reason not why not in the situation your honor is because the recordings were completely in spanish


delve into the combat


court to correct the debt the flowers sent to the to the scam pigeons the debit card was used to make purchases of flowers in connection with the skiing and i tunes purchased to ms paul's


used in our scan because we know what victims flowers were bought for and those victims told the f b i i fell victim to the edward duffy scam which had facts about it that are so


guideline or statute is clear as an overhaul and lots of other cases and that's the case here the fifth circuit six circuit and the eleventh circuit have all followed the plain language of the guidelines and of the application


about it is there some rule that you can rely on to say well when it's in doubt under the guidelines the commission has not addressed something my client went well this one would be that we


service of sentence and that's not actual service of the sentence which is the plain language of the guidelines so there is plain error here and this court should find that affected substantial rights and exercise its discretion and notice the air and remain


these workers at least three of them were aware and and another two supervisors and four other workers they have case notes that indicate that they discussed this they knew that this child the six year old edward


other words what if you have what if you have a trivial inconsistency but maybe you have several of them the i j a latches on to those they have absolutely nothing to do with the with the


by way of adding four different court opinions to get a final judgment and it began with a motion for judgment on the pleadings which is supposed to consider the facts


suggesting that clearly her statement to lord was testimonial but richardson's confession to banton which was a double hearsay asked aspect of it was not


i think there is sufficient evidence to answer that question in the affirmative and to the extent that that other citation is relevant or is kind of involved i don't think it's relevant to or delete necessary to decide that issue


absolutely and if this court has no more questions on the discriminatory pay issue i would like to move on and focus on the retaliatory non selection otherwise known as a retaliatory failure to promote playing


important appellant contends in and concedes that there is no temporal proximity for these comets right there well outside the three months and the way of explaining this may help people this is about one piece small piece of the larger puzzle the only problem


in the vehicle were clear plastic sandwich bags and word and where you get from that to a half a gram and particularly when you look at these photos in which the wrapping use not in any way the uniform as a relates to these drugs and so


the question as to this issue is that it comes down to is whether a fair minded jurist could agree but the court of criminal appeals that trial counsel katherine hammerstone and at that point reasonably decided to terminate her investigation into a potential mental health


when he calls contacts in texas to set up a place to come and hide out again he doesn't say it was ambushed and killed in self defense he lies and says i'm just dying to visit you and during the interview he admits he never told


and really what's happening here is that congress meant to have these two buckets and so the false pretenses offenses right the ones where one has material misrepresentations such as the cases such as the provision and one see here


damage would be covered i don't think this exclusion would apply to that because the phrase that particular part of that is intended to preserve coverage of fortuity something that is unexpected and fortuitous for example


applications there were due diligence activities that were conducted that indicated that hutchinson was going to carefully scrutinize the conditions that were represented in the loan applications let's not forget that there were initially


ask you on this jury instruction this was a jury instruction that came at the end of murphy depended murphy and earlier said you're not challenging but you really are


soft black card in discovery what is what is the basis for that breach of contract claim and they said see our complaint of course then we took the deposition in the thirty six deposition a black card and we asked what is the


while i understand it isn't it's a trial case you more does involve the most comprehensive discussion of the constitutionality of the statute and in that they refer to that provision of the statute as being strict liability and


becomes strict liability i think the court i i i'm not sure why they use that term and i have tried to find any other court nd circuit or new york that has similarly called this


pretty quickly and then then john norns berg represented mr material there and the state court lawyers had no involvement there after ms west asked and we addressed this in our reply


created a two tier system for bail where people who have the means to to provide for private service of which we know many luminaries in


another community and say i'm i'm going to found the the the university of jesus christ almighty and there will be five thousand people studying there i mean i don't i don't really have any real plans of out of the necessary financer there doesn't have to be


the proposed dean was a long time rabbi and in the acidic church and the representative of tartikoff itself all gave testimony that they did not have a religious belief but they had to live


discussed and so at appendix a page i'm sorry this is my appendix twanna the pending page sixty eight the court in considering the image to build a says the government has no insider in this case there's


allegations in the complaint to suggest that that was untrue as of may i don't believe that there is any suggestion from counsel that that statement was speaking at an earlier point in


settlements the equity holders would have gotten anything out of the fact of the matter is that there was no equity all the equity was extinguished and the sum total of the claims that were allowed to the airlines was in excess of six hundred and thirty five


fact that leads me right into her letter in her letter the city argues it is not protected activity i strongly argue that it is because we're not just looking at and i think the latter is on page sixty seven


divided as to the trial counsel i was not ok but you know a trial counsel had an opportunity to cross examine this witness as to his credibility and as to his


and that we argue that point three of our brief was where they were standing no no evidence there was evidence that they had done that previously that that had been an m o


the same weapon no it's not sufficient your honor because being on this occasion he said i'm going to kill him with a knife poison pill or something and this occasion mr mercedes had there was no discussion of


the evidence in conjunction so i'm going to point to six pieces of evidence from which a jury could have reasonably infer that mr mercedes had advance knowledge under was the bill that exactly your honor but in considering these the court is required to consider them in conjunction not each in isolation but in


circuit in and which actually actually set the standard was very clear that even a single claim brought in bad faith suffices and in this case first of all there was more than one act no matter


that particular pleadings no longer before the court it


security at vulnerable government installations more toward the war and of the of the spectrum toward the the the other because the


have implicated government resources you reserved a couple minutes yes thank you very much just challenge the government and fortunately we have the government right here


had and they continue to be governed by the usa articles of association as they always work and the fact is mr miller does have recourse if he now believes that the phoenix transaction entitle him to redemption on those


can't afford services and immigration and tax issues all sorts of things well certainly and they might but here we have in order to prove too much well but it doesn't


fundamental it's much much much more fundamental but of course the district court found article three stand i know that it's all the law that's why i'm a lot of hate when you're on appeal well the fact is the government didn't appeal that but


this issue off the well st well st of all the individuals would have to go to two interviews and be denied then there'd be an administrative appeal that that would have to be denied and then they could go to district court on the


defense and essentially they said why would we hide this rogue employee why would we hide this for three months well if you don't know could you just how do you do you can see the rule thirty three obligation to be


reason why we had filed in a declaratory judgment because the singapore courts are not going to intrude on the process they leave it to the foreign body to make the assessment of what impact if any they're willing to have and that is precisely with the parties here


cables that is the piece of equipment that was damage the testimony is uncontested life his own witnesses joined appendix one hundred and eighty eight and made it that the only property that was damaged was the submarine cable these are multitude of


using the bridge and i would say that the case is serious enough that these this court nd circuit could use this case to examine in detail the proprietary proprietary interest in the context of a maritime


the right of access to the courts and finally his right to procedural due process as we were asked to address in our appointment order baxter's rd point is that this court should join its five sisters circuits in expressly recognizing that inmates retain


robbery is a lesser included offense of robbery so there's no argument in the case that the indictment was defective in some way for charging a hobbs act robbery when the


injury to a person by means of a dangerous instrument which seems to track one of the sets subsections of the assault new york assault statute that would qualify as a crime of violence if so my question is if this were before the district court it would seem to satisfy


that in fact there was a criminal history report that was provided to the defense and did include that subsection so is the problem is if you run it now you probably shows up the right way but we don't know what it was run years ago


american association for the advancement of science all of these things work precluded because we couldn't show the very report from which this extraordinary as the f b i itself said


be looking at dietz in this context it appears to say that a district court judge has has the power to rescind the discharge order in to send the jury back when there's an error and doesn't express explicitly address our situation but


about forfeiture strict compliance is necessary and that's what i think should happen here turning to the thirty five eighty to see the government this is centrally raises three are it's one of them was rejected by this court previously that is whether he was eligible for a thirty five


far as the redundancy of the anakin to the tcas it is it's a it's a probably our hardest issue to get around my response is that the retroactive date for section


know full full disclosure absolutely opaque what i think the district court did by implication when you look at everything the district court did i believe it's reasoning was probably that nominal damages would suffice i think that's probably what judge kaplan was relying upon


they reference that it's that court there used this trespass analogy but there's no trespass case where you agree that you will you know that you'll trespass for certain reasons and then and then you're on the property and then you you leave and then you do


it would make absolutely clear what happened and you would win the case because it would then be more than a year before the post conviction for seedings took place so i would


customers some customers had kosher requirement some customers require deemphasize by the way there's a paragraph where she said yes i was not required from two thousand and ten some customers required use of facilities that were not in china but she says others were


mr brogden was sentenced by the district court to two hundred and ten months in prison for the crime my brackets hearing conspiracy however because i'm just charged state sentences for crimes that the government concedes were


story shifting sand we submit that there are no facts that are alleged ask you about the insolvency sure part of it and let's assume away all the other problems that i know you've


immigration judge granted the motion the next day without hearing at all from my client's counsel so that's flatly wrong so it's true that the argument for the immigration judge focused on a lack of understanding by


charged the record is clear that the government was government got no money from that they were just wishing them well as part of this brochure which is that pay a one hundred and fifty four and fifty


you must use boy with a modifier the supreme court said no what you need to do is look at context how it's use not just whether or not it was a modified to that particular word but what the common usage in that


bennett i would first note that none of those physicians actually cited any findings or any evidence to support those limitations the burden is upon mr heman


in the sense that it proved he bids the precise maneuvering that the debtor is doing here without scorpion oh there's potential for abuse by the directors of the summer scenario


not seeing that here with the identical elements test we look at how the legislature defined the elements if they're not identical the test is indeed there are many cases there's five out of those eight cases where this court's looked at the elements and said


has been to the extent it has been addressed by this court is has been rejected as the basis on which to evaluate the nature of the charitable use the constitutional charitable nature and use of property is this court


care in other patients to set up a payment plan for those who were in a position to pay something for their care for that reason they were referred to and collection agencies serve that function the director accepted them there was no notion no finding at all by the


excessive quantities of water to the point that his blood wasn't even able to hold oxygen and he would pass out and die unless he was under supervision and treatment and came close to doing that they point to section three six zero seven of the code but that's specifically says that the


of fraud causes of action and the whip case does say that then and then an intent to deceive is is required but we believe that cases since that time have have kind of stepped away from that very


should be defined differently so that they don't all just encompass the same type of of misconduct in a case that was that was approved and confirmed by this court the wheaton case the review


says you finish the term there is nothing in the effect that r s sitting judge from seeking and becoming retained prior to the expiration the term the election code defines


the certification is complete by november thirtieth now if you look at page if you look at their brief page twenty one of their brief they say the office is vacant when the judge reaches the seventy fifth birthday it's not withstand


existed at that time and that had set a mandatory retirement age and the judges had retired for pursuant to that provision and they incorporated in its entirety into the new constitution that the word automatically was taken out of the constitutional


retention regimen now there are two interpretations of the statute two plausible interpretations of how the general assembly implemented their constitutional authority and their bowl for that alley the first interpretation


yes you can run in the general election you would then be violating the constitutional provision which says that then changes the term of office qualifications nothing in the constitution has an age requirement for term of


definitive thing for this court here but the fact of the matter is there is clear case law out of this court in the case law is legion that if you don't raise the issue in the petition for leave to appeal you can't raise it for the first time before this


defendant was bombed by is agreement but they do not hold the defendant was not title to jury less than twelve if the state did not agree well you only get to a jury of less than twelve if the state doesn't agree all those cases were evaluating whether or not there had been a proper waiver and


said that i'm allowing this because it's a timely request it was made pretrial and there's no prejudice to the state the state never responded to that significantly i think the state has not


judge in the exercise of his discretion could make a decision that a twelve person jury is more appropriate the judge could look at the factors the judge looked at in this case the timing of the request whether there's any prejudice to the state the nature of the charges


request granted the request exercise its discretion in doing so and in fact i believe in the trial court this is the state's attorney in response to a question justice thomas you had asked earlier is this in state's attorney in


the the the appellate court said that the one million dollars in punitive was excessive and it reduced it to exactly the amount of the compensatory damages in that case fifty thousand dollars


trial at i'm sorry at the appellate level is reduced further to six million and they need unbound vs farkas in other words three million actual six million is the final result in proctor davis that's a two to one ratio that is that is other justices leaning on prior cases and after


moment that the order was entered the evidence was not going to be admitted here at the moment the trial court entered its order the evidence wasn't going to come in the trial court was not going to consider that evidence so it had the effect of suppressing evidence and so in each of these cases there is going to be


juvenile cases have ticked up appeals or not and finally the stakes simply are not as high in juvenile cases in terms of correcting erroneous orders obviously this society and the judiciary has an interest in collecting


dollars even though it other claims were included in that release and given that they really said that the judgement is paid the defendant met his very of allocate a valid case of proving the allocation and not only that it was the


including the defendant's drug history learning disability that he had suffered as a child the appellate court rejected the defendant's claim that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel


the the attorney was given the notice that was necessary and this court's rule six zero five a which was complied with again requires that the court specifically admonished the defendant about the necessity of filing


is injured or or dies but the best bet is that in that instance you have a specific factual circumstance to address in here you're talking about setting policy across the board for


situation of the employer doesn't provide for any accrued debts no sick days no vacation days no personal days and you have the employer that is self employed and doesn't have that


be based on the particular circumstances of this case because it's going to apply my whether or not this is marital property it's going to apply in every case both are employed and both have accrued days where one


until mr abrams retires he's not going to receive any more salary he's not going to be paid any more from his job when he takes these days the record shows that he's been diagnosed with prostate cancer so if he has to have an


that he pursued vigorously and but in light of those statements there was absolutely nothing defense counsel could have done as to that residential burglary again he did not plead guilty to death eligibility in order for that to happen he would have had to concede both to the


people could have very different ideas of what those things would mean again that harkens back to the overall basis and lack of specificity that we have here finally these statements contacts


yes so plumb a contract for teachers public superintendents know i know i'm i'm sorry if a teacher's contract is in a personnel file which is where it is that contract is also


case number one zero seven one three nine to be taken under advice


off and since there's no action pending to go after the underlying note that's just going to go away realizing terms of personal judgment so there may be equity in there maybe yes and if the


here and i think it's even stronger here the defendant didn't warn that he was class x mandatory until the same sentencing hearing at which he told the judge he didn't know that he didn't have a lot of time to formulate a more explicit or articulate claim he didn't have time to


even if one structure that existed at the time of wrong because that's true so it's true in response to the other question i would feel that maybe it if the facility is still running still being operated even though it's under a


that but i don't believe under the facts of the law that under the immunity act i don't believe we'll get to that point whether or not you know the place officer has to make that decision or not to release them into custody at that moment if there's no further


earlier i believe the unlike the opponent my opponent the commission is equipped and they make these decisions on employment issues day in and day out they decide whether my clients offering a job whether it's a


fee if you raise all of your most yes and eat it is worth it at the outset noting that that would be a different case obviously as your honour's hypothetical he would be responsible but at least to make a complete point here


drug crime particularly with methamphetamine which is that is a real concern in rural areas of this state and also weighing in favor of the state is the fact that the set of procedures really minimally intrusive


to the subcontractor in reliance on contractors sworn statement the owner made payments to the contractor by that time of the last sworn statement the sub contractor


necessarily goes with it would certainly invest the juvenile proceeding with the appearance of a criminal trial and create in the mind and memory of the child the same effect as if it were what was in the mind and memory of jonathan see when his trial was over


prosecutions nonetheless when the state files a delinquency prosecution it is a criminal prosecution where the juvenile is often detained in a jail or a detention center prior to trial then brought to court in chains tried with the assistance of counsel


prosecution juveniles convictions objects into higher penalties if he escapes from detention and juveniles must register sometimes for life on public registry is at nonpublic registries the juvenile court after rehabilitates children and subject


will charge of the jury trial issue respondent by asking this court to hold that the juvenile court act requires that juveniles are entitled to a jury trial under the under


criminal prosecutions if they're fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions there's no way they could qualify as a criminal prosecution under article one section eight and therefore that decision applies and that is


a pro se petitioner can simply file a proper post conviction petition i would say that if he had known then the pro se petition or who doesn't know anything about the law he probably would have done so and


morning your honor may it please the court my name is caroline flynn and i represent the petitioner in this action mr david de this court granted a certificate of appeal ability on mr day's claim that his retained trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when they persuaded him


argument you're making is basically that the good advice of the federal defender initially on the case cancels out the later bad advice of the incompetent retained counsel certainly that's the way the


waiver to attend the school based on the residency requirement because of her mental health issues now but the issue in a kind of failure to accommodate case is that she could go to the new


out of this district which or excuse me the circuit which is referenced in the government's brief which is the this caro case which states that double counting is generally permissible unless the text of the guidelines


construed as a motion to dismiss others don't we don't believe so it was a reply to the motion to dismiss there were several conference calls with magistrate judge williams regarding the discovery issue and again those are reflected the docket there's no transcription of those


treats that as a throttle they can offset future earnings compensation i guess but at all times it's paid retrospectively at all times it's paid after the employee has performed services gets paid in proportion to the


when cars drive down the road vehicles are struck by over lapping brush that the road is filled with potholes that have not regularly been maintained or fixed by the government and so what that the government has


event on the south half of the road which would be south of the section line and they are not entitled to an easement by necessity or by implication because part of the road


motion denied you have not adequately played this point this is old really really strong evidence that this is not a rule that regularly followed in this context in this way in wisconsin courts and if it's not readily followed


he wasn't the case the legal system this is a first of all with the law and the court made no attempt to actually describe to mr johnson what took place in the back of the courtroom without his presence and we believe that that


that a client and deputized his attorney to decide for him and even beyond that if that isn't true the court then soon after came on the record judge brinn as you noted ask mr johnson and


properly choose on absolutely not yes ok with that the distinctions between the two occupations could not be more dramatic while of course both occupations had managerial


the policy wasn't a regular occupation policy it was your regular occupation policy and contrary to what counsel represented to the court they did have the job description in the file it's at page nine fifty nine to nineteen sixty


it's not necessarily referring to the group the board of forensic document examiners because there are members in there who do satisfy the two year twenty four month full time training period so


health plans and our client human spirit coverage l c engaging in a client relationship that had been done over and over again with many different medicare advantage organizations and has been done so since


rule that allows the state to give as a consequence as a punishment for a violation the refusal to process and the now you take it to state wanted to amend the rule to say


know we must know whether the state ever opened this envelope they must have opened it and discovered that the envelopes have somebodies name printed on them and actually the state didn't keep the uncle so the envelope is not part


prove it beyond a reasonable doubt give them fifteen to twenty four months as as you know a breach of the course process and if the government wants to take further actions they can and the district court express to send sentiment which i think is common but a little bit disheartening


release proceedings they are more informed seedings we want those due process protections we want an indictment to come if the government's going to seek such a lengthy term of imprisonment it should happen within the case


group of people and all we are asking is for the court to apply the definition of true threats that the supreme court gave in black and with respect to that statement about black being from a different statute i think that is a distinction without a


activity the circumstances that lead this human being to be in that situation are required consideration under thirty five fifty three but why wasn't that a sufficient consideration when the judge


they only did that for that small one hundred and thirty seven acre parcel so that doesn't deal with the fact that they can go down to twenty five feet above ground if you've been in a helicopter i haven't i'm afraid of that sort of thing i would imagine twenty five feet above ground is pretty


well judging again the government can better represent the government's position but it is my understanding that the record is clear and there has been no contention from the government at any point in any filing that mr since he did not in fact time the mail his s f ninety five dollars


our third case for argument this morning is go against gardner


insurers never asks be but the evidence is that the policy when it demand was made it was sent to the insured and then rejected by the insurer without getting the insured to weigh in on


rejects the dangers posed by specific socioeconomic demographics or ethnic demographics but rather what means of self defense are available to the citizens in that county they have pointed to not one regulation not a


anybody getting in or getting out and based on those facts the court said there's probable cause in other words there's there is a substantial chance that there's a violation going on here counsel so the government is not arguing that johnson


would even if they had been able to get access they were not no longer found the equipment there and the problem in calculating the programming last respects the city in this case is simply that in order to do that directive you would have to physically


to match to his old job because of the childcare attended aspects of the old job yes under arrest us are eighty two dash sixty one if the past work is a composite job the inquiry is whether or not that job can be performed


time mr morgan was released in two thousand and eleven revoked in two thousand and fourteen and ultimately released in two thousand and fifteen times you just think it was a ten year prison term correct i may have gone beyond what's done and that's all that's rose and i think the the


even use the word report it says notify the male carrier of a work injury so there's absolutely no support for that argument but that mr holloway relies on heavily in that in this case and moreover it is undisputed


of some corporate wide document retention policy which actually many companies maintain there's evidence of how they retain documents but nothing sure way that plaintiff has presented you could say for example we keep documents


have your time run out on you i want to get your reaction to one other issue in the case and that is with respect to the search warrant both parties seem to want to put our attention on the state warrant ok if i look at the state warrant i actually


looking from setting the steering wheel or his lap to the family with young children to the passenger seat on which they would later see a cellphone they also know that as you correctly stated his parking was odd and strange to pull over half on half off the road when there's a


minute courtroom you have eyes i remember identification of one of the victims and also the cell tower pangs and also you know the other


pay for contamination and that's that's what we're after here today are those two statutes that we're arguing about the circle statute and the statute in the cases that interpret them make it clear they have a broad remedial purpose supposed


liability now further with respect to any argument that the notice would be insufficient under the control group notice notice to one its notice fall


and solely relied upon the trade agreement as the only memorialization of what the parties intended in this particular case and nowhere in the complaint was that


not send an email to its entire database and and the reason that i want to start with that on rebuttal is because i am ass in their arguments before the court here this morning completely


summary judgment the district court made a ruling that it would have been prejudiced had the evidence conform to what came out in discovery and that is absolutely improper and the reason that it's improper is because there was extensive discovery prior to


about when the search warrant was executed is there any evidence other than the photograph of the clock itself and that the clock was correct


perhaps the jury believed less the plaintiffs expert who opined that these aren't work supposedly worth eleven million dollars it's not that they didn't believe the plaintive the plaintiffs said i had lots and lots of stuff in there i had all my art i had


writing and you know you're leveraging that language pretty far well i think look you do have focused on the cut the confirm so i'm probably not going to persuade you there but maybe if we focus on the


judgment to us on all of these factors the manufacturing issue is one that we've talked about with the flash there is no design issue by admission there is then no warning issue in this particular case


benefits the defendant but that's the rule whether it's five seconds five minutes or five hours afterwards the nd point is that my friend mr choice has mentioned that these records were in the government's possession already on there is no government records exception


hypothetical comes from to disagree courts one in hawaii and one in alaska and the legal point in question when you when you take stock of the cases the way that it stacks


he messes up with the typical violations not showing up when he's supposed to not paying his obligations possession of contraband she goes and gives him you know what could be used viewed as a first chance just a second chance because


and in addition it may vary did not clearly show that he exercised reasonable diligence throughout the entire one year period and many courts including this circuit have stated that


multiple months long periods of delay indicate that a petitioner it did not exercise reasonable diligence throughout the entire one year tolling period the show in this case and


property owner similar in this case wouldn't allow the assessor on their property and they were then subject to a very large increase in that case the seventh circuit held that fair


juice is enough to put you over that line from interactive direct and that's it's an aggressive position well i'm happy to address that position but let me address your question about the language of the authorized user provision you're certainly right that it


clearly that condition did not affect the claimant's gripping strength and as his fine manipulation to the extent that the doctor indicated on the form so those things are record


which we should begin assessing the conduct of these these three people who are left because yes you know mr moore was clearly a bad actor and they knew that and so on in their words and they just report


its physical restraint because it really it is goes beyond merely aiming a gun and because it compels movement going beyond merely aiming a gun is not physical restraint when indiana jones is tied up in a chair or


startling are we focusing only on the second half or do you think we should look at the entire performance the judge judge that's a that's a difficult question to


silent night why do about jesus christ superstar is the school musical i think that i think that that would probably be ok i think that that's not the type of event i think that that's the type of thing


as of the date of the amendment so the court doesn't need to get into this excess tensional question of whether it's possible for a plan to create an accrued benefit that allows for future earnings because this plan doesn't do


almost by definition imposed limitations but that's not the case the l j was required and did look at the evidence of what the actual limitations were reflected in the actual evidence it was the l g s obligation it was her duty to examine the treatment notes


it may be a legitimate case because he's not giving information walked the whole point is he was having ask you false information not information that's not the point he was never asked give information is out to get false information to testify to to prove to signing statements that he never wrote and wouldn't


order so they put in this very narrow this very limited declaration that contains very few facts and in fact it does not contain all the facts that have been that have been talked about already here this morning some of which were talked


yes there might be more punters or there might be more running backs if you could play with a one point eight instead of a two point one great point average but but that does not raise and i trust question that there's an implication of that


sample of things the affidavit certainly didn't describe the basis training and experience is just take it you know believe me you should believe me i'm a believable fellow and if that's all there was that may


said that well and that should have been brought up in opposition to summary judgment at the time that that that that occurred i was not anxious to go there that quickly i wanted to make sure what i


perjury itself is not good enough to show fraud on the court in the circuit he had to show that we defendant schneiders counsel knowingly submitted that perjured testimony to the court and that when we did so in order to have properly


took a course had looked at something analogous to the winter factors i think you might have realized that this medicine is too strong your honor to that point i think the context would


about the remained on remained the immigration judge conceded that the law had changed and that the four had now determined that a petitioner


opportunity i'm sorry and that and they do it now i am not sure your honor but i believe that those applications there's no time this bar to a withholding application so that could


federal judgment it's in the same federal sentencing court there's no need to find that this is an exceptional case that would warrant the courts to a sponte exercising its authority to raise this issue on its


class period yes i stated yes he did and by stating it on page one of the objections which i think is page a one one five of the record he stated that he is a qwest member which means by definition that he received at least one called when the


cause mr mccabe received calls outside of the class period only discovery would show whether any of those were whether any of those calls were also received after he brought his action in the eastern district of new york if


i don't have any on the top of my head i'd be happy i don't know i don't think off the top of your head i don't think research is going to do it because i've done some research i don't think such a case is there ok


paid to the class for what the class receives it is true your honor we agreed to a floor in the ceiling however there is a twenty million dollars sweet spot in between there and we don't know where it will end up and and put it all to the district court's opinion i don't


voting rights act required pre clearance when states moved from a point of systems to elected citizen systems and we know that in irby versus virginia state board of elections the fourth circuit said


else another family that was his way to try to comply what he thought was complying with the residency words ob he rented out the he rented out the the house he had space available suppose in the basement but he never slept there and he was collecting rent


that mr sanchez is alleging and the independent basis for relief and that his third child circumstances percent so would you agree that we


looking for a position was not mt sinai looking for a position or recruiting dr gallo for a position and the causation piece that the theory plants theory is there is this affiliation verification credentialing


argument that the jury was told to disregard the jury didn't hear it in the closing argument and for purposes of today in this appeal it certainly didn't hear it in the theory of defense instruction


laws clearly established that it does not and this core in pain versus church it made clear that the illinois tort immunity act does not apply to a federal constitutional claim brought under section one thousand nine hundred three against either


decided that she didn't need an ambulance and none was ever called and should refuse to go so he ended up giving notice when he had a reason to know that there was a claim filed against them and that was twenty one months


paid more than people that were brought into the rolls but in each and every case and we detailed this in the briefing that's in the the decision the individual who received it was paid less than he was and they were not


own property is it that's not your focus where your focus is that you want to at least i understand you claim you want your client wants to put a billboard on the eleven thirty three property cruiser right yes right ok well the ban


of death issue should go to the jury when you get a new trial on that claim the judge on remey and will need to decide how to instruct the jury on that claim and that's where we have to decide if if we go


because she may have first amendment rights issue that was argued in the trial court and you know sometimes fasting can be a form of


should be avoided as in collins the result in this case would not change regardless of which standards applied and under the judicial restraint doctrine that's why i said i don't think you need to


bankruptcy if you look at the supplemental appendix as say thirty four s a thirty six you'll see where my client went into the bankruptcy to make this judgment not just charged my client wasn't worried about collecting on the judgment but they wanted this judgment place


is now arguing apparently in france that by delivering eight claim that included confidential information stamped confidential all over it or re assess now relinquished its trade secrets


of a mess but this court should clean up one critical part of that mess which is that this protective order isn't working we're asking for a very limited modification and biomet and ask him having justified opposing that modification the


outside of bankruptcy absolutely if they if they want to well they could do one of two ways they could do it withhold some of the funds in the manner as they did


knowledge that she may have been very apprehensive about police officers should factor in i can think of entire neighborhoods in chicago where we are told that most of the people who live there are very apprehensive about the police and i


somebody else recognizes her another police officer in zion there must be more than two of them and everything else happens she doesn't necessarily know that officer and how you pronounce his name record or richard at richard


can modify it without affecting the markets now that's that's something you need to speak to dirty specifically you put your opponent or you've read in his briefs that and as i understand the argument is in fact the


give you that option you did you didn't do that but you responded i mean i understand might have not been the position you would have sought wanted but there are tools for you if you think court is is moving before it should you need help


the plaintiff consumer and sent the him although it actually should say her in that case it was a woman and said to her that her appearances progress were not communications with the third party and that is what it held the court looked at that


subject to a literal truthful interpretation yet that this is a clue as this is not a perjury case i don't see them saying anywhere that you perjured yourself well here them saying that you committed an intentional


what does it mean i you put your name on a brief with that statement and then how how i mean i'm not sure how that helps you to say i never made that statement when your name is on the brief that's correct your honor i hired other more years to do


that focus on conditions of confinement and whether or not they pose a substantial risk of serious harm to the plane to the ceded to somebody such as mr black and it's taken into account his psychological vulnerabilities in this case we thought was a


the record in a case where somebody who's been evaluated by a good part of corrections itself on multiple occasions as being a risk of suicide should be able to make a claim for vulnerability to


was the attorney in this case suzy yunior that is a good way to put your our but i don't necessarily think the court needs to view the application of was new in that way you know


jury to figure out whether there was a causal link or whether or not it was just he was just a receipt of this in terms of not paying attention to directions to leave the area i think you have a correct there with regard to the d a has cruise component of this


stop so aren't we in a position where we don't have anything other than his account that the requirements of the informal process in eighty eighty eighty and one were not met with what are we to do with i don't think this court has to do anything with that i


cases out there to suggest that one hundred percent certainty is required for that matter the no cases that i know of that say eighty percent is not enough is enough or is not enough idea i think the whom introduction frankly


not displace the service recipients right to go to court for breach of contract but that's a far cry from saying when you're passing a regulation but that in and of itself gives rise to a cause of action


heavier you look to the us and because pennsylvania is skinny little regulations are not as expensive as the f l say we have to defer to the department of labor really irony is that the very same time that is any little regulation


stop there but she looked at the evidence and what she found is the officers of office east in her testimony admitting saying gosh at the end of january we realized even though the buyer given us five million dollars not refundable earnest money deposit


incorrect if you look at the first circuits decision in millward goes right directly to the point that you made to open this which is the threshold question is is there an association if there is an association which you can show through


the fact unfortunately i'm i'm i'm doing this after the fact is now looking for why her style is distinguishable and the two reasons that i see it are that one the underlying contract in her cell doesn't have a


but it happened it is what it is a judicial order was in place that said the were frozen in time nothing's going to change as to who's where while we sort this out then the end then the legislature


charge from the district court the fighting force in this case the fighting force in this case that's what you're here to talk about yes the appropriate charges would have been probably just if i were managing had only the case


have claimed these threats or occurred it's it's sort of circular to say that this was somehow being only offered to corroborate her testimony when to corroborate her testimony would be to


of rule twenty nine and legal sufficiency yes they they certainly said sufficiently proved conduct within the scope of a conspiracy then when the issue was put before the jury this is when the whole thing at least in my opinion when


of any particular well i would disagree with with your honor that it was not referenced in the indictment in fact a careful reading of the indictment would show that that was the root of every single one of the predicate


plaintiff should be allowed to prove to present their case and the manner they choose in a discrimination case a plaintiff may pursue a disparate impact theory they may pursue a direct evidence of that discrimination theory


prove that jacob stead and when the complaint the complaint the answer to the complaint got entered into evidence and we establish that opec had admitted that it own the vehicle then we face the changing


that she has a stablished malpractise and damages by the loss of her case to this nationally taishan she testified as to her damages and i was correct pages five twenty five five twenty six and five twenty nine but she could


not put the wheels in motion for mr chapman's ultimate decision to commit that second crime and that's the way that fact it reads and has been applied in prior cases i think what normally normally happens let's say


in the government by you advantage point by you're suing them as state actors to take into account mutual responsibilities which are now in dispute they'll make question for you is at


about an unfair business practice so here are the article three injury is the fact that the consumer purchase medication and we're not talking about a few extra drops of medication here your honor we're talking about the fact that


you know an assumption is that standing here today drugs that come in smaller drops are cheaper to consumers over the course of treatment and again that's a conclusion that a mark study found and that's on top of all the other


strategy if he thought that they said it it should come in for some reason why object at all to any of it considering that the testimony and statement were essentially the same what about the argument that since


couldn't and then explain why i think it's very likely that this opinion would have contributed to the verdict despite the stamp having and the government now accounts to twelve hundred seventy two grams on the perp on the basis of the


the uptown label in this case what do you mean by fixed i don't remember that honestly is a long brief i don't remember that sentence with a fix the uptown gave a f f yeah i x e d yeah just up but the rest i don't know the rest of the sentence are now brief i'm


the sign that's right in the neighborhood where this investigation occurred where he spent however many hours and then he has the stills and the social media photograph showing these defendants doing that what you're saying but no twenty nine is it's a long footnote


your make only one brief point unless you have other questions about this is that in fact certainly congress knows how to refer to a book about law under the bankruptcy code and there are many examples


prior visit he merely pushed open albeit there was a chair in front of it without making so much in ways that he was able to go upstairs and confront these two women in the bedroom without them even there there ever knowing he was even in the


however i am there's a third type of private corporation that could have any business purpose whatsoever a private business that has no public interest component and that is also covered by title nine under section eight nine sixty seven and what


reacting to complaints of cetera et cetera what is there in the record that counters what she did and would allow us to find that she was deliberately indifferent


consistently better than it had when people were just going off and do things without coordination and letting people have told him too late that's not that wasn't the driver behind this


proceeding through the petition for review process and reserve the question said the issue of an individual to not initial admission would present an entirely different question i think that's really what distinguishes every single one of the cases that plaintiffs are referring to us


that's all the safety valve that actually cases like that hearing out of tire require that seems to be your best argument against the suspension clause argument made by the other side that congress has provided some species


property on the beach club because if they had done their homework they would have seen that the the township that the owner of the main parcel of land wasn't paying taxes for a long well i think that they that that


that's why we have this predicament there was a could you be protected mr miser if if this plays out as you suggest and i have no reason to question you know one way or the other on that


been made by the appellants is that you for taking this policy subject to pennsylvania law this is pennsylvania law therefore you had no property interest and i say


he looked at it from two points first just nursemaid are calling him and telling him about the situation that involved mr pierson where where he was he told them that hey be ready you're probably going to the


out there there's absolutely no support works from an expert who would indicate that there was any causal neighbor that there was any harm or delay to mr pierson the other actually


evidence to support it that he was somehow mistreated and some are called and answers and anyway but if they can't be demonstrated to have happened where she does one


but the institute payments that help services received constituted benefits and whereas the fisher test and the mandatory requirement to make use of type terms that there must be evidence and


fernandez's which seemed to be at issue was whether they were agents or not in the court decided that they were an agent and went on building something i didn't see any indication that the


city of detroit didn't consider the stuff a case in which these green court explained that the declaratory judgment is a milder form of relief several answers to that


the planning department gets all the plans all the engineering all the traffic studies everything and they disseminate expect apartments the departments then of twenty days everybody the police the fire


would have delineated the lats this development tried to go forward without meeting all of the conditions of the special permits with regard to the property and buildings that had been developed on this same large site so that was


construction steps required simply can't have two different meanings at the end of the day either it has to be required to have a key specific construction or is required to have a categorical construction the difference between sixteen the a nine twenty four c


think there is at least two judge lynch one is and i wouldn't encourage the court to consider again kisses like you wanted is with the supreme court has said that like language in that case the definition of a fence is capable of different


and effectively arguing in his reply brief that the district court did not in fact find that a valid subscription agreement does not exist but what the district did find is that it was unwilling to find that a subscription agreement did exist if not supported by


going to pull the trigger until the town proceeding is over and then you walk into town proceeding can't be preempted because the state hasn't yet pulled the trigger that's what the score seems to be going on here


refusal to answer a question ah we'll all be held against one but if one doesn't answer that you know whatever the answer it is could be mr jevons in a separate criminal case


christian returning from the america plus christian america one of westernized but it would be only a rejects your number two


is any reasonable way to distinguish a ongoing relationship here i mean and to be clear all of the shrunk i voted regulators were sold by the time that that plane tis view the the


touching great significance to this may thirteenth proffer now i would think that the force of of such a problem for its impact upon proof of liability


well i think it depends for relatedness purposes we don't we don't think so the question for relatedness purposes is first formation and second breach if the contract did not


asked you whether there was any provision that it applies to say yes or no and if you say yes what other provision well


attractive if in seeking the state you also made it clear that you would not oppose relief from the state to permit rebasing to continue well i just you know can you make


as such items and moreover like the technology today once you take it with the camera it can be uploaded to your computer another point you're on is that these items were plugged in with their chargers


i will tell you that if he had had the opportunity to challenge the prior conviction he would have a challenge the prior conviction on what


and she looks at this entire loan history which is a list of dates and ledger entries essentially and she tries to poke holes in it and show that it's on trustworthy the trial judge considers these arguments and rejects them and she hasn't made them again here


are very meaningful business incentives for service or is to properly do their jobs essentially or they are they won't stay in business thank you thank you thank you both


so we were never here these puting whether or not we have to comply with the law we sent in a motion for summary judgment and we stated clearly that we were going to be doing it reconstruction plan but at the


with lapse after ten years puerto rico and virtually all fifty states amended the u c c in twenty in two thousand and twelve and dues the ten year lapse period to five years


always been in use well first i would look at the organic record which is what the statute provides and see what name on the part to search even you i would look at the latest translation that's done


no will though probably will be that this is the first circuits problem the virgin islands are also in trouble this law would like me to apply to them to the best of my knowledge the virgin islands does not have an act sixty six so there's nothing about what's happening in this courtroom


accept i'm not going to contest your stiction i'm not going to you have jurisdiction you go ahead judge and you deal with this case so when you were asked originally your honor you know


sort of think it was test then the course and i quote nor do i resolve the conflict the evidence as to whether a bag in the back bedroom containing heroin was unique or were next to the bet


alleged outside the period was because of sects and sexual in nature such that we could aggregate it with the others to now conclude it was pervasive if we couldn't and it seems odd to me that