that money would go out and be used to acquire lands and do other environmental things at the state and federal level so we've got to do something i mean these things i mean what's happened here is with with the priorities of the administration being the way war and


labs bringing finished product in which makes it a federal issue in my judgment are you your law enforcement people dealing morwitz and especially on the drug front which some of these programs address more increasingly with international suppliers and still the local klan lab


are no greater debt than to our veterans and i urge the committee to make sure that we fully fund their medical coverage and hospital services the veterans affairs health care system is chronically underfunded and even in the president's budget he short changes


computer that television screen down here they track aircraft real time not data retrieval you need highly sophisticated computer programming for example in going from the previous


in aviation we're having we're seeing more aircraft in the skies today than in two thousand and one airlines are are increasingly using point to point service using regional jet aircraft that


night every year these units are mine out of service the government loses nearly one million in energy sales revenues that otherwise would be returned to the u s treasury from the north cost south western powers


the impact that takes place there and and national forests all floor impacted by the amount of money that goes there i think the state of rhode island is the only state that doesn't have enough public lands to qualify for any kind of funding but the second map that shows you the


ending the main reason for that this connect between wage growth and productivity growth are not that difficult to identify this committee has dealt with some of them already the decline in the real value of the minimum wage has undermined the floor that


establishes to cut crucial policy goals from my perspective first workers need to see stronger income gains and an economic expansion step in my view requires higher minimum wage and a level playing field for workers who want to bargain collect


close were not scheduled for today but they occurred but i really appreciate you giving us the time that you gave the committee on this this is the first in the in the series of hearings on this question of growing and strengthening the middle class in


at all i want to thank for the committee for the opportunity to testify and i urge enactment on legislation to protect american citizens from the genetic discrimination thank you mr usher thank you and


many of the problems we face can be traced to that level what we were talking about with regard to science education is one who continually espouse the scientific thing thing as a scientist myself as


were talking about how important because the german president's going to be the president of the european union for the next six months and they were talking about how one of her biggest priorities is going to be comparing those and they then proceeded to talk about a whole new


can you hear me now yes all right i think what what is critical about this is and i think this is one of the things maybe that because we're doing it statewide we've had an awful lot of change good chances to be


the paper trail does not even do what the proponents want and the proponents are a very small group who speak very loudly there have been over and over again public opinion


these vulnerabilities are severe and require immediate repair but the point is that they are easily remedied the question for the committee is what the proper response to such discoveries ought to be when tainted spinach was found in california congress did


that he believes that in our county we have a good thing the last thing as i'd like to to respond to this the lender mcdonald said i think this was even as important as anything is that the confidence that people have in our equipment is very important


state that it's in and i think we've i'm just saying is it's never going to match and it's only going to fuel this this fire that voting systems don't work and i think ohio has set


health but we i have a only a small investment there right now in terms of the steps to health care u s program that was always intended to be a starter program with a five year grant cycle and the seventeen million


c for us to provide our science and our technical support we for example helped lead the science that proves that insect embed insecticide imbedded bed nets really did save lives of children and we are very


chairman type contracts the total lifecycle cost is something that's you'll be seeing from us and the future and that is something that the enterprise that i mentioned in my oral comments that the


the idea of majority sign up has been in the law for over six decades the major change that the employee free choice act snakes in the jar the side of is that unlike the present situation where if you have


hyperbole maybe sometimes or to be overly dramatic so let me be blunt as i see it this bill strips away the federally protected right to a secret ballot from american workers that's not choice


here i began my career with unite with a strong belief in belief in workers rights and democracy in the workplace during the course of my employment with the union i began to understand the reality behind the rhetoric i was talk to


board management about them fair treatment and then adequate pay our requests fell on deaf ears first started with our company's neglect and then difference my coworkers not decided to come together to form a union with the communication workers of america the


think it's important to put the testimony in context in this chase and any fair minded person when they hear what you say would have to be concerned about the possibility of workers being coerced to sign cards in majority sign up


come to the witness table again we thank each of the four witnesses for their participation this morning


running for congress and i was only given three weeks to my constituents and my opponent had a year and a half to do it and i couldn't talk to them i would probably be going in decidedly at a disadvantage plus i am amazed as you said


five million dollars and these are funds that are used for activities that are not paid for by taxpayer dollars so and while the smithsonian business ventures contributes less than four percent of the total annual budget it's really a critical contribution


and i was just concerned as to how often is that contract reviewed by either this committee or whatever committee that applied was thirty years chosen as the length of his contract


system guidelines were developed pursuant to the requirements of the help america vote act two thousand and two or haven't and it was a science committee in the house administration committee that wrote the language requiring the federal technical guidelines


report which just areas of human factors research recommendations from this report are being addressed in the voting system guidelines to ensure the usability and accuracy of voting systems second this


second issue on the impact of certification and testing on the guidelines certification and testing will be critical to achieving full compliance with the two thousand and five standards to change federal certification of systems under the two thousand


second once the tests are in place we would have to expect a learning curve and unforseen difficulties associated with the change then some tasks may not prohibitive delays or cause austin certification process and


on who they say they are and mrs kept maher you know in minnesota we sort of have a little bit of a we have a little more of a problem or potential problem i don't see it is a problem but i do i have some concern about this because we have


trail has not been brought to a vote and i would just have to ask i do not for the life of me understand why if we truly care about counting people's votes the majority party has not brought this up so that representatives of the people can exercise the people's


every state to have a central voter registration system the ability to technology in this particular area is very very helpful in the guards conducting an emergency election but it also requires a system around that such as our state has which is a five deep backup so


by very very few people these are the of the series authorities let people know how a series title has changed over


ms campbell would be the we do you have a partner in spain oh that's correct i was thinking latin america we do yes but i mean and i pads fine for brazil's of the our partner but


thank you as as i was saying twelve years ago when my chairmanship of the subcommittee was rudely interrupted i think it's important for us to look at the digital future


think came connect to anything anybody can publish a web page is very very cheap to do so when they do so they are obviously bound by the lors of the jurisdiction in which they live but they should not be bound by the


application that's going to be developed on the web is something which is being developed by somebody yes quite likely some woman who is dreaming about some frustrated with something somebody


in history traditional operations throughout our society are being tested by modern technologies and all institutions are being forced to adapt the four factors that seem to be the greatest hurdles to technology in the house now are first that the lack of standard


to dispersed or shared with three officers of the house or there's some other reason when we were doing our research one of the things we identified is that although the committee on house


if you're if you seek to challenge different conduct the amendment doesn't relate that i don't agree with that sir what it says is that when there in that case there were different claims at issue that was what it turned out was the conspiracy was the second claim


so given the time period not just in india will come up with a policy or procedure but in this particular instance where the child was admitted for six months and they had the opportunity to


it's not that the agency makes some sort of determination this is a potentially criminal investigation they're looking at the conduct and they they follow the evidence where it leads but didn't we and then in rural housing there


the treaty provision is self executing or it could reach the issue of self execution on appeal and if the provision we argue is self executing met again says that the first thing this court should look to is the


morning can i ask you a question of time is eight percent a normal class action attorneys three percentage i don't know i just wondered is that something that you


or you don't have the performance evaluation of the disciplinary record the auditors came in and say you're missing your plans with performance and we don't know what grade was associated with which employee just to push back on that a little bit you assign four different bands and you say we're


i think i would answer that by by saying that the agency can't specify particular types of documents it wasn't able to specify you know you need to produce all of your forms fifty one because that's not how it works it's the grantees


care that fraud in obtaining a contract does not taint all the money that is later paid as a result of the contract and so similarly here well that's not necessarily well yeah fair enough


it's sufficient to establish the amount of the intended loss if not provided so that's what we're dealing with in this case the court here frowned to to find reasons for saying eight point six million dollars was


long list of witnesses they brought on witness after witness after witness we certainly would have preferred in our case in michael the commies case to put on witnesses to the contrary so we clearly that's where the prejudice lies


and that the inability to investigate and the ability to confront income in a complete fashion the government's evidence so and you know the district court has considerable discretion in the remedy assuming a rule sixteen violation


possible and my point is that in closing the defense made good use of the fact that mr schippers report he has no argument the extremely thin evidence is thin


specifically recall using the term ambush and talking about that judge how that's exactly how we felt that we were ambushed by this document that was in preparation for at least a month before trial so in


legal advice but it did not instead the court assumed based upon the overtones of the documents and percy's title as employer that it was sufficient for berenger to make a showing of of


but it is so i can give you the precise turn appendix numbers but i'm quite sure that we attach are you there are see idea are subpoena that requested this information and so i can give you the exact pages where you would find that they did


advocates of that at all and in fact that the court also made that assumption and ruled that mr torres directed the victim to lie in the bed in a certain posture


clear in saying that there was no reason to annul to cross examine about the difficulties of the lab yes he did say that but at the same time i believe when judge


interest at issue land a citizen is is not incarcerated can go about his business the only thing he is denied is a presumptively disfavored access to


on the application correct me if i'm wrong my understanding is the district court's order wasn't limited to people who have children it's anybody who's medicaid eligible and the district my misunderstanding here


here in a thirty five eighty two it's not a reset and saying we're not looking at the whole sentence we're not trying to renegotiate the plea it's not anything like that we're just trying to make an adjustment to the sentence and the government points out your


circuit decision six circuits reading was a reasonable reading of all regulations i don't find i see the paragraph you're looking in that's the one you discussed in your brief but i don't see that as being the point of


evidence what you heard mr serino argue were the four pieces of evidence that u p a purported to rely on below what you didn't hear him argue was with respect to all of the other pieces of evidence that counsel in the opposite direction as to those four


specific alternative remedy to the a p a for that kind of injury that was being asserted there in the foyer conversely there is no dispute that congress has provided a specific alternative remedy and then in el


and versus davis which seems to be the lead cases relied on by the court and by both sides i think very much cuts in our favor and the reason is that environment versus davis there were three documents


defendant can waive the right but where he does not waive it completely and retains and the court ratifies that retention which is what the court did here the court did not advise him that no you are on your own


and it's only because of the clarification you think that this case would not have the mistaken clarification in other words that this case would not revolutionize level that's right that's our that's our


the defendant was notified that the count was not correct before publication and i believe involve any single publication but it was similar insofar as the denial was proffered and ignored the other case that supports us on


for an advisory opinion shows that he's been injured by the regulations to do that he would be sure of your regulations regulate right we have to be regulated by the regulations in order to establish an injury and here he hasn't shown that he's regulated


indians residing on one reservation alister peoples point right water bottle well we know what's not what's ambiguous about well there are multiple different categories there and it may very well be that


court can we're looking at the agencies interpretation that's the regulation and it's a question of whether evidence supported that and so you know you have sort of a double problem here so good looking at it


today the list act of one thousand nine hundred four says that that is a valid recognition it cannot be terminated except by congress and we have a hard look stipulation referencing not just individual indians but the


of i think a boss he said that they are in his favor that infection but not this allow oh no i agree with you that not the first question is contacts on the second question is special circumstances rance right i'm only asking the first question and this


think to look at the prospectus word specifically says two potential of the session errors provide is information about your controlling interest and then not conclude that definition applies doesn't make sense in that there's no the definition and even if a court


thing we think another thing that's why part of the reason we're here we asked on the elder we s specifically after the reading and we asked is if we leave you a fee and they said no it's in our letter it's independence at two eighty three


advisory advice and that is what question initially question and your client's acknowledged that was material we had a knowledge that business or yes and they knew about the arrangement they knew about the arrangement and


to renaissance explain to them what was going on show them our disclosure and they approved it to your clients just to point out a site from a card about hand in cream and discussing the arrangement yes but we don't know how they discuss


its terms has a willfulness requirement that then you need is to establish liability under a different provision for which the supreme court has said negligence is enough that's


would be able to be used by by by p to embarrass or or protest against against one market player i'd like to say yes but under this court's precedents i have to say no but the court


your honor suggested and we had no argument at any point that they are in permissibly broadway word and they were not subject at it notice and comment and they were duly promulgated we've had no argument that the plaintiff was not put on


instead we urge you to the court has to get there but the district court didn't need to because that has nothing to do with the language of the routine uses and that's where we think that this case ultimately should be decided where the district court did decided on the


if it would have to contain the final decision the final decision of the secretary is a termination to release that and has to go through the exchange so there's


been functionally identical to match transaction and i think it is functionally identical to the transaction and you know there's certainly nothing in the medicare statute or regulations that requires the secretary to distinguish between that type of the deduction and the circumstances where


so i think that this actually does go to the clarification i was trying to make just a second ago which is you know the heart of the state is going to make payment say the five dollars back to the hospitals and what medicare will reimburse hospitals for the amount of


exclusivity which expired in two thousand and seven can be sort of indefinitely extended by making subsequent more modest modifications to the drug there's no question in this case one of the oddities of this case there's no question alchemy is didn't rely


but it doesn't prevent others from building on the story out of existing knowledge to develop their own this really is a good case to illustrate why it's important that innovators be allowed to rely on the story out of existing knowledge because the purpose of the b


but i think there are several responses i have to the court's question in the first is that if that is so that it would have made sense for mr kobe to ask to see the money at the fair he never did they


of review could a reasonable jury infer that he joined the conspiracy why isn't that enough because that's really not what the transcript says if you read it closely and that's why i went through so meticulously in our reply brief to point


that both were dealt with one with a three one with a written reprimand warning and one with a three day suspension and one with a five day suspension which they i think say was


that they did prior to the present incidence given rise into this lawsuit summarize for me his conduct sure the first thing


to eleven u s c eleven eighty two d five is a humanitarian grant of is a grant that basically the petitioner is allowed to be physically present in the united


by public airport as a condition of receiving a project grant it ties the reception of a project grant to the revenue diversion issue which is clearly make sense so paragraph two says a grant recipient that uses a


this statute to the petitioners in this case is inconsistent because none of the petitioners in this case fit those qualifications were not owners operators we do not receive grants


you know you want us to resolve the if you are if you are right about district court having committed error you want to conduct that qualified immunity ourselves or you want to send it back to the district judge for


several years earlier mr kitchen i you you said you want us to decide this issue but if if you keep pressing and i speak only for myself but if you keep pressing the point that these


on this record as alleged in the second amended complaint there was no constitutional violation and even if there was there was no clearly established constitutional i understand that argument it's quite another thing to


say and i want to see if that's what you're asking us to find there or hold that d c s employees in your client's position have no constitutional obligations with regards


around that might be right but e g says chapter one applies to actions in proceedings brought under the new york convention to the extent that the chapter is not in conflict with the convention remember if you apply thus your risk you are reading


did impeach miss would it have impeachment stewart based on the offers of proof we believe it would have bolstered mr steele's testimony and undermine that that impeachment by the government so i


count why wouldn't that and do i have that right if your are not for several reasons for him to go ending the government would actually argue that that argument is waived it


check that was admitted that mr stewart signed that mr stewart gave her that she testified was a bribe none of that testimony relates in any way to any testimony


guess kind of targets they don't know the names of the subsidiaries but they're all targets and the court there said it's enough that the name target is in because the name target's going to protect the interests of the


even we're not even in the we're one step removed from that so you know i don't even think that even a florida law would recognize a privacy right in this context even under florida law the standard is relevance


happen if a plant is an adequately addressing wet and greasy conditions which they're required to address then that very well may be cause to go in and take a look now here we have a lot more that one we have so


voluntary does not bar of voluntariness challenge and here when it is true certainly that mr barrett ultimately admitted that his plea was not coerced however given the overall


from that contract it reads the parties understand that contract or that being mr gates offers its services equally to other companies contract carrier and or the public generally common carrier


data from new york methodist and that's you know what we're here today come complaining hospitals danks it said he actually got ten million dollars worth of product paid two million i mean hospitals where we potentially dealing with here


honor like to take your points in order the supreme court did not create the categorical approach in taylor in one nine hundred ninety it simply interpreted it for the first time but it was always there the court told us in taylor


use or threaten use of physical force is if you're a question of law and so at writing no law why well that if there is a six if there is a sixth amendment problem on the risk of force clause going back to judge knowles


propping up the categorical approach really still applies to this statute except maybe by its nature and it's sort of like this halfway but see justice thomas plausible interpretation the five or six props that you cited rather


these are transcripts of an evidentiary hearing that deal with the very issues that are being raised in this court and let's not forget and i understand that it would have been beneficial to provide these to the district court on behalf of the state but it is mr


because multiple states laws may apply and there are facts in the pleading from which you can make that determination courts generally don't do don't decide on a motion to dismiss a breach of a claim that's dependent on a choice of


that there was an exchange between officer canela and mr manners at the gas station when mr manners was outside the vehicle according to documentary fifty seven page four manners is


mirror which means he has to be ahead of correct the only way the rear view mirror works correct and so how does he get behind manners car by his account is a turns left after manners has gone


requires a demonstration for that apprehension to be reasonable you have to have a reasonable apprehension for it to be reasonable you have to the defendant has to have demonstrated by


because we since we have a consolidated action where these cases all fitted by the pipeline need to move forward we are having a status conference on in october to address a collective procedure for moving toward a


narrow issue in front of it because the measure of compensation doesn't impact the federal government's in the main power of the exercise it is just how much has to be pay and the law according


or relatively unremarkable in the in the client's home or is visiting the places that the client lived in talking to the relatives and they say things were fine or they say i'm not talking to you or don't talk to this relative that is a


than that the victim happens to be an american and that's unbeknown to the defendant the limiting principle that the ninth for war crimes are within and what crimes are without it would look at the text itself the texas


the treaty yes or are in fact the treaty says the article ten paragraph four that you should treat the crime for jurisdictional purposes as if it occurred in the care or tory of any country who is able to establish proper jurisdiction under article


element the use of force they argue only in general that racketeering conspiracy can never qualify and that's what's been argued here today so if they if they're wrong about that they can't prevail because they've developed no for their argument as to


florida kidnapping statute but it's no longer there it's leaving only the more active forms of kidnapping abducting imprisoning are confining and the defense have certainly pointed to no florida cases a suggesting the florida kidnapping can a to occur without any


sentenced him because she believed he committed the murder i want you to address two things about that st she found that he left his phone home but it was pinging in palmetto or in the


crimes now regarding the coleman murder charlie green was convicted of the racketeering act of conspiring to murder him but there was no cell site location information admitted with respect to him and of course martin


to make clear that i've got it straight in my head mark issue one was there a violation of the constitution issue two was a clearly established issue three even assuming argue window a and b are met can you attribute


be adjusted and allocated for perhaps the six twenty seven and the foreign counterparts but those don't we have to remain and anyway but


has no value to it that's most likely not going to happen because pattern dealing with novel issues right so usually they have some value to them so that's not what we're arguing what happened here the other issues that you would have or two other issues you have a


one piece but the second piece is that if the state can show that in fact part of that harm is mitigated by actually other expenditures that further the exact same purposes of the same


step through how the secretary determined the harm to the federal interest in this case the united states has a right and an obligation to control the manner in which federal grant money is spent spent in this case there is


probable cause to believe a burglary had occurred there it's not clearly established they couldn't sweep the house yeah i see that again is combining two issues the sweep is strictly for take i'm sorry


think really reading the district court opinion for all its worth you can say this was a past tense burglary that has been stopped and i'm not saying necessarily that you lose because you've got cases that say that even for a fresh but concluded burglary there may be


resources and where with all to defend the statute they have done so first through a series of federal cases and now or or levels of federal review and now in the state courts to the illinois supreme court finally i'll just touch briefly on


reasonably likely to to procure some kind of government action then the third part is the subjective belief of the actual speaker did they subjectively intend to achieve some kind of government action i think in your particular


doctrine does as well and incidentally since since we filed this lawsuit twenty two states had at that point illinois became the twenty second state at the time of this court's right development decision in two thousand


ripen to the point where they can be actionable later on my argument i'll get to the scenario that deutsche bank would have you believe should have been engaged in by mr khan and i would suggest to you that a suit in two thousand and three would have been met with the


highlights a two prong tax reducing investment strategy mr khan wasn't looking for a way to get a tax shelter he was actually looking for a way to get japanese yen to expand his businesses which are very profitable and


discovery here would only occur after some significant part of the portion of the process with the i r s has concluded i e there being a tax deficiency because the way this


and in fact it didn't even mention skilling in its decision it just completely ignored skilling and that original jurisdiction issue that that skilling addressed in article six section


to have that right because it's expressed lee provided for in section thirteen so doing primary jurisdiction would harmonize and reconcile these competing constitutional


law is not an excuse and should not be excused in this particular instance and would this court to agree with us and issue an opinion that makes clear what we argue is already essentially


so general and so broad and as i will point out later inconsistent with itself that the due regard language would permit and would clearly allow operation of the governmental toward immunity act which would provide a


question that dr schmidt was responding to and in that in responding to that question his answer was i don't know what caused mr lieberman to commit acts of sexual violence however mr lieberman does not suffer from a disorder that compelled that


robbery first of all the independent evidence in this case does not contradict the defendant's confession in any way shape or form the victim herself said that the defendant's hand was on her vagina it is neither inconsistent with nor does that preclude the possibility


convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault thus under sergeant the state was required to produce independent evidence tending to show that there are committed each of the predatory criminal sexual assaults for which he was convicted this it did not do


interest they must be permanent or near permanent neither one of those principles is supported by illinois president and the reason there is no support is that the whole lot of court's decision actually contradicts prior president


dissenting justice actually goes through the analysis of the reasonableness of the agreement i think again i think that you can do that here if you feel that that's inappropriate then the the relief here should be every


defendants mentioned from other states when they talk about a legitimate business interest in those cases they're not talking about permanent or near permanent customer relationships they're talking about customer relationships and other things that would be


don't think if the court concludes that the inappropriate standard was applied here that i think the evidence does show that the defendants lose or at a minimum there's an issue to be resolved there


not traditionally commercial applied so defendant discusses duty in her company her briefs especially with respect to adoption cases and cases involving the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and in those cases the court tried to limit the


for personal sadistic game that there was a hoax there were many comments i would submit to the court during oral argument the smore ning


testimony face value either the plaintiffs are free to say you know what this is a revenue generating device and these traffic control eight are sent out with quotas and they're told to do what needs to be done so to say it's rare isn't germane necessarily to this proceeding but you know


problem is not the statute or our reading of the statute as the plaintiff contends but rather it's the contract that plane of saws been d'arthur pilot negotiated back in one thousand nine hundred six that prevents him from


no expectation of confidentiality in the face of a duty to cooperate expressly stated in the cooperation council i put it to you does not offer any explanation except to move to his


but right alongside the duty to cooperate the ordinance allows objections so it's not true at all that the duty to cooperate in and of itself must mean that there is no expectation of privacy went to city officials speaks with the


that the principle is responsible for what happens in that his or her school and they have to have the ability to select their staff because they are accountable now for their school


is only applies to respond yet superior liability so to the statute is broader than that it talks about the acts of the public employees when this course the scope of their employment something which is completely irrelevant to the issue of vicarious liability it


i think that again because of mr santiago's conduct using this fictitious name an appropriate sanction is dismissal of this case and we get the


mistake is a misnomer is not necessarily always a mistake it might be a mistake it's also according to some of our treatise is means nothing more than a party style than other than his or her own


name so it's a mistake it could be a mistake in some of the cases where they identify an ongoing business as a corporation when it wasn't truly incorporated that was a mistake to put the


of the extraordinary remedy that petition is now seeking to this court be it an amended petition for the to appeal or some other process whether at that point in time there would have been there and this case it's simply not one now because this court to not speak with finality


differences in the consequences of of their status and doing that same analysis here these two groups should not be similarly situated because as already explained juveniles like s t d who are found unfit and not not guilty if not


but he's not either one of those so to do it we're rewriting the statute and making assumptions that we shouldn't make when following the rules the statutory construction then of course the second way that we would have to alter it on our own and make


recognized back as far almost a century ago more than a century ago but a copy a duplicate is a reasonable facsimile thereof so i think that gives a person reasonable intelligence notice as to what weapons would be banned i'd like to


flights and polemic spy different lobby groups and they say these are the facts and when those are not things that obviously you can take judicial notice you can take judicial notice of statistics that the


witness a witness who did not perform but the test at issue in our case it's obvious an autopsy and both coming it was a blood alcohol concentration


testimony listed so he made a strategic she i guess made a strategic decision not to move forward and interview some of these witnesses but now you're using that same fact to say that it should have been raised at


safeguard the right to a fair trial isn't is also one which it's intending to safeguard and the state's argument their class for in time since


grounds of sovereign immunity that motion was denied erroneous lee denied so the question is after we the first thing we said to the court is we shouldn't be here because sovereign immunity bars this claim and sassy kramer i think is very clear quite title action against the state is


act in our motion to dismiss in an appeal which is to say that the state cannot be made a party or defend in any court we relied on sassy kramer which is a quite tight election this court has said savage immunity depends on the issues raised and the relief sought in sas he kramer the issue


defeat the state the townships claim by saying no you are not the proper title holder you can defeat that claim and then you're left standing where you are at the end of the day with that decision once you go on the off and once you say no we want


visors agenda number to form thank you


potentially ambiguous factors put together a rise to the officer's reasonable suspicion and they're not required to stand by if there's an innocent explanation for what's going on when the officer saw the bullet in the context of the circumstances


daylight dos in in in law on it's the officers are there at midnight they encounter a vehicle committing traffic violations running


ameliorated by the fact that the statute does provide for this periodic review and for only certain amounts of incarceration so i don't i think the way that they were to the statute in the way they've provided for things that


its theory of the case as the prosecutor asked relating to their theory of this case they would have been able to ask questions like can you think of a reason why a rape victim would lie can you think of a reason why someone who's been assaulted would make up


completely overrule people versus mccoy and every other case that has relied on it since and with field decision also relies on mccoy in terms of mccoy mccoy itself was certainly a bailable when defendant filed his first post conviction


a condition of your permit you can't use your property for commercial purposes then you might be in a crude unconstitutional conditions circumstance but we're not there yet perhaps but my point is that also and i mean we are i really do believe that when they


so i mean if she was done with this case she was only done with this case if the counter claims were gone right and absolutely right so should judge she had every intention of dismissing the counter claims i thought you were just arguing that well she


remote access to the third workstation or ten so they would have access meaning read write capability to the data manager which includes the user profile database as satisfied as stored on that third workstation for ten


the water they used it for their own consumption they sold it to non indians the it is our water our feet it is our winter's reserved rights in that water which is


my name is bill delaney in together with my partner andrew again for i represent cisco given the limits of time i would like to focus on two issues today but i'm happy to address any issues the court would like us to first i would like to focus on just


on certain ground from certain claim we are not a position to decide those issues on the merits in order to determine whether or not it would be a waste of time to send a board that's just something we are


elected to bring it up on the appeal as a substantive matter which means the whole judgment below went final which in which would should make it non reviewable but then what you've done is you've taken it into judge rogers territory where at the best you get to be discretion


really be referencing put variable itself which is assigned to hooked active x object and finally there is no indirectness and this is the very bottom of the page when there is a reference to active x object the actual object that's


who signs on which dotted along we don't look at there's a signature block and it says this we look at the nature of the relationship between the parties and that's spelled out by hordes active role in


referring to there is the operation of of what's claimed where you're displacing oxygen and you have to do that in a at a preset or adjustable limits and would even if you were to do the entire


sports clothing business is very specific all of the pages that are offered in the a pelleas brief they are all differentiated when you see team sports clothing it is on a separate page


only limited to the pub more that would be one that would be another thing that they might want to talk about is whether or not they want to exclude putting detroit professional to sports team logos on their goods that would be another thing that could be discussed so there really we would


a region or income seven an optimized matrix that will ultimately be transmitted to a receiving system for generating a display and before transmission a second stage process has received that region defining


kingdom or decision here that says we quote hold that that eighty one twenty seven is mandatory not discretionary it's text requires the department to apply the rule of two to all contracting determinations and to


rebutted his factual testimony relating to the references themselves but his testimony concerning claim construction he didn't consider the claims themselves he didn't even consider this difference between confined within an inch talked about how the invention you have


unity is going to attach whenever there is a showing that the governmental entity had the power to do what you asked it to do and it doesn't


warning or owners thank you may please the court well i wanted to begin by talking about a couple questions and you would have to tell us counsel there was some discussion about whether or not brennan discloses through holes well let me


pointed out in our brief that there was there was basically no evidence whatsoever that was a rebuttal evidence provided to the prime facie case that was made by the examiner and the final thing i wanted to point out


of these various pieces of hardware actually corresponds to the to the transaction operator but even if we it were the general purpose computer if as has caps it contents for them to be able to claim that the general purpose computer


consider a certain exculpatory evidence however as we demonstrated in our brief just because the administrative judge did not discuss every single piece of evidence in her decision it does not mean she did not consider them and in this case in ministry to the judge actually


to let you do that and ga but i'm going to require you to sit productive session is present mr karr for deposition during trial and produce any documents you said you said repeatedly have it but if you have any you got to produce them


of people with physical handicap it has a broad expansion of a physical handicap you know the fact that somebody's not handicapped might use it is a wrong it's designed for use by the handicapped if i have no style bts you know what


point when you look at every step where they're criticizing software and if you look at the sites columns three fourteen and forty seven lines three fourteen and forty seven call into every single one of those is talking about the a c l look up matching process


infringing features in order for signer software to apply and there's no currency to so that argument now turning to the sort of the hardware arguments the first there are no alternative grounds for a firm and so that could be done here the issues that my colleague


and then you tried earlier it was an attempt to then after a class action was tonight to have a joint claim that would have included both surreal and sharp and that was also tonight yes ok and and mr sherman


who was in the room with him when he said this but i do cringed if i were his lawyer or the government lawyer mr sherman was asked about his feelings about people who file suits of discrimination and he claimed they were all free riders


india it wasn't calm are saying that this whole area part of this article is not as reliable because saying that there's imports when in fact the data shows that there was no imports


was another expert witness who testified extensively on the profit analysis and then dr rao did three things he put on a chart here the three things to look at comparable actual profits expected profits


position but what i'm struggling with this i am not the fact finder and i have to give substantial evidence of and did the board say enough like when you do so why don't you focus on why do isn't sufficient for them to have concluded there was a reasonable


included for clause fifty two to twenty fifteen which is a contract clause that requires payment performance farms for construction projects and that's very germane here to this appeal


they've got a series of trucks they've got the living room they've got the kitchen they've got the bedrooms those are construction right now wouldn't consider that if you put the house on a slab you construct


impact the fees that they've already presented to the court and others if they say seven hundred fifty thousand was incurred as a result of that was a not impact the piece but it certainly tends to show that the case was exceptional ok your honor i disagree with that for the reason that


characteristics of seagate as it was well founded based on what the crandall says and the argument that the preamble was limiting it was also reasonable and there's no suggestion that that argument was


nowhere in their brief certainly not in their opening brief do they ever address these findings do they ever show they're not supported by substantial evidence they make arguments about right maybe i'm wrong and my hearing is totally failing about i heard that the


be that you would conclude that the features themselves are copied and this is not a surprising conclusion for the board to draw given that you have a risk the c e o acknowledging that there's a lot of cisco


going what's going on here is a reference to the packets that are coming through the control plane port entity because that's going to be what's in that insane transit but even if it's referring back to the


you adopted a construct and even the least because he didn't need to be charged this was still tradition trial f it was before the charging conference was within twenty four hours of his ruling and that's why i said i


following things and i don't think there's any dispute one it's worth brought the motion to


so it's a prediction associated with the particular loan instruction i'm using the instructions that it that a consumer structure ok ninety nine point nine eight percent of the time there is


i'm saying that capability because we're dealing with capability the capability is required irrespective of whether or not anything was ever tested in austin or anything was ever done and asked and i would say it differently and let me try to answer your


coleman in arguing for reversal of the board's decision persuaded the court therefore the court looked at the cohen presumption and i believe they missed applied the


below was in the context of an indefinite mis argument in martin sure but i mean we have looked at other cases like visual memory where the claims where you know kind of like a black box i mean i actually


challenge it you can't challenge but the rule out of space and said but it's ok because if there's any concerns about the whole or the application of the role that can be addressed and it individual case


service connection is trying to get to the point of whether or not a veteran was exposed to herbicides and the manual provisions while they that we can debate whether the manuals by what i'm having a problem with is what is when


the problem with saying that well why don't you just wait till the case is over mr love and ask even grabs you can see even a deal is because of the fifth amendment and the argument we made under fisher versus united states it is correct


jurisdiction how how do you read the statutory language to allow for that safety valve but not others well i think when there are overarching constitutional concerns that gives the court jurisdiction from where


this visit where the person who ran that mr howard determined the up to eighteen bill it should be either eliminated or realigned somewhere else with and c i s and so mr hogan didn't necessarily chris say i'm going to get eight hundred dollars folks out of there in one year


that ridley and hogan expressed discriminatory intent i think the opinion in order after trial is replete with the application of the wrong law to the facts in the case when you're


standing alone or not materially adverse actions or not adverse actions for purposes of retaliation but then the court turned in these two pages to the retaliation claim that looked at the question of whether


is not the same as distribution sale manufacture it's different and at least what's troubling you needed to be reviewed and consciously determined in the case


finding ourselves no you are right i believe as long as there is a factual the finding was that the firearm was used in connection with another felony offense the district court made a finding but but but in the course of making that finding it


elected to proceed under the bringing to statute which carries higher penalties and because the government chose that statute they had an extra level of proof they needed to meet which on this record they did not meet


overhearing this conversation that occurred at laszlo's house that the testimony differs with regard to whether martin was on the phone call or not but again under the jackson the virginia standard we look at the facts most favorable to the government and what those


and that if you take a categorical approach to the statute the georgia statute does not require a crime of violence but didn't agree


reckless disregard of causing the terror so yes that's one of the four sub elements of the purpose element and the only one that can be fulfilled by the mens rea of recklessness but that's not what mr oliver was charged with


i'm arguing that it's divisible and so we had used the modified category approach to see which version he was charged with and then we apply the categorical approach to see whether that involves the the required element of threat and physical force


to be a prostitute i was financially independent so why if he if his whole defense and major his major defense was i was financially independent right that yes that was and we have a good ship


review this is not the type of evidence that would sustain any burden on the defendant for demonstrating either the prejudice prong under strickland for probably affecting the outcome of the proceeding or the car


hearsay and not admissible but at trial the trial court judge broadly allowed witnesses to testify with respect to statements that the victim had told them we have the complete transcript of her three point eight testimony that's correct your honor and do we


right they gave up that right they traded that right in order to protect their lease interest their real estate lease interest that because they gave up their right to receive approximately eight million dollars in the sale all right


question are are you saying that we should not declare as a matter of law on this record that holmes had


cal intentional force to these statutes it would pretty much gut the entire nine hundred and twenty two dollars g nine system of whether or not a person would be convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence violence and the


only bring facial challenges i think they could bring in as applied challenge chief judge garzon say well that is one that's what we ended up with here and as applied challenge what we contend is that it should be as applied to for example obese


methods for inducing fetal demise had to be available for one hundred percent of women and that we don't think is proper in a facial challenge the evidence is that some of these methods according to plaintiffs are


not to clinics we continue to believe that the way these challenges should be brought are either by women or by the doctors on behalf of women asserting that these procedures won't work in certain cases the there


that the officers were justified in doing in extreme circumstances based search of the house in places where the hostage or victims could be found there was a hostage situation there it was an ongoing burglary it seems to me that this case is more exigent in that


different sort of claim you know for example let's say that they had in an animal study and they represented the results of that animal study you know accurately and truthfully and said that this doesn't necessarily


identify judge or based on priest suit discovery investigative discovery if the fiduciary receiver in this case doesn't have some good faith basis for alleging well at the bank you actually you're standing in the shoes of the ponzi


the doors to discovery than any other litigant does the receiver i don't think he's making that argument but the question is why is why is that why is it not plausible to take from that allegation that


honor i find it odd that i have to say this that the legal theory in a case matters it it determines how the issues are litigated is determined what you have to prove it determines how the jury is instructed and what they are


three part test for whether booking photos would be would be permitted and that is how like you're not familiar with that test we haven't we haven't applied it a lot since then or perhaps that all the other circuits have some wondering


what is your best argument for why it doesn't matter to the ultimate outcome of the trial in this case i think it's much as the government wanted the and felt it was important and demonstrated the


position is that this was admissible in properly opinion testimony under rule seven no one regardless of whether you look at it an abuse of discretion standard or you look at it as a plain air when i quoted in the a quoted in


test of whether or not you would admit that there it's talking about whether it's error an abuse of discretion that i think is a different situation because you're talking about ok what is that demonstrably


cited the transcript frequently in our motions that sense in the transcript is very different in the conclusions that judge that judge but benson drew in his rule twenty nine for example at page seventeen of his order he says they was misled as to the


in other words if you look at the injunction it's very carefully there are two sections to it both sections each section directed to chosen successor those two are directed to children


that the district court relied upon term and that there was confusion there were actually careless and not confused they were careless in that this isn't a purchase case they thought they were purchasing plain


everybody jumps out of the car and i was and the bullets start flying and exactly so help me with the because i do take your you said companion so much nicer than i had said adversary or your companion and


fair characterization of what caused that damage for example and it's the last thing that you said that i'm disagreeing with your honor the dictionary definition of corrode is to eat away or diminished by acid so when the acid is interacting with a material then


robbery by intimidation conviction but this isn't a georgia robbery by intimidation conviction this is a georgia armed robbery conviction which separately requires the use of an offensive weapon as we laid our brief we believe that there are two elements that satisfy the elements cause the offensive weapon and the


not carry the day here for the government stokely didn't talk at all about the act of employment of the violent felony definition stokely didn't so much as cite or mention leah cow neither did the panel in


when it has looked at the huds interpretation of the fair housing act it has not required a fine in of an ambiguity it has instead looked at hud's interpretation of the fair housing act


did i went to the phone book i will look to congregations and i once thought of the top went to the bottom and invited them all i didn't look at the nature of the organization that was listed


religions and not others i haven't said a word about atheists holding that issue aside for a moment but i'm just asking don't you have a problem with the selection process here because you're commissioners say


evidence or excuse me is there sufficient disagreement to require a trial or is it so one sided that one party wins as a matter of law so we would escort to look at two thinks look at the context in which alabama passed this law and look at what we


them from mister traders home and one hundred and eighty while he was outside of this call from his phone to data connection or a mobile hotspot


raise this issue to mr gurr and mr green as an attorney had nipped and an obligation to review that evidence i also want to address the issue with respect to the purported inconsistency with respect to his his brother beating his boyfriend that


contracts the government actually put on a witness and it really a nerd to the defense benefit because the government put on a witness that testified about the the amounts that definit had invoiced on these different projects and the amount


alter the rights of others under the policy it applies between zurich that implies between you leasing resource america and us


pertains to what happens when the trust fund goes dry and it makes others liable and it's not unfair clearly there are cases that say that typically insurance contracts are contracts of it and this is a highly sophisticated


all about so the question is what health and welfare plan do these people rely upon in making their determination to give up their careers and march off into retirement so


davis was limited to know that i agree with that but that goes to the deliberate indifference but that's the whole point you're i mean if it's not gender discrimination that is not actionable under title mind you know it could be if you're treating if their argument


dismiss if you don't like what the what the punitive measures were you can say i left campus because the because what he called the stay away order wasn't strong


anything away i get that but that's the supreme court's language right now i get they've also limited it as judge batchelder said but it's still the language so subject to ongoing harassment so what about the point about koehler it to bring it to


stock price if it can't do it do so in bad faith but i don't see in these papers an indication of excess what's the what's the bad that's going on here well let me make that point


not the claim is refuted by the articles which set the relative rights preferences and limitations of the stock which it is required to do by the michigan business corporation act and not only is there a


why the whether it's twenty nine percent or fifty one percent really misses the point because the calculation of relative value between the class of stock that the articles require is the


requires the corporation to assume that the family members will vote together is a bloc there's no allegation like that and there can't be an allegation and in fact the private letter ruling from the internal revenue


law really is and always has been that officers are responsible for acting reasonably the reasonableness standard under the


housing unit representatives a minority housing unit representative and a non minority housing unit representative so he hasn't presented evidence below that his assistance was necessary for these two reasons neither was his assistance to the two prison news that


whether mr berkshire's peaceful letter to defendant all constituted clearly established protected activity under the first amendment it did the first amendment protects the right of a citizen to write a peaceful letter to a government official


so even if the court believes that it's a close call the tie goes to mr berkshire he is entitle to the favorable inference that this complaint that the prisoners on a wing were not being permitted to speak with with him as the housing unit representative that that was


back issues with dressed in other parts of the opinion however certain and sam's two opinions cited by counsel were both unpublished and but in both of those cases the plaintiff never


in respect to her not having the requisite qualifications under the actual job descriptions it was only by virtue of considering this other unrelated experience that the men


i'm sorry i ask again your honor certainly designer stand the parole evidence rule if you have a contract which says x and you have evidence that the contracting parties thought it was why you know they discover they talked about it as why


explanation as to their process there's nothing in the ordinance as to what their processes would understand they were presented with dennis jordan's findings and the written findings he made in june of assuming july of of the


newly acquired piece of property that did not have usenet rights they consolidated their two parcels their deed didn't say at least the case law doesn't say their deeds says that this new property did not have easement rights but the court didn't have a problem with


and that was the point that the first circuit made in adams and the headlock alteration to alter something is a concept that everybody understands this is not a very difficult complicated technical tom


get us there so i think really what we're talking about is implicit in that term what people understand alter to mean is a degree of materiality so let me ask you this then the whole purpose of


testimony about that and there was also some comment made didn't you see he was handcuffed or something like that i do believe that a one or a couple of the jurors testified that these comments were very


exclusive it's at least the initial the initial for um i believe you know your honor well no but you know what i mean by exclusive exclusive in the sense that you go through the exhaust your administrative options and if you don't like that you go to


system and there have been haiti as class actions so but i take your point about about the statute cited in in reno versus even c and we would be happy to brief that we do not think it applies here let me move on if i may for my remaining minute to the


she also did for my client so it's our contagion that pursuant to the general corp case as well as the pearson versus acquired graphics case seven forty nine f thirty five thirty that this


with gunshot wounds they really didn't know any more than that that no there was and there is so noted in the investigator support but that that has nothing to do with the positive


that someone else you're i think the nominal purchase and these are the third party or the defendants the self directed iras because that's where the paperwork was was set out as a practical


it that is the only contract but that is us acting as a trustee standing in the shoes of the buyer there is nothing else here no alleged relationship between mr apostle of the seller of the securities and the


state surveyed the case law and said wait a minute you know they're only providing ordinary commercial activities that the financial institution provides the that does not constitute participating with the seller in selling this


further action was taken by dr stevenson when it was known he didn't receive these referrals and stage liver disease has very foreseeable well known complications that are separate medical conditions that every physician knows


indisputably in the evidence if he has additional bleeding he needs to be evaluated for attempts at the hospital is sort of like a game of telephone got the message slightly altered he said he needed to have a tips and got


who is mr way against codefendant and the only witness at trial who identified mr wakens as having participated in the carjacking mr doral was a high schooler at the time of the crime he was directly asked by


category was a reference to the defendant quote unquote being in the system again that refers to the criminal justice system that's not this and if the court looks at it i direct it to page one two two eight of the record of a cure i mean


of trying to perform this broadcast and deputy dawson never indicated before mr brennan came outside and actually spoke with them that that's what he was there to do thank you i see your red light is on we


energy must employ the same method of allocating its fixed expenses as it uses in calculating its actual loss all that is saying your honour's you have to use the same accounting method so for whatever your you know whatever you're determining your tax


thirteen years lost money sufficiently to take to duck chins from investment income thirteen consistent years so the argument is of course that


think you know some of them some of them admittedly are wrong or may not be completely accurate you know act applicable for example number nine the elements of personal pleasure recreation that doesn't really apply to a country club or it's a nonmember sales activities in


whether it was a general or a limited remain because what is very clear from the order is this was a remained limited to re sentencing and a remained for re sentencing does not permit a challenge to a conviction which is what is challenge the jury instructions and


no dispute that he was in the cockpit at the end of the more than hour that he was on the plane when the a p was running well why is the a p you being on such a critical step in the preparation of the plane to fly because


what it is yeah ok so we're going to always have the soft serving testimony of the defendants they're going to say we didn't know that this was a serious need we didn't know that they needed this medication we didn't have the you know the reckless disregard the grossly substandard provision of


reading the minds case soca is bustle the my eyes conspiracy was inspired by the bustle conspiracy with overlap in almost every


ten minutes whether you've been arguing this is this is the sentencing claim it's a sentencing point is b because so the standard under sentencing is is different from the standard


care fail to comply because it seems to me if i get a traffic violation i can simply pay it and don't ever have to appear on screen so you have to fail to comply to get to the failure to appear that's


what you need to do to claim indigency which by the way is a traditional question not a regulatory question this injunction if it stands puts a kind of separation of powers problem in terms of the secretary of state second guessing what's already happened in the state


the interactive center stack system work in automotives which had some unique requirements such as a figure class when none of the competitors could do so that's that's why your honour's what you what the panel should do as a five point two excuse me as


record its record entry to seven for dash to page eighteen and it's it's a deposition and it's one eighty eight lines eleven to


well i guess what i'm going for is they say a criminal defendant gives testimony at trial in his criminal case that's available in a civil case sure but he's represented in it he's represented by his own attorney


preliminary injunction was a final decision on the merits why did the case continue with all trial greece were filed in two thousand and seven there were amended complaints there were magistrate scheduling orders there was


merits of the declaratory judgment action which just respectfully your honor makes no sense whatever the union could have solved this entire problem by counter claiming to compel arbitration and


because they wanted to get the arbitration before there was a final judicial determination of contract formation i don't know i wasn't i'd have you know said in his opinion that they're going arbitration perhaps they felt they didn't have to do a motion to compel


so the full opinion gives context yes all right then the heat but he's willing to post the full opinion he just wants to excerpt it here and there what's wrong with that that's more speech not less speech because you're if you're taking the the


advertisers say one hundred things have happened dark consumers here's two really good things will put that forward right but i want i want to come back to this question that the


possible and the concern was that people's claims were dismissed and other people's claims were dismissed and we would have to then go about filing hundreds or thousands of other cases


this is final it's final in this sense we're not sitting here if you rule that class certification was appropriately denied here the case is over over


different from the way the cases you're i know my time is up but i would yes if we could do additional briefing on that issue and pick up on this i understand some of the course concerns i would like to address get us to the merits but let's spend an


on a supervisor by supervisor basis that's not the rule the rule is in zavala you look at the policy that is being challenged and you asked under that policy who was affected by it and the policy that we're challenging here which implied


though that we are dealing with not only and them that's correct yeah the law in pennsylvania that there is no there is no dispute the law in pennsylvania with regard to legal malpractise cases is that the


the first trial all i can say your honour's that he was acquitted of the weapons offenses we have he was acquitted for example of conspiracy to commit armed robbery he was acquitted of the


decision from california which was later reversed the reason they didn't think of this is there was nothing out wages here they conduct here was a standard type


under delaware law and it was through abuse or neglect he's looking at two twenty five years let me ask you the same question as an issue of what would be your sliding scale that that's true when you go from five to ten to fifteen to twenty i think the sighing


in licensing and similar laws so it was it was that that section that subsection is phrased in terms of employment only it doesn't even i don't know language could be stretched to cover other aspects of an illegal aliens presence in the united states


no have some of those permits there you have to provide information you have to carry that permit on your vehicle at all times you have to notify the city if you change address or if you want to avoid being taxed you have to notify the city of your immigration status


i don't understand why you just can't cut through this


court granted mr let loose a petition for review in july of two thousand and ten it took the go it took the government between the b s a and the agency seven months to schedule him for a bond hearing now they're expediting he's been in


max from twenty one to twenty seven versus thirty three to forty one but it went into the judge's reasoning about what kind of europe during it went to the judge's reasoning there's nothing nothing in this transcript suggests that the nature of that


signs the document which is all this fourteenth of two thousand and nine so the district court's conclusion that this was that this relates back to the time of the original wal mart lease it finds no support whatsoever in the


enhancement requires more it requires the touching it says the intentional touching with the intent to arouse and furthermore the intent the intentional touching could not have been of himself it had to have


you have to look at the lewis case cited by the district court in that case they established a reasonable market rate and i think it was raised somewhere during the plaintiff's argument about


thirty three paragraphs is the only paragraph that mentions exactly what's what's happening here and you're technically correct you did help the court but what the court is saying is for something of this nature you've got to highlight it you've


whether it was a knowing and voluntary waiver that we can take into account he defendants intellectual disability as of june seventeenth and i guess the


didn't show that it was relevant to his fear of persecution which doesn't make sense in light of the very specific language of the regulation that says he can retain you can obtain a asylum


what does it mean for a crime that was the purpose of and precious little was said by either side about that so what is your position about whether what


fact along louisiana is that all doubts are construed against prescriptions and that the some of the plaintiff ought to be entitled to a form of some kind so that we think that the certainly there were no cases cited the murkiness proceeding involving the denial


limitations and i don't think that your limitations is unique in terms of something you would do over into the same category as jurisdiction because there are lots of other ways in which you can lose your right to have your claim


case involving a personal jurisdiction uncertainty it just but the first to file cases and be this the rule against dismissal with prejudice is not limited to uncertainty about personal jurisdiction and the other point i wanted to make on the bottle is


only evidence that was presented by the plaintiff's expert was the number of african american students who are unrolled in certain classes or in special education versus the number of occasions students there was no further digging down into the


wrapping my mind around i i i understand generally the point of waiver i think this is one of those things that's not subject with this is this talks this is the whole it's not like it's inconsistent i'm not i didn't


priority and secretary rules as applied in delaware and i mean it did not address the situation where there was some residuum of property that was not being claimed by another state tax and those cases did


equal status amongst themselves and it's only the state in title to it on the first or second rule that would have a reasonable argument and maybe come along maybe this is where and if other states start


against can rely on the texas priority rules to prevent state officials from enforcing state law in complex with those very moules and moreover your honor going back to the first


date of sale that two years could be as soon as two years here to sale after two years have been an activity the proceeds of the not yet used as b c are to be paid to the state but chapter twenty five has a related provision


covered by previous forms of unclaimed property x this is the modern version there of the could district court recognize that different states taking different approaches to addressing us that there's no constitutional significance between the legislatures


let's say doesn't include a check with with their pay with their payment with your tax return get a notice a computer generated notice from the tax authority it says you will with certain amount and in addition because you have underpaid you failed to pay your


the hundred eighty three day residency requirement as required by the code by nine thirty seven and the regulations that the treasury department issued now was standing fact they spent more than one hundred eighty three days on st thomas


all territorial courts it is intended that in the virgin islands the only exception to this extension will be those provisions which are in conflict i mean with specific legislation a political to the virgin


instead in each case naturally unnecessarily refers back to roman one roman two and section two point three now because the other it's pretty clear from the other divisions


committed many years later after it were none of the reliance interests that the supreme court found significant in st cyr reaching its decision there obtained for this two thousand and seven conviction do that that's true such hartmann but i don't


the parties specifically were aware of the risks of making a class because of wal mart ending to not certify this class is in conflict with the gersh back tears were factor don't or six when considering the fairness of the settlement looks at the ability


by way of a single choice single choice during a single long transaction in the form of a subjective increase or decrease to otherwise objective really determined long


power of the court in those circumstances to allow court discretion to award the fees and you're right that is a discretionary judgment in that instance if they determine that faith that goes to the inherent power issues your honor and i think that's why those cases are distinguishable


motivation or bad faith those are issues that go to enforceability of a contract in this context the issue for the court should be to apply the standard tests for reasonable miss within that framework the judge has discretion to determine what is


let me try to speak to three issues individual determinations the policy questions of touch fisheries and our standing of the individual determination i just want to be clear because there's been a lot of position shifting around what the


government objected the judge ruled against him and the defense attorney said fair enough judge moved on similarly here the defense attorney said thank you judge and accepted that limitation without further objection or argument and


above the top of the guide we believe that this reflects of the court did not read me fully consider the vast amount of mitigation argument in this case first of all the nature of the upper departure justification mean


they go ahead if the court is required to say words such as and i'm imposing supervised release because you can see that there is no such sentence in the record and if the court is required to say and i find


if that were true ms mcgarry could not have argued all of the adjustments to the p s r as view of the sentencing enhancements that should have applied at the sentencing stage which you vigorously argued so that the rule is


in district court and i don't think you did you know i know and this is not an unreasonable to like that's the right direction so if it's not an unreasonable delay case then what is the matter if they could have done it goes only to their argument because they


defendants in our border districts i believe this to be an issue of first impression in this court and i believe the government agrees with me in that regard however it there are several cases from the ninth circuit


remove and i'm looking at eleven point three and it discusses the form of notice if it's already required or permitted under the agreement but it doesn't create an independent obligation to give notice so


that he would like to us to have presented that is not the evidence that we presented but the evidence that we presented was adequate well that asset purchase agreement includes the estimated account receivable yes that in and that


on two particular aspects of that and one is that there was no mental health evaluation there was a constellation of mental disorders that this jury never heard


we're taking a broader definition of claim under the false claims act is that me for a white your honor yes so neither way it was actually interpreting like the civil false claims act whereas cohen has interpreted in the criminal fos claims act new for white did not reject


district court to review the commission's ultimate ruling that the state district court and granted granted surgery in that case ordered the plaintiff to file an opening brief in


quick care is an objective negligence standard which is malpractise now farmer brennan was very clear that the reason you don't apply an objective standard like that to deliberate different cases is because that's what's the court was


explicit that she made a representation that i was going to bill for a multiplier or not and the reason why the point that it's not there either way is one of the concerns that appellant has is that the district court conflated in the idea that


closely related charge one that the jury was instructed on and there was overwhelming evidence of you and that's why whether there was evidence of the crime charged by big green jury


question about your complaint and may go a little bit beyond that but i need some help understanding what claims are in the case at this point even


officer and my only point is that i don't know that the district court ruled on that link i if they may have been inviting you to point that out to me but i believe that that is a


order an officer named chase medallists corporal waldock one of the higher ranking officials at district six he testified unequivocally that he had never been informed of the closet order


affirmative obligation versus something that is a building code or something about a fact because they're the obligation is to it's to install the filter for example or to get a permit or to get the permit and if you if you just say there's a violation of the


friends with all these people i knew what they were doing they wanted me to get him off they didn't get him and if you have the officer testify certainly that gives more meaning to the statement


didn't challenge because they didn't know material information regarding segments of the whole no when when i said he didn't challenge it what i mean is judge me made a major


scenario is that she would've imposed twenty seven months i think that is that would have given effect to what the parties were suggesting was appropriate for the appellate waiver that one level reduction at which would've put them


forest service that indicates that the service concerned variety of viewpoints and it doesn't reflect that its ultimate decision was arbitrary and capricious if i could touch briefly on denning habitat the forest service one of them at


i'm not sure if it will be reported officially more broadly but i think the forest service would be happy to provide


or causing other individuals to choose some of reacting in a library and getting them for a life this would be a disability discrimination claim under the a da similarly it teacher at the school if this same or similar disability could be mocked by the other


maximum for an offense if you go to trial and you plead guilty based on based on a mistaken impression of what the risk after trial would be if that's a much later but the thought in general artie's take the risk


testing disability there was you were very clear on and i think i think the factual difference between your understanding of the argument my understanding of what he argued is that i believe what he argued is that even if she


by or required by the employer we've got this portal to portal act now that says that getting to your place of work as an account so that doesn't this briefing final briefing


you are much like an off duty police officer why would that all of her prison detention officers timestamped walking to the post why would that be work


remains for the judge to make a determination of whether point three percent as pacific and senility no i mean if we reject your general i understand understand the court had eleven days and twenty three witnesses of testimony twenty three witnesses i'm going to


hotel room before they could be the parents of the kids in the hotel room who went in this morning for seven minutes and said hey what are you doing here you gotta get rid of stuff this is bad they came back later to check and see we just don't know what about an hour to rest what were injured according to you when


very good sentence from open oil company which reciting our brief the court says changing to a new theory on appeal that falls under the same general category as an argument presented at trial is not adequate to preserve issues where feel it's plain as day


marks quote the end of the road for this litigation under cases like richardson which is the twenty eleven decision of this court now in their reply brief for the very first time ever in this stage of the case plaintiffs make a new argument


put it is subsidiary to the ultimate question as when and where did these offenses occur but if we go back to mr parys example and that is that the defendant says yeah you can use my car i don't need it for a


not a violent felony the district court didn't have at its disposal garcia or stokely into the district court was was focused on actual force but it does seem that the district court believed


particular order but there's a prior order that rejects the idea of a special master that says that this is a pure legal issue in the pure legal issue that we raised income in opposing their objection was


that is being taken place here to determine whether to disallow deduction because the underlying prerequisite for the application to a t is for determination


and of course we did submit the current attorney general most recently which withdrew the two deputy attorney general memoranda that had been issued some years prior that doesn't mean that we're about to enforce against high desert relief but it simply


ultimately come forward there's no dispute that mrs daly was given unfettered ability to explain why she delayed for a full year and a half before coming forward to the police she told them that she didn't want to embarrass her mother


that she was asked by her counsel why are we here in other words why did you file a lawsuit why are we in litigation and she was able to answer that question now as i read her brief she says what i wanted


when this issue was presented to him acknowledge that this court's precedents show that drug use at the time of an incident can be relevant but here there was no evidence that mr hecht was impaired or intoxicated mr


rise to this case it was unexpected that this settled law would be attended by the supreme court's decision in castleman it was further unexpected that castleman holding in a case involving the term misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


four see and case law does in fact support that as this court knows the court goes to a categorical approach and assault with a dangerous weapon can be committed by a willful attempt to inflict bodily injury or threat to inflict that same bodily injury


you've mentioned several issues and i'd like to address them in turn it going backwards i think the latter is in this case it appropriate to look at the seven different factors i was an out of


you in your expert calculating that took all of the over had of running school and included that but didn't include any to wish in in that calculation which


actually asking the court to do is focus on two of the six factors ignore the other four so even though they were saying to tell you circumstances they were actually arguing not to tell of the circumstances below and he


the confrontation pozen the theory that the proper decision is merely an application of confrontation caused a certain kind of hearsay well every guarantee of the bill of rights in a trial court is merely an application some


in a better position to step back two steps then he has to fire pleydell bullets i believe that the question is clearly one as to whether or not


analogous to the one in the under federal law and we set forth what we believe is the difference and that is if there's no knowledge of there was no knowledge required until the california supreme court in


you would not be able to get that conviction without being able to show that the individual had knowledge so why should you why should the government benefit from being able to get a conviction in state court without knowledge and not turn around and say well you know part


substance then the defendant was being was manufacturing but that wasn't the most recent her now by a california court of appeal on the issue the most recent pronouncement was the california court of appeal in korea which said


there was no proof that there ever was a prior molestation it was good enough to get in unless the girl or the mother testified to it which they didn't and all i got is the aunt said the three year old girl was masturbating i thought that was an


although the prison records we were able to get during two years of discovery don't cover every time period that we would like every document that we received dozens facts support mr hamdan the version of this condition


overbroad standing to bring an action outstanding to bring a case on behalf of somebody in arizona that is looking for a lawyer that's their business not yours while i believe overbroad standing alone allows that i briefed heavily


your are so extreme and i do also want to i agree that it's appropriate to start with more now because i understand that the eighth amendment issue is a thorny one and there's a lot going on there i think we went on it but i think that the mo now


employees in that case it involved allowing a drunk to drive home i think and there was a policy against it then violated their own policy and then with department violated their own policy


astonished to hear that your honor first we do think you should decide the disability question when we brought up the affirmative defenses in the district court only man the plaintiffs filed a brief saying the judge also didn't have jurisdiction to consider those defenses because they were


they haven't cited to you because there isn't any language in this plan that says you have to have an independent medical examination of someone under any circumstance that's not evidence of manipulation in the review process further during the time


physical either a cause where the symptom of the disease were physical and caused the disability and a whole laurean part then benefits are payable for a physical disability not mentally and let's go back to that what are the salient


and are suing the defendant to make money and that's the only place they got these claims from the claims they're in their inferentially the jury knows it's tech it's been polled he's been barred from treating women


eighty nine based on district courts knowledge of the case and the complexities when you cross a field and claim that that terminations which i have and i think the distinction is being is because of your drug in a state court there was a lot of litigation from the state


stay we have we have three hundred forty thousand dollars to play with the problem with that your honor is that there is no cost of goods sold in that calculation when you look at their


but it came at the end of a dialogue in which the judge said i'm not going to let you allocate i think that's opinion testimony that you're not permitted and we say to you in the brief case that says that


well morning your arse and may please the court my name is scott being in from phoenix representing plaintiff convenient automation as you probably know from reading the briefs in the record in this


defendant that submitted a pre filed motion for rule of eleven sanctions so his dilemma was the saying now that this attorney withdrew there's a new one what do i do and i think that you know that as you


however as the district court stated the claim was made the claims filed the challenge was made and the challenge refused we'd even written letters to him prior to filing a motion asking him peter give


schedules we don't know what would have been objected to his father claims i can't do a liquidation analysis well i think do was look at the findings and conclusions group does find that fast and stay would have would have been a collectible


those hearing officers make a living from were teen appointments by city centers the court recognized and hamas when you have hearing officers who have a pre financial interest in ruling for the city in the city has an interest in the


entertain the complaints of the female officers over a period of time including officer three tank as well as obviously his state of mind his comment to the inspector general when the inspector general's office came to pelican


alconbury state prison should take additional steps to stop that harrison that's simply a complaint about the well let me put it slightly differently and say there is a practice in the prison


into federal court prior to the time that last go in there was not the spotting except he could have filed a petition but the fact that the federal courts would have been bound by the interpretation issued by the by the inferior court


on to figure out let me see if i understand you are you saying that once this letter was filed from that point on i get be is is forgiven for any response really has a person involved in this


western metals which is cited in our brief and in that case if you remember the employee had just had surgery and his doctors told him not to go near the cyanide he pleads pits at the mine and his boss ordered him to do so and he refused to do so


well actually increase the risk of fire in the project area and not decrease the risk of fire in the project area and that's where this army in the administrative record there's there's there the forest service has not conceded that point


district court level to have the temporary restraining order lifted but judge welcome concluded that there is the potential there was nothing to prevent peter from simply doing this again and so she kept the injunction and


supreme court decided in the very same year as reaver an individual who had galut was found to not be deprived of the benefits of a disability policy with similar language simply because he was asymptomatic in the disease at the


the work and then when the money came in after all the recover after all the expense of the litigation was that was finished then the net proceeds after that expense was going to go back to those creditors well that spring into


not that these monies will ultimately flow through the corporation that's typical of a bankruptcy or state our point is that the fundamental nature of the damages that are being sought do not belong to the corporation and are subject to suit


an argument could be made that he hasn't but it could be made to that effect that that was those were mistakes but of course if they were mistakes by kaiser then a judgment has to be made as to whether to ask for it back i think the real problem and i think it's a time thing that this court recently dealt with in


proportion increase it past first a general appropriation bill of nearly three point three billion dollars a whopping thirty five percent larger than the prior budget more than double the rate of population growth and inflation growth


that time the record is devoid of anything that reveals what the conversation was but certainly at that time mr tourist could have said to the asylum officer wait a minute that's not my style and claim i genuinely fear returning to mexico and he never said that when he was


what he said was you have no claim this or more link you are out the distinction is critical because what happens here is can funny steps in after the first case is over he knew all about the transaction he was a witness in the first trial he shows up and they close the


that it's unclear whether there are any people that fall into either one of those categories i'm not aware of any cases where a person was simply released under that statute who didn't otherwise qualify for that


refer to which is very significant on october twenty sixth or now at twenty two days after the meeting of october fourth a settlement agreement with david


a determination such as what the court and asked to take are the written policies procedures appropriate written policies and procedures were appropriate and signed by dr hoffman the constitutional violation because with the


the there is a correct way of creating a post sale restriction without uprooting the important and fundamental concept of privity that way is actually set out


ten says that while the majority attempts to say that they've adopted the restatement they're not really sure how long how much it's different from we're just going to apply our laws right here but setting that aside i have an argument


being complained of in this case in some your honor it's basically a malicious prosecution case of the the young and the where and where did someone for purposes of argument that it is a malicious prosecution where did the prosecution take place


of nevada act outside the authority delegated to him up to that point wait to get sued then go back to his appointing court and get the court to issue orders that after the fact say you have immunity and


were the well that's one of the things i wanted to point out i think there's a void in the in the declaration as to how long they wore them and there's an indication that they wore them but they were there wearing them the first day that you see that's france saying you're mistreating me


but i don't think that's the only one or the one that should be drawn i think that it was simply the victim's family remembering the victim and i also would like to point out on the this is the subject of self defense


we believe that contrary to opposing counsel argument that the school business only was not hiring adjunct faculty at six thousand dollars a course they were hiring people well in excess of one hundred thousand dollars a year and we respectfully submit that meant


that deportation used to be an uncertain result it's now virtually certain and i think take your argument to be that because that has to do with the state department and not the court that it be disregarded


beat him through the window whatever the father did so it makes total sense to require in that situation an affirmative act by the father and that's the distinction the cross makes and coursera includes that is it's part of its rationale


against children born out of wedlock so at least theoretically diana could pass a law that discriminates against children who are born out of wedlock and that would not be in conflict with guyana is removal of discrimination act and that's different from jamaica


year i was a different it is your honor and the difference is that the level of supervision the nature of what they were doing there indeed there is certain parallels which we concede