again i don't think that when congress an act of a statute with the word burglary and then with the residual cause which we know was an attempt to expand the scope of the statute to reach other crimes that it in fact would have meant for most burglary statutes or a substantial


take take for long that's a case where multiple saw friends have concurrent jurisdiction over robbery at sea and it was well understood that a prosecution by one would bar across you know you for a long a little bit differently as actually separating


assigned to birth but here's here's the thing with if there is a this this case asks whether when someone fires someone because they're transgender or because they fail to conform to sex based era types is that because of sex that's what this case us


answer one way or the other by this case you would still have to ask is it fair to keep that person off of the team just like it's fair to keep a man off of the team the the stereotypes in this


transgender status in two respects st my friends but for test would mean that a woman's overnight shelter must hire a man who identifies as a woman to serve as a counselor to women who have been raped trafficked and abused and also share restroom shower and


religion yes because title seven allows you to recognize that there are differences between women and men and that an employer switching back to the st case could terminate i see sex couple are an employee who's married to a same sex partner maybe because they are catholic and they


strongly dispelled by the history of these statutes and i want to address that updating issue because it's a very important yes question and here by updating it in the way that my friends on the other side would have you updated they're


there for a very long time they were there during the timber cutting but they left they left or they were destroyed so what is it about the natural the


incompetent or not income yes and that's where the medical community has helped us a lot but that science has as a merchant involved quite a bit under the d s m five there are requirements for moving someone from possible dementia which we would argue would


not be sufficient to render someone incompetent to be executed just the allegation some limited memory deficit moving someone from possible dimension to probable dementia requires four things there needs to be an m r i where you


for not the words and pin it is they were would you accept the fact that such a person cannot be executed under the eighth amendment and if not what's the difference you are the


where i'm going i see it begins with the question of whether the new rule that's announced applies if we have not disputed is there a new rule that is unknown sed is that the a pan factors and the b pan factors have to be found with a lawyer


process then harmless error review but that as a type this is very similar to harmless error and to the extent that harmless error isn't available corrections so what's more the more process the what what your definition of more


the limits that congress set right and to what congress said was enough where does the president get the authority to do more and then congress


we're not asking you to second guess the national security judgment at all with the purpose of these styles from cause we're saying you just have to look to what are reasonable objective observer do that's the ordinary test that you've used in cases like lukumi is there in official purpose to


where the plaintiff testifies yes i did read it yes i did remember it but in most cases it's going to be inferences from circumstantial evidence and i think it's going to be some courts going one way based on inference and circumstantial evidence other courts going a different way based on him


class the fact that there are except if you think that the actual knowledge issue would be satisfied requirement in most cases in other words there would be few members of the


and the danger is captured in the bill of attainder because it's captured maybe the x was facto clause it's captured in the word liberty and it is that particular danger that means where you have a person whose job is prosecuted


read the third circuit opinion that talks about this and says there's a lot to balance in this issue and are the courts the appropriate one or is congress the appropriate one well or is the individual district


i think you either decide the cypress award provides relief were doesn't provide relief if it doesn't provide relief you don't get a fee for it but it does provide relief and i don't know why the fee should be cut back just because it's not money well but i still think you have to look


actual search do we know what it was and were the words in the search soon to be ex wife because those words would seem private probably and that maybe those words weren't there maybe all that was there was


his name and his wife's name which i don't think is private but but so do we know so in fairness their theory just i don't think it's the i don't think that what they're pointing the harm is the disclosure of the information


think i think there's a great difference between most of the cases that mr frank relies on which are cases where claimants have been identified and there is nonetheless a separate multi million dollar cypre payment that's a very different case because you don't have the


would be excluded by its definition that's a lot more than a few well we taylor says you're trying to craft a generic burglary definition that aligns with how most states viewed it


statute is there anything to prevent us from inferring that the mental element required for ace for once one element is different from the mental element required for


sentence it is not imprisonment it is a credit that goes towards the days that a person has to spin and imprisonment in this case mr mott received three hundred days for one of his cases and


interrupt there's a lot of uncertainty involved because in any given moment and this is why it's important to take that snapshot approach because if any given moment a person may indeed not be detained


while they were in custody letter from down the other side suggest that's not true suggest that when you're in detention that a lot of the features of supervised release can still continue my understanding is that that's not that's not correct that the probation office


under either understanding of what conviction could could mean and the statute the defendant's imprisonment here would qualify because certainly if that conviction means the entry of the guilty plea or the now i'm saying if we agree on the


offenses in different jurisdictions one jurisdiction happens to process cases more quickly than the other the defendant who is in the in the fast moving jurisdiction will have a different supervised release outcome than a defendant who is in a jurisdiction where the


the pot and the claimant can't pay any more money you would take your lumps and leave the lawyer at that point would swallow a loss in fees typically what happens there's no sense in wasting time trying to squeeze


action that is not when he makes sense that they split them but you're not suggesting that there's any place in the statute that you can point to and say look that provision is the provision where congress indicates that it makes


here now let's talk about how much what we we could but again that liability issue arises under the fifth amendment under the takings provision so ephedra court is capable of deciding that very question


one harm the harm of the person who tries to remove and then gets kicked out of court right we could write a sentence saying that's wrong you've waived or right but i couldn't find in any of these briefs any serious


litigated in state court under the fourth amendment claim in state court they can come to federal court afterwards so it's not as if there are courthouse stores are opened uniformly to everybody any time there are there are all


condemnation suit is nothing more nothing less so why should we single out the for this particular right the takings clause for such disfavor treatment to await to exhaust state remedies that wind up in this rightness


i think that the ability to rely upon existing jurisprudence to trust the courts just say that we trust the state courts to resolve these issues and to know that especially and


cat protection once the government concedes as i think it must write that that cat order is distinct from is not the same thing as a final order of removal why isn't that seriously problematic turning to the st question i asked just


to some other country that no there is not currently and adamant that the immigration and nationality act itself specifies the other countries to which may be removed there is an ordering in the statute about which alternative


only over the former and leaves the latter jurisdiction over the lands and selves undisturbed moreover the trails act itself makes clear that the trail can be moved it makes sense for a trailer trail route to move every time a


way is under the jurisdiction of one federal agency the agency head is authorized to grant the right of way so that suggests under the m l a that the right of way the sub stratum is given to the


maps at the back of our reply brief you can see the difference in the implications of the theories it's very modest to look at the nd map which shows you sort of what i would have called before i got involved in this case the true national park system easy enough to steer a pipeline around


pipeline should be built and those i take it are involved in the other issues in the case but do you have more than a gotcha argument do you i mean them and sometimes they work but if you fit these statutes


change or alter what virginia law was all of the statutes that are discussed in john's two were on the books at the time of the sentencing it's not like virginia changed its law after it sent it what if we were unsure about that shouldn't we


motivating factor you can take out and the outcome would still be the same and it just seems quite confusing to me to put in something that's not the same question as the ultimate question at the pleading stage rather than to understand the


facts and just see whether they would meet the standard it's pretty rare at least in my years of working it discrimination points is pretty rare to throw one out of the motion to dismiss stage you know how long as it passes you know a pretty low bar in that's


deal because the regulated public was able to participate if we searched that it was a practical matter if you read he is very i mean there are hundreds of thousands possibly millions of interpretive regulated


the issue depends at least in part about how much of a change you're making and one of the things i have trouble getting my my arms around is if you start with our and recognizing the limitations on our that you know that have accumulated


suppose it depends i mean it depends on the agency it depends on the rule it depends on the the court i mean some point you're playing out if you consider the range of reasonableness and you know


it minister i mean are they just simply checking to make sure that they're being paid whatever it is twelve dollars or i say yes i mean it varies obviously depending on the regulation with something like this but you know presumably it's it would be the wage in our division of the labor department that


yes we do know that it will however was a compromise and the compromise was between having state control over the law of the outer continental shelf and federal law


source if that happens to be california law doesn't affect things you asked earlier about enclaves in california and let me give you a different answer than the one my colleagues on the other side gave there is a district court just decision called corn dope


ninety seven percent of those involved in this are in the fifth circuit so slight they were yes i don't know if it's determined but i'm slightly worried about overturning a set of court of appeals


carr is one way of presenting the question before the court today and i would submit that you don't have a one size fits all solution for just disability and i don't think baker v carr supports that proposition indeed i took the central lesson of baker v carr


still under palmer it's still focused on local matters everything the board is doing it's doing in puerto rico which is why i don't think they've tried to claim look you needed in the article one power all you needed was article four suppose congress invokes article thirty


it was a response to the most insidious and powerful weapon of th century desk the board were elected would it be constitutional no it would not be constitutional because how then and does it i mean the


constitution or would one be excessively cynical to think that something else is involved here involving money and if so what is it what did the board do that hurts your client well with my clothes


saying when it was dealing with the an act meant of this statute we have a fiscal catastrophe a humanitarian crisis involving millions of citizens three million american citizens in


standard should apply to the restrictions at issue here as would apply to a limited public forum our only point the reason we haven't argued that it actually is a limited public forum is that the register communicates not so much with mr brunetti


well i wouldn't ask you if i were certain of you well if you're suggesting that there's a content neutral way of deciding which marks are too scandalous to register by doing a task of the test on the body or


copyrighted if a legislator do something or a group of legislators in their legislative capacity it is not copyrightable who cares who the author is their public policy reasons that have existed forever in law that you make those two things


answer both parts of the question moment take the nd part st i don't think a law professor is speaking in the voice of the state or that something a law professor publishes is published under the authority of the state so that would be copyrightable under our test and nor do i think that


addition said the legislature then requires that those annotations be merged into an official state document and then the whole document is published under the authority of the state of georgia if that's what happened and how i don't think you could copyright to entertain


the to the sea work or against the operator your honor at the answer to your question depends on what kind of charter is arranged between the owner of the vessel and the operator of


and a parent and they get a tax refund and the reason they get the tax refund is because of the bank they're the ones that lost the money so mail them the money i r s and in case


having a specific damages requirement in their prayer for relief and a complaint that was framed years ago this litigation i think is taken five plus years and that has become relevant


regard to training we have two related reasons why doesn't the st is to look to historical restrictions which were not themselves directed at premises licenses but are illuminating and historically the location where people were


same thing in b one and b two on page four twenty one and four twenty two which is what the government keeps citing the court began it sentence with section thirty seven thirty one the ones text is talking about the text of


fide by where they come from it's the gentleman from north folk or the gentlewoman from the city of richmond there still will be a shout it's a lady from norfork and a gentleman from wherever the identity may


wasn't materially increased or decreased in fact the be vapid only change from fifty three fifty five point three to fifty five point four so many of the arguments my friend makes about how this district or that district


each of these districts and the numbers frankly are fairly startling h d seventy one ninety six hundred seventy four black voters were moved in two thousand black voters were moved out and eighty eighty nine eight thousand black


the same is the situation involved here in your in your view i guess i don't understand petitions to be making that argument in this party or not but that's what bit it still can bother me i'd like to know if in deciding it for them if i do


between this court and congress that relationship has long been governed in part by two important presumptions relevant here st that congress legislates against the backdrop of the common law and nd that congress legislates aware of this court's


part the bar of the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered there will be no special circumstance or efforts on the part of the party committing the fraud to conceal it from the knowledge of the other party the court then


intend to permit or displace the addition or in the words a good belly the grafting onto which i don't view as pejoratively but i think my friends on the other side attempt to use that way grafting on or onto or importing into the statute or common


your basic claim is a claim of fraud there is a tolling rule no one was that ever raised clearly probably not two is the basic claim here was a claim that this is a


in the case where you have here where you have and i can i sense that we all have a little bit of a concern about a situation where the securities case is dismissed for failing to plead c enters as happened here


defendant to deny whatever it is i don't say there is something special or say say i don't think it's a fish in your honor because you can to be able to make those for allocations in every stock drop case and the whole point i thought


i mean i guess this is part of the confusion about whether miller and montgomery are substantive or procedural but let me ask you this if i know the procedure that justice cavanagh said what applied perfectly what is the standard of review is it well the standard is grossly


upon state level in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under life's circumstances this year a friend on the other side says


convenience and international comedy so those are those are two separate doctrines but even more to the point it says that in some cases for exercising jurisdiction in cases involving foreign interests federal


you're proposing of comedy sounds like a little bit of this and a little bit of that it incorporates some concepts from exhaustion and also sounds like for non convenience


here the seizures in mexico mr nanda is is in mexico he is outside the sovereign territory of the united states there is no defacto jurisdiction of the covert in this area it's very dissimilar


seized in this case fernandez had some voluntary contact with the united states could i ask you briefly we haven't talked about yet a question on the qualified immunity point it seems very odd to me that qualified immunity would


else no witness put him in the crime scene and people doing things with golf clubs nobody else described a golf club involving a gun nobody else described a gun it was just fantastical and so the process defense counsel had no reason to


anonymously approached a police officer on the night of the crime and said she saw clifton yarborough standing by the alley on ninth street turning his head back and forth like a lookout and the police picked up clifton


then goodyear was you just said i thought that the ninth circuit accepted a causation requirement did you just say that yes your honor i didn't read their the ninth circuit opinion that way i'm looking at page thirty two


many issues to go into whether or not you have a settlement and just because there was the disk or believe that they may have settled earlier but again the court didn't say when we would have said earlier and you make that an issue of below


process the sponsor gets a mandatory injunction under two seventy one the fore and in any event if it turns out that what the f d a has said is well


that so you can see about to hear from the governor about their theory we do think it does solve a lot of the policy concerns that congress is getting at we think are textual reading is better because we actually give effect to the twelve words in the in the


evidence here as incrementally to that if you contrast the way the legislature proceeded with respect to cd one in cd twelve it's virtually impossible to think that this was all a pretext i mean you know i understand why you want to search a


confused the case but in westfall the court said that view of what the federal common law provided was a mistaken reading of barbour says and it's this court that tells us what the federal common law is and westfall the court described


cannot resell it to smith or jones or anyone who buys my widget if they resell it has to put a big red sign on it some kind of restriction if somebody fails to do that so they sue likely in the united states that in any case they're suing under american


congress should be understood to have manifested its intention that historic conceptions of domestic domestic exhaustion would continue to have sway now the second point i'd make about domestic exhaustion is that the court of appeals error in our view stemmed to


importation then that that's not different in kind from the chance that the consumers take regularly that there is something wrong with the chain of patent title that the initial authorization was not good what is the basis for this compromise


who did and who did not have a potential link to terrorism and in that situation a decision to hold everyone in till cleared to apply the apply the hold till clear policy is best explained not by invidious intent but by desire to


too you might read a personal profile to mean something more than just a nickname a personal profile the definition of a profile is a concise biographical sketch which seems to be


the the expressly implication is very strong here because if you read the statute on page eighty two a a one sets out the first assistant rule a two sets out the the p a s rule for a senate confirmed official in


is an issue where who meets one of the following a one a two and a three and for a three there was something called a b one limitation and it said notwithstanding a three an issue or is you're not an issue or in less you're in the business of


circumstances he may not do this and that is precisely the kind of conflict that congress was getting at but even if you thought the text had some ambiguity here i really do think that the other reads to statutory construction which this courts have looked to which this court has looked to over and over really do


and but that's the powerful important government program let me say two or three things about that first there's no question that through their music the slants are expressing views on social and political issues they have a first amendment right to do that they're


suit and the register is entitled to be heard on questions of copyright ability if no number of a restriction on trademark that's correct you can file a suit under section eleven twenty five a of


cash a wide net yes well that's absolutely true and it precludes disparagement of democrats and republicans alike and so forth and so on but it makes a very important distinction which is that you can say good things about some


our historically different but very distinct categories and you don't make the claim that this force into a category of low value speech in the way that libel laws in the way that defamation does


be interested to hear your answer of why the example that i stated is not viewpoint based it says you can say something bad about you can say something good about somebody but not something bad about somebody or something well certainly if you singled out a particular


thank you mr chief justice let me make three quick points mr connell has said that the government program that the government registration program regulates only the expressive and not the commercial aspect of the mark and i think that's getting it exactly backwards the mr


to be the banks were engaged in some sort of discriminatory loans and the city had had to basically expend funds to test that out to enforce its housing statutes that looks very much like the one to one relationship that was that issue in havens


guess when i started reading the briefs i was confused about this because this one understanding a proximate cause which is that usually proximate cause is about first the ability and only for c ability now there are definitely places where we've said there's an additional direction


on this this is very important we're not quibbling with that gladstone is absolutely one hundred percent we're not seeking to change it they're the ones who are seeking to expand it in two directions both by taking it out of segregation and by expanding proximate


in your briefing one is that you concede that they could be denied restitution for equitable reasons let's just take that we're where else in the law due


at exactly the same moment why isn't that true justice kagan it's the same reason that upon reversal the convictions certainly the petitioners can't be subject to that conviction anymore they have to be


colorado supreme court necessarily decided was that the this is not under state law property of the criminal defendant but that's a question it seems to me of you keep talking about compensation issues restitution and under normal equitable


the social security cases when but congress did when it did it was just a piece with everything a man with a dominant person in the family and the woman was a


believe she had the permission to invite them if their actual reliance was negligent that nonetheless was criminal trespass in the district of columbia so the court of appeals here in what i think is an impractical approach one supposed to be a practical standard so that


and distinguish between those two scenarios and i just don't think you can get it out of the statutory text which does prohibit waved retirement pay from being treated as divisible matter when the waiver occurs if the court is no further questions will rest thank you counsel


appellate review takes because a decision on a specific facts is unlikely to yield substantial benefits substantial guidance for future cases and we think those concerns are really extension needed here under administrative subpoena enforcement schemes because a


you can see at page thirty three of the petition appendix what the district court ordered to be turned over and it's whether an adverse employment action was taken within sixty days but what we don't have is was that action terminations which is the


understanding of why it is a speech regulation it is because if that's the way you list prices is that right that's right your honor so a lot for example that simply required a merchant who made a particular representation that the price of this


but if i put my list price as a dollar and then the credit card companies get a not so happy surprise that can't be done so it does affect the way a seller communicates which price he's going to


strictly little sense because then twenty six eighty itself would not apply well that that's somewhat circular justice alito it has a right that's one one way that we're album of a purely literal reading of this i think it says the f


i'll give an example federal of evidence eleven zero one states that these rules do not apply so a certain category of cases including preliminary proceedings in a criminal case federal rule of evidence want to one defines what a criminal case


were to address this issue it rejected respondents shall not apply argument and it said that it would lead to results that congress could not have conceivably intended and we agree with that the second point i'd like to make is just about the the purpose of the f


special spacing that causes the electrodes to achieve the desired result and that was the construction that the majority found at the federal circuit namely that spaced relationship is


that desired result patent attorneys are trained to try to draft a claims you know some claims as broadly as possible so that reading by the concurrence was a very plausible reading of this claim i'm reading the claim it has any


word the standard that the court use that we should reverse if there were no other context and only those words alone would be used it seems that some district courts might misinterpret those words as the s s officer got on his mansion but it


and have different amounts of contact with the electrodes the whole novelty of this was the fact that you didn't have to cancel the signals what we call downstream meaning by just filtering them out they could be detected in such a way that they would be equal and then be


may need to be nature the process may need to be necessarily sophisticated it's a hard thing to construe to construe claims and we it depends critically on the abilities of the skilled artisan to do that


addressed in dispatch to your honor i think not particularly if it's accompanied by a requirement that it be a return receipt that would be evidence of you know my name and it might not be but when i was on the third circuit my office was in new york but the headquarters of court was in


four does specify an address you know it says addressed in dispatched by the clerk of the court to the secretary of state in washington d c so what and sixteen zero eight three eight does not say at


foreign ministry in the foreign state and even if the relevant provisions were ambiguous sudan's proposed interpretation is not necessary to comply with the vienna convention which does not prohibit service by mail at an embassy consistent with the plain language


damages are here are calculated on the basis of that what happens if ten countries do that if twenty countries do that i see three possible ways of trying to deal with the problem one way is what they want


holding that where traditional were district principles can explain can explain then we don't need to actually look at other evidence of what the real motive was and that error is not something that comes up over and over and over again


was also based on the testimony of delegate dance who is from three from district sixty three she testified as well that it has to be north of fifty percent it was also done in consultation with delegates rule who's to delegate from district


within the meaning of your court's cases is no and i think there too he said that's what the district court said and i have a have problem with that because predominance is designed to measure intent when there are multiple causes and mice


in his dissent justice stevens argues that strict scrutiny does not apply where the state respects or complies with traditional district and principles that however is not the standard rule out announced and applied in miller shot to resolved for


recent article from the journal of american academy of psychiatry and the law assessing adaptive functioning in death penalty cases after all and d s m five one of these experts was cited in the in


what is a court supposed to do are we supposed to have all these hearings here i mean you've made very good arguments for your client there are probably several others in the country


case it isn't true that you can deduct and therefore plaintiffs can lie and wait to see and it is forty times more difficult for a company that has relied on their not suing


will return to respond to complete my previous answer but justice ginsburg the stale whether or not you think that section what is now section two eighty six is a statute of limitations or not and it does notably does not


patent sues him and he is going to get six years worth of profits and nothing to ducted now they have told me that's totally wrong just cause what you would have done


as a tremendous benefit to it it has a very cruel clear rule of decision that the sides of this case and any others that might come before the court on the nature of lachaise we look to the nature of the remedy in modern litigation not to the vagaries of the


government's offering but but it's not the line the government's offering but yours says your broadness is sweeping up a lot of conduct that i think could be perceived as active


to which the design patent is applied and not the profits on the total product the problem is that instruct the jury that both parties but the government both parties leave it up and there's a i'll give it to


profits on the whole if you read the federal circuit's decision they were saying people buy this product mostly this was their argument to the jury and it sold the federal circuit


approximation and said the total profits on this product are ten million dollars and we think that that component issue here based on expert testimony is responsible for a quarter or twenty five don't use any based on expert testimony what what would they be


court below had awarded twenty percent of the total prop that's from the movie and this court affirmed that award and said that's a reasonable approximation we're never be able to get to certainty but on these sorts of prophets questions in these sorts of remedies questions a reasonable approximation is good enough and it's certainly better than awarding all or


question that is the factual test of whether the relevant article of manufacture is the article as sold or a distinct component of it i think it's very clear to address questions the questions that justice ginsburg and justice so


percent margin on two dollars and fifty cents for what it cost to produce this little component there would be no deterrence to what congress deem to be an emergency it's just as kagan let's take a case and i think that the


you know that they have to buy their uniforms for you from you for ninety nine years plus whatever the university that you so you know he's cheerleading uniforms to do they know


more logical time to do it would be at the conclusion of the case there have been exceptions where defendants have wanted their appeals are going the outset right after sentencing yes your ok right after sentencing or again after restitution so that option two


two percent just because the the judge in the case thought well you didn't do enough work or you could've done better yeah that's that's simply an incorrect view of the statute to say that congress intended to replicate anything close to a contingent


applied dissatisfied in the same sense in statutes that we give an example at page eight of the yellow brief involving extra pay for navy personnel who spend more than forty eight hours on a submarine in a month but the relevant part


general situation while our rules is superior for several reasons a complex as congress has goal of extending better protection to this range of claims because but for our rule so how is your different from the solicitor sorry sorry generals


regulation knowledge that when it was breaching it it was going to be material to the government that's the second part of what i think is i guess i mean that so that causes concern of course because there are


should put up a poster saying we do family planning we do not do adoption and we want to say crisis pregnancy centers along the lines of petitioners here we do adoption we do not do family


one judge could have put different values on a reason in one place and in new york in different values in california that's a very different form of arbitrariness


because it's not speech and that's the first trigger i mean some people might say that about cakes you know some but you have a you have a view that a cake can be speech because it it involves great skill and artistry


live or work precisely in the context of an architect generally that would not be protected because buildings are functional not community and architectural design is not protected no architect generally speaking architecture would


and i don't i can't answer that question actually need besides the ones i've been i would have to understand what the the the purpose and the history is of that and to teach choosing customers and how it works if there's j have all they have to take in every other customer to date


creditor is bad behavior that harms the estate there are also some practices that occur in bankruptcy court that whose validity i don't think this court needs to reach for


court has indicated article three supports you would have the state of texas defending the decision it has made to change its law and to keep that law in place and you would have agreed that individuals who would have been denied a driver's license because of that change


think it depends on the circumstances of how texas is to make its decision all the more reason to wait until it's actually made a decision through a legislative process where there would be a record of why the legislators chose to change from a policy that currently provide licenses to anyone


than what they're doing here where they're granting lawful presence and that matters because that's why we have to grant driver's license that's where they get general or you just referring to that single phrase in the adapter memorandum is that what you're referring to


understand your answer to justice and my you are justice ginsburg because although this suit does present this different kind of issue i took it that your argument would apply just as well to a suit in


fact that the district or did not read the motion for attorney's fees because it wasn't filed within within fifteen days of the final judgment absolutely so first of all just so tomorrow this is a late breaking claim in the reply


purposes why did the district court under separate judgments why didn't he wait and see well there's only going to be one judgment because these are all consolidated for all purposes so i should wait till we're ready to have one judgment because i again i think lots of times courts do it for a


exactly the same here so it's the same process it's the same thing it is totally consolidated perhaps no more and no less than an ordinary case with thousands of parties and thousands of issues so just barely answer a question then if i could i'd like to


every single circuit with the partial exception of the sixth circuit which is introduced contrary things and he wants to switch up the rule massively now justice course that you asked what about this order doesn't it suggest maybe that it wasn't all purpose consolidation


if we would answer that the and the congress had the opportunity to do so and they didn't do so when they amended nine twenty four c at least two times since the advent of ten twenty a day and it's not a


it's just a factor for the court to consider and the overall factors that are set forth and thirty five fifty three a day as well as thirty six sixty one as well as thirty five fifty one leads us to consider all of those factors in


statute means that the part about robbery has to be done separately read policy that if that you can think of a thing that is inextricably related to another thing without thinking of the thing to which it is inextricably related


acknowledged is compromised by racial bias that undermines confidence in the criminal justice system there's a tension in your your briefing over what you're really arguing for in the


margins applicable to chinese pencil exports the case rises from the commerce department to two thousand and six two thousand and seven administrators review of the antidumping duty board or the court of international trade rejected


rates do not explicitly state of ontario rates should be included within the all other stories that when we look at the statutory scheme as a whole there's at least some indication that they should be executed that isn't the real question was is this procedures reasonable


or it doesn't and if it doesn't your definition doesn't comport with that either because yours definition is sometimes the weights have to be on the inside and sometimes they don't fit in either the claim has a limitation regarding location of the weights or it does not


again subject to that but no two and that is is that if it is on the merits though is it your view that if hypothetically we were to agree with your position on wilful that because of the judge's decision on


intervening rights doesn't promote prompt coming forward with your air within two years but the two years when it does that to your limits there for a reason let me ask you to go back to the untasted and you you sort of avoided using words like


people don't take this within three hours of food that is akin to a method of treatment ok just as i said take it three times a day instead of twice a day that's a different method of treatment you're entitled to a pap by say take


to clinical activity it isn't the clinical activity it's a post looking at the clinical activity clinical activity is done with the submission the collection this mission the f d a that happens then someone else in the patent


department analyzes the data looks for patentability amongst that data identifies and some of these claims identify the inventors and then take it and file a patent on it knowing that the f d a is already required this label we are now


evaluation was not arbitrary and capricious whether or not a fact finder good evaluated this record and come up with a conclusion pomeranz is not the question the question is whether this special master on this of telling the record before him


secretary and he has the option of either requiring that they stay and pay for them or not doing so i've read wholeheartedly i think the statute is clear the only thing the statute to stop


like federal rule twenty six so i think while we could debate the level of discovery that that would require it's something more than nothing and it certainly


response on jurisdiction with the additional thirty seven paragraphs until december nineteenth so the fact is the agency simply used the evidence that mr conti alleged in simply refuted it and that was enough for the judge to find that he did not make a showing


pressed to come up here and complain about the entire market value when your experts all of a lie but your honor we don't we don't bear that burden and we and we moved for jama well on that point that there were they couldn't rely on it yes


more specifically describes over and over again both in the instruction manual and also in what's called the text op which is also in the record that the submitted advertisement must be entirely ad


not complete until you have the text and the hypertext link because all of those things provide information to the right and that you package them you know what you ship out and all of that together so that you have that there are still processing going on on the server side with that force


obviously i'm sure the parties would join this minute but i do want the place like it might be helpful to have them the place for your honour's question were just next question goes would be to an implicit waiver


questions i think one of the traps was twenty pages long and that's the one where the judge said this is way too long i'm just not going to get this but what were the additional questions and if they cover they cover the waterfront of what you normally see in a page in


presumed to been found by the jury in favor of the verdict holder and content of the prior art which is who's teaching away and motivation to combine and what it teaches all of that is squarely within that there was substantial evidence records support that finding that


chamber underlying another in each quote from that point and curiously and five weeks to conveniently with respective claims seventy five the


prudential law or berliner on the rightness and standing considerations which are jurisdiction of her lying on concepts like abbott labs and standard oil and the fact that she tell us itself happened to be a trade


here is that these don't even arise under the terminated task orders if you look at the supplemental appendix which is part of what they call the claim that was submitted it assigns have quarter seven two as the top quarter under which these two point four million


to each of the invoices including both the paid and the unpaid invoices right that's correct and then there was a c d a penalty with respect to sixty five to sixty sixty two sixty seven


so point to the fact that to the event that her witnesses suggest that her behavior changed at the time after the assault they show a series of disciplinary reports that


in the military those things typically do get reported in the absence of a wrecker's significant and i apologize your honor i should be more specific and the lack of evidence perhaps an excess type of situations that would be something that probably the department of


if you will only be available in the war and the one common denominator that i can refer to today as we stand here is that in order for them to talk to each other because they were different in order for them to communicate they all had to conform with common protocols and


that's the point i think that the rule that you just suggested your honor was that they would have to have the complete burden from start to finish that is we would never have to make any sort of percentage and they would have to create the entire case in your duties to come in and say look we want to use this


throw ok i just want to make sure we clarify that your honor it happy to answer questions about other cases the one issue that we had and wanted to address specifically which we mentioned in the motions to consolidate was the


that said hey are invention is we're going to email and we're going to send him over the amateur radio network kind of like their disclosure in other words if we didn't really give him a chance to elaborate on this


i assume that we should reach that issue regardless of how we define email because whether they're in a single package or not has no relationship to the e mail question right and whether or not these things are all


that is our and that the agreement was reached box provides almost no information to us about what the actual determination the examiner made here was now he pointed to rule five fifty two several times rule five


piece of the june twenty twelve order that denied the motion for an issue of judgment and in particular its rationale was incorrect as a matter of law and second i think you want to say that


be suggestive of a store that sells house office products on with the fact that they one of the things they sell are staples would be enough to defeat that claim on the grounds of descriptions i think the mere fact that one of the things that


so that's the difference for us in that white bits in arms you mean that the algorithm is disclosed in figure two and we're supposed to with that impose that on figure three what we're saying is figure two is a block diagram of the preferred body


includes selecting pages and sample chapters of the text of the book and so when the when you take that into account that part of the text is going to be stored together with the sales information because it is


that that language was not in the us and the court found it not to be ambiguous the cortege or reduced dramatically yes it's always a legal interpretation as to whether or not the language in a contract is in big us so we could look


days within that i don't like to do math on the fly but i think that's fifty two different possible regiments there fifty two different lengths and it's examples it lists six different examples of this twenty five


think it's thirty two percent increased estrogen load


transcript of the argument we pointed out that these were of use the arguments about rosenberg other are teaching the way soon all those arguments had been made before the score and had been essentially i think i would say and we did argue this rejected


explicitly and i can't say that he looked at it on the record as it was before the court previously and but you don't make findings like i cannot i do not know what was going through through the courts mind i do in looking at it looking at the


kind of roast in justice that in hindsight contrary to everything the court did or didn't do it that warrants a scarlet letter of sanctionable conduct and even if you sought that it did


sound waves so this is a block diagram of a reference i'm going to use the work tracking prove that because to me that's in essence what this is doing mr campbell objection he's replacing the court's definition of


of the reason why for emphasizing is there's a reason for patent why affirmative the inequitable conduct decision under collateral stoppel is important and i want to make sure that that for us the answer is different than


mention that a promotional market would do well i would think so because i would think that the doctor they would already know who their doctor is if they're actually getting this actual communication from their doctor i would think would be set up


they use the s y s you points you registered your phone number with the company well every every time you bought a card to it after registering your phone number but it's not just registering your phone number you have to actually enter the cup but you have to enter the


then nine of the software so i think all those bases demonstrate why the minimum if you were going to remain for a new trial which i think is equally justified for that for them allowed to parade the amazon settlement and these other


particular meaning particularly in the construction context and we cite cases from the supreme court on down we cite illinois cases use that versus generis we cite numerous cases which are not distinguished in any real way by


tens of thousands of individual cases to be filed so that that is not impractical that is impractical and if this class serve keisha's tonight all these people who were defrauded clearly defrauded are left without a remedy so i think the judge did abuses discretion


arguments i think that the judge was wrong in dismissing those it seemed to me that she can conflated the issues of the auto policy exclusion with whether or not either from the defense is applied which


comments made to your insurer regardless if the other side is also insured by that same company and other net i just i'm throwing it out there to think is a matter of principle it's a very important aspect of this and i don't think that the judge into nine and basically when he


delivery so was not exclusive to any moment in time of birth was only to show that it sharp instrument in the control of the defendants produces injuries so we this is who brought it this is this is were brought in opening statement


we have here we have eight plaintiffs was a represented plaintiff by the way has attorney has counsel as of october of two thousand and five with a power of attorney to deal with the internal revenue service on their behalf they've got counsel


proven we can look at we can say a few things about britain if there was a twenty seven percent expenditure that was found to be but but we don't have money you have to plan my understanding was always that when there's only one case in the appellate


but because of the triple fusion are creating limitations on physical movements that would disqualify somebody from doing certain


nothing specifically on this because i don't think it has been addressed but i do crows every claim i asked a recent arbitration under cruise under the consumer fraud act even if they had case a gone to jury trial it still would have been for the


said you might lose and she couldn't tolerate a very small increased risk of night vision complaints so i think that that is a subject object of standard their testimony went in and


where you have a very strong case that the defendant was negligent and your client is not one hundred percent negligent certainly but before injury


prevent a p it's not because they suspected he had one it is to prevent one given his underlying medical condition his age and the fact that he was bedridden he had an oxygen saturation of eighty percent is


the twenty second she acquiesced in or as of the twenty or twenty three so when she returned to work on the morning of the twenty third that her acquiescence in the order entered by dr went twenty four hours


and administration of overt acts during this admission and furthermore anything that a doctor doesn't apply or occasion doctor's personal practice is not relevant to establish the standard of care and that's all he was trying to do with this stay see this is what they did the


he for the load not for the robots he got three doses for the olympics there were many things that he he did not except at various times so he knew how to make a refusal so yes my position would be that he would refuse and he did refuse when


discussed and it was just determined that if a page if the the doctors write a prescription and bad prescription is going against the patient's will because they have absolutely no consent at all to the medication as they did in the


policy into play as the plaintiff has done here is not sufficient to establish a clear official case for negligence or for battery i would also submit again that the proximate cause of this man's death was his underlying medical condition


wrestling when i remember her saying precisely and so when the question becomes right was the evidence supporting the circuit court judges conclusion that more likely than not she


in the possession of my client and i think it's very important to emphasize the fact that this is an illinois land trust an illinois land


litigation of a valid claim whatever the nature and extent of this rent claim is in the court has seen what the rent claim is in the briefs we submitted herm's road had a valid rent claim


on the motion to dismiss and i my fear your honor is that the the issues relating to the proposed class will have an improper impact if you will on whether these particular plaintiffs can stay to claim under the


as set forth in the bylaws well here the trial court properly determined that the medical studies that protected the information that dr campbell got was seeking in his role to twenty four petition that's the identities


claim and inquire about in this case based on the the facts that are alleged in claiming second amended claim we know that they believe that there and it's and that sister in one case


you understand what i'm saying i understand you're saying but the allegation of the titian read together or that there was not only this statement but this is reading conjunction with the allegation that there is no discussion


similar just that he the jury is is in one of the best positions to so in the juries in one of the best decisions to make a determination as to the


and again where the court has said on the record that it's considering the victim status when murder was the offense we can't presume that that didn't play a significant role in the court's decision if there are no other questions


page thirty five is that he did not believe that he had the discretion to go forward with an evidentiary hearing i agree with that but he that's that's what he said he believed he didn't have the discretion to do that but the defendant takes that very important step


and i think that sort of exclusion has never been an attack on second amendment grounds the only cases that i've found that are dressed it said that it is still proper to regulate guns and to prohibit minors


patients that are sixteen or younger that didn't switch on the skew to the informed consent issues of the same regardless of whether it's a child or an adult the only difference is informed consent is given to an adult when the child isn't bought but otherwise the standard of


designation based upon experience rather than some third party's record what kind of experience a doctor ruiz have regarding this very same specialty if you're talking about experience what that he testified to


also testifies in court at no point did she say that you know that there was any type of insertion of the finger or that even that down might have been or did she's not sure because she wasn't awake she doesn't say anything to that effect and she specifically says and one


and he also said that the reason that he said he did something was because that he answered this litany of yes or no questions and then signed this statement that wasn't really in its material parts so i think there's a there's a two part theory there but another


traction make any complaints to you of pre term labor on january twenty sixth two thousand and three answer no she never did there was never a question specifically put to dr although that that matched the allegations


have held against us there was no suitability requirement in commodities churning we could have been guilty from training we didn't have discretion over the over the accounts high pressure salesmanship there


know you allow all four amended complaints to be filed because you want the plaintiff the winner you want the plaintiff to get something back or something like that but he he go out for many complaints because he felt that there was


to interest or play defend defendant together and then it says because they were the actual parties in the interest we impose upon them and it necessarily follows that they each are the other the duty to exercise the highest


having targeted one particular insurance company and letting them defend you and then suddenly bringing other insurers in and then like you did it as you say as you get to try out recently third unstressed company has had nothing to


precisely and so and after the grandmother of the eighteen year old found out about it then the mother of the child found out about it correct and


verdict in this case when there's a general verdict the case is clear when there's a general verdict you sentence him on the most serious offense and in this case it's the intentional murder right and he said one in


judge took that away from from the jury it's opportunity to determine whether mr hayes was only disregarding a substantial risk and bus guilty of involuntary manslaughter


we don't know the particular weight but again when all we have are these out of court statements that are implicating and very you know we can assume that they must have been given a lot of weight and


testimony that said in my opinion to a reasonable degree scientific certainty there is no substantial probability that mr lieberman will be i don't think he used those exact words are all right do


but he was routinely using her people to take her to work wasn't he yes he did routinely use the car to take her to work but if he only car that would lend greater weight to the state's case that he had knowledge of what would be


on that limited issue i'm not i'm not i'm not arguing that she made an error in i wouldn't be arguing that she thought she'd made an error in assessing the credibility of david service if she


and we have we have you will take you take a hit you get seven years if the judge wanted to make an issue of leniency he could have chosen different language to do so and the state points out that the defense is placed so that the fan no cases i have the case that comes closest to this in


case they didn't their ability to detain or find these three guys was not dependent on whether or not mr jones was detained and in my case they found the videotape because it somebody else mailed it in you have a great you


inquire as to what is the cause of the breakdown in communication the government asserts that the breakdown in communication is is not enough he has to point to legitimate grievances as in all relationships communication breakdowns between attorneys and clients don't happen spontaneously they're


at all not by race not by gender not by clothing no nothing so even if there's reason to believe that somebody was inside room for forty three dollars with a gun there's no basis to suspect anybody in particular who's not in that room i thought maybe i'm


to the route where you could take classes of individuals and probably enough but if if you start requiring individual evidence is there a cut off and that's what i'm troubled with is what if we say three thousand dollars ok


taxpayer need only act consonant with his good faith understanding of what the tax law required and so in that case i do think that it's a correct statement of law i just don't think it was clear to the jury how these two different interact these two instructions interact and so are you asking us to


exactly why our office tells agents that we want to comply with those nice practice and maybe it's my fault for taking you giving you the hypothetical because let's assume for a moment do you couldn't search space


challenge not a written get his laptop back he has a remedy under rule forty one gene and what that remedy is is that he has to file a motion here he didn't even make a request for the laptop but he'd have to file a motion and then the district court would


and let the and let them know that twenty days is not acceptable and they should be more sensitive to the need to proceed with haste and still not apply an exclusionary rule well i but i think the question of whether the


predicates need to have no impact at all and so that that i think is it is quite far afield from the argument that rico in itself that the way the statute is drafted is some sort of a


facts the specific facts you know well it would have been then i guess as applied to the facts of the case would have to know not just that the superior court was an enterprise but the essential scope and nature of the


about instructions with regard to interstate commerce yes where is that in your in the blue brief the instructions on interstate commerce where is your argument you've made as to objecting raising as an


instruction as to the commerce clause was raised on appeal i do not recall i don't recall any citation the police to that issue i think what has been raised in the opening brief are two issues one was the sufficiency


i think we've covered everything but i'd be happy to answer any further questions or something i don't believe we have any additional lives thank you very much


basis i think that directly contradicts the footnote itself but that's or time that's so if we decide that you know if you have any other evidence in the all supreme court doctrine that marital status got something other than rational well i think we can look at the remedy itself in morality santana


this court pointed out in fernandez chrystia where a point where it said thomas is a pretty obvious u k so that's a case before the supreme court has said you cannot entirely discount something from the reasonable suspicion calculus the nd point i would make on thomas is that


what really gets to what is right is the court is because we are dealing with a regulation that really just derives from a different statute that statute requires that there is a conspicuous posting of


the state of california that is no question and if permit ing is an official government act and i'd like to turn now to the record in this case the defendant's statements in recorded meetings with the undercover agent are evidence the defendant said that although


as i understand misspells argument on behalf of mr kim brew is that he essentially made a false promise because there's no indication or no evidence that the city of compton was even considering allowing a limited


for keeping the direct proffer under seal on the public record even though the defendant specifically complained about having


their background and experience of those witnesses was used in the way it was in the sequence in which it was used and i appreciate that you are and i and i would note i think it's really three separate sort of interpretations that wasn't working throughout all of


and this court has asked you know as to which party bears the burden on constructive knowledge and you know we would submit that based on the supreme court's decision a moose


in response to it the judge didn't say oh my gosh you're right forget what i just said there's an appeal waiver he said well you can so appeal to the extent that the appeal waiver doesn't prevent it is that the right thing to say


related conduct if you didn't have that then you could have a situation in which every time somebody served some marginal sentence on a related state con that they would have ever greater incentive to rejoin the conspiracy upon their release so


arguing that that local rule is unconstitutional your honor we're arguing that that we complied with the local rule and that that local rule of the very language of the local rule sorry doesn't preclude cross examination of an officer's declarations when they're provided in


that's really not clear and i direct the court to layer as well but you your whole challenge is based on the idea that this is going to let them search for devices so i'm a little confused it is going to let them search for devices but the but i think what you're on i was talking about is the effort ported limitation on that ability to search if it's


agree that mr thomas had sort of the general markers of competency understood the proceedings against him he could communicate with his attorney the only question really in terms of competence with the extra that extra piece of understood being able to appreciate that he had a


what this defendant asked for again and again was the opportunity to remain even in asking for a voluntary departure his answer as to why he should be granted voluntary departure was quote i'm trying to stay here


it can't be used if it's expired or cancelled there is no evidence actually that the data was all we do know that victims who have been victimized once can be victimized again and that's indicated in the victim's statements are so right but you seem to


got to hear all this and they could understand that maybe the government had made a whopping error and maybe they should a charge that against the government and said not guilty but they didn't so what is


that the district court could have consider and there are no negative credibility findings in the record before this court counsel you suggested that we my to take into consideration in effect of assistance at this in this proceeding but did you raise that


was a miscarriage of justice or that the evidence preponderate or the other way i don't understand the argument but i don't understand the argument that we should import error into an analysis where the district court stated the right standard so this court stated the right


of the same crime help you determine anything about what's at issue in this case other than he is your opponent i think persuasively put it in his brief he did it before my goodness it must be him doing it again well you're right i would


have facts that would be much more problematic for your side of the case if they had occurred and say even that wouldn't matter we don't need to get there right there are enough your honor in that even aside from the extra judicial


fact involved that they would follow a person a potential witness i don't know the oddnesses is not a great argument for you because i do find the gun in the car later it's warm so i mean well i


exhibit i don't think i can see through the back window as his actual front window is rolled down so you can't see that but there's a window right behind him and i i couldn't tell that that window was tented the government in this case is now indicated it's not relying on


there's the other gentleman the step outside they don't ask of the shooter they have guns out and they tell him to step outside why isn't that reasonable suspicion that he may be in gauged in some activity with just


been selected and i now don't feel comfortable i don't understand what that question means or what's what is significance yes sure and i agree you


had a mortgage rescue conspiracy that convinced homeowners to sign over their homes with a promise that if their dad and avoid foreclosure conspirators then charge rent on the homes for a while because they could before ultimately letting the foreclosures happen anyway


seven further north of the pretty allotment but whether or not the six the states exceeds in its claims against the federal government doesn't mean that there's not a public necessity for the trails that are existing on the


miles to get to you can read or to the north of the pretty allotments is actually more order and then introducing you get your car and drive on the highway so this doesn't matter the other part of the a little trail that causes an issue is that it's not


the case back to him so factually mean how do you take issue with that but i think the reason your honor is that the case is that defense counsel proffer the district court actually jettisoned completely and those were the proper comparative cases because they involved


findings about that and that's what really triggered his high sentence and i reading it wrong i don't think that's incorrect your honor but i think the the problem here if you look at it cumulatively as you said the st thing i understand that a fine seems to minimalist


with tools and that that person mr gomez were working together and that when the sensor went off or they saw someone coming the person with the ladder and all the tools and everything else jumped back over the fence and mr gomez wasn't able to get back i want to get back to


answered that there are there have been convictions that have been up held but i would note to your honor's that there is nothing in these statements that should give this court any comfort undoubtedly your honour's of all answered those questions before


say and i think that more and more and much in this case from the supreme court two thousand and sixteen talks about how that is an area that affects substantial rights even if the sentence falls within the guidelines range if the different


may please the court this case is about whether a state prisoner who has been completely excluded from all in prison work programs based solely on his medical stated a claim upon which belief can be granted in his complaint to the district court to


god he recovers from whatever he had and he recovers then you're going to say king's x we get the money back yeah you're saying what no what i'm saying is that if he represents to us that i can


that based on representations that he made your doctor said well you know there's nothing shown to come through but what you're saying is your doctor is in fact down to believe the status that he was saying and i'm trying to


this is not the type of decision and also statute


at some point when they later cleared the area they were not able to find the suspect so they think the suspect might have been there all along but got away while they were got away at some point during the commotion that was caused when mr maney


in the district court ruled in this matter that despite the fact defendant world wrestling entertainment sold d v d s with the infringing music on it made money off a pay per view broadcast with the infringing music on it


three hundred in the beginning of february you know those disclosures don't speak to the number of people that they lost throughout the period of time i'd also like to briefly touch on the the


primary a convention or so forth are in all respects similarly situated the law makes no difference the law cannot discriminate between an incumbent and the challenger they are similarly situated as as regards legal protection so what standard we use for that is a rational


your interpretation is not necessary to prevent somebody from being tried and convicted for innocent khan well that's i mean i think that's what the conduct was an innocent whether it was on


agree and understand that when you talk about a base salary whether here in kuwait you're talking about the arab the rate times forty hours a week times fifty two weeks a year that's your base salary you're telling us that these two things these two offer letters


received on the foreign travel letter i don't know that the court you know you better position right well judge diaz in fact if if we were to look just at a straight hourly wage and you can find this i think at the declaration of brooke


so for all of those reasons i think if you conclude that these documents are susceptible to two reasonable readings if someone could look at it and say i think i'm still being paid an hourly wage despite salary differential and so forth and if somebody else could


didn't realize until he saw that people were being paid at an hourly rate for all of their hours and were and in doing that were making twice as much as he was making and also when the c


are construing the contract the fourteen dollars an hour is that that's what we paid point you know they eventually realized they weren't getting thirty two dollars an hour and they didn't comply or they did complain they admit that but they didn't


computer science is intended that they get paid hourly stacked on top of everything else and she said well certainly it was because they had about a dozen employees who were paid hourly here's the problem with that it joint appendix four seventeen we


coming as i was saying we will take it out of the business side of this soon as we can so that you out can get back to doing those things which you do best and so we will do our duty to get it decided without undue


and then not living up to that in takings and in some cases enormous losses to benefit its positions in the forward markets that is injecting false information the liable for decision that we've included in the courts to the court in the twenty eight


regulators allow exactly the kind of conduct that's allowed here they the p c t gave a voluntary mitigation plan that authorizes in fact incentivized entities that are small fish to do exactly what's being attacked here and so


never been used before would be akin to what your owner pointed out with my friends argument housing subdivisions that are are completed but not yet occupied you know the supreme court i think and taylor


american citizens residents of virginia at the time in maryland against mary out whose home kind of quarters are in maryland the gravity of the complaint was that the planning that mary ott did with regard to


implication impacted the court's analysis or created an abuse of discretion but the problem is you can see that their interpretation is all about the language of what is normally there's


he is a child born of the marriage from what he has presented because the burden is on him to show the mexican law how does he were but that presumption under mexican law is what i'm understanding that you're asking i don't know based on what he has argued he claims as a matter of


the record on the on the bill the books for as many as much as four or five years i don't know that she said we'll wait until we get called but that was their actual practice was for them to wait until they got called and that is exactly what ms johnson was saying was illegal thank


is that the district court was not considering a roll motion to dismiss an allegation the court was considering a motion coupled with all the facts that the parties assemble and no one has suggested that some facts


response to an inmate who is found guilty of inserting contraband in his body what are their alternatives recognizing the right however curtailed it is but recognizing a privacy rights


contraband in his body and that is a lawful option it's been held lawful routinely by this court and so then even though it's still the idea of consent is


as a result of not requiring forcing mr king to undergo surgery with what is the necessary parade of horribles monitor you would not be


send the threats somebody else sent the threats and so when judge her then goes on the record at sentencing and says that he believes that mr white gave false testimony quote unquote to obstruct justice and quote to get the jury to think that someone else other than you said


look at the position the court would put a trial judge in a district court judge you if that another words under age seventy five see under alone as the district judge called upon to apply alone and instruct under aloneness a threat has to be you know you have to


salesman while james believe that if this is the same gig that's going on these salesmen are willing to approve these sales so because the end of his haitian was extended to the jury to


strike occurred the record is seamless about moving to strike jurors and the government steadfastly maintains that nat never heard the government response to the motion for new trial some


amendment argument we absolutely asked for if your instruction and it was denied so that the instructions are correct as a matter of was in the abstract but when you change from the indicted theory to a constructively amended


point i mean you're centered in on the contractual language so i watched


now and as a result we wanted to be clear we file the notice of appeal because a we were concerned that the order was going to be considered a final appeal judgment we looked at the rules as to the hundred and fifty days for appeal of the judgment and we


defendants draw that line you look at miller for example think about all of the commercial activity that becomes relevant criminal best geishas where you want to go out and subpoena somebody who may have sold a weapon to a suspect we would have to go to a judge if


to be termed by the arbitrary so the trial court says this is all just merely procedural questions and the whole idea about we're not there should be class arbitration is merely a question of procedure that is exactly the opposite


agreement which mr weiner tells you is a standard arbitration agreement i would take issue with that i would ask you to look very closely at the arbitration agreement this case because it's a bifurcated arbitration agreement it has an arbitration agreement that's a pretty close in arbitration agreement which talks of the parties rights


american arbitration association there's a four pronged four step process we've gone through steps one and two one is the clause construction and two is the clause construction portion that's part and parcel of the record before you the clause construction ward by the


arbitration act so that brings us back to sort of the beginning of all how the thing that you do akin to classified are very well here's the answer that this of course is a matter purely in the first instance of contract and


pursuing it if you look at documentary thirty two exhibit four they say every claim that is pled in the state court calls and case is something that is subject arbitration class was pled and so were


where's the evidence that they don't look at the evidence the only thing that the rubber talks about would be their belt however it does not to take him away from the fact that trevon robinson testified in the jury can make the determination for themselves


contention that video so clear and not the fingerprint evidence is clear because in this case the thing the print was not only verified by one person was actually verified by three separate people and we brought two of those fingerprint experts to


and all this was in front of the jury the jury was aware of all of these issues but that and the jury had all of the information and more willing to take the position see findings are never admissible because they can confuse the jury it


that they were up coding and he specifically asked are you up coding he was off these calls and baker said no we were not up coding and so they flatly lied they lied on the calls they said no that they're and they lied to analysts and investors


relation people in e mails and phone calls outside those conference calls or


have evidence of much of the connection between the promise and him regarding the i so i was with think if there were you know if they were concerned with the destruction of evidence


brief the following facts were not even mentioned that jones was arrested running out the back door bare chested that the blue and white shirt was found in the apartment was that it was had been i d d is the shirt that sergeant medina saw the


here there's no evidence demonstrating how this attorney would have impeached or and jackson was not an eye witness and the attorney did not fail to impeach or and the defendant agreed not to call the attorney as a witness after having it fully discussed with him that's what the


impeachment not substantive evidence so it certainly cannot be ineffective assistance of counsel to not impeach retracts then was something that didn't exist and even if impeachment did exist it was a strategic decision not to


testimony on mr close it is that they come they bring this back and this is this trench that is supposed to be built for these transformers the two of them they work on one in the morning they lift these hundred fifty pound transformers on


judge you know there's a question about whether or not he does make the judge does make a comment that the petition doesn't even raise any claims of actual innocence or anything of the sort so it's hard to tell whether or not it's simply that he is a


was a great deal of effort made to get the i c c interested in the case they never expressed any interest in powering up the only evidence in the record on the act that i can point to judge is the matter


mechanism even by the defense experts is that with a hole in the door without a communication into these subdural space where the nerves of the spinal canal exist if you put it


the statute of limitations the case law in this area that we cited in that candidly the defendant site simply does takes a completely different approach well what is the approach that you're advocating it will become i don't


happy authority to have consummated that


and he even admits when he testifies that he lost control of the knife or he got control of the knife excuse me and then he you know put it down went to check on this guy left the knife with miss graham berry so there was also some evidence to the


employment income from which she can earn up to a certain level there is investment income in other words the income on the assets that she was receiving was specifically excluded from the calculation contrary in the in the agreement that was reached the contract


facts in taylor let more foreseeability to the to the to the violence that happened in that offense and in this case in taylor the driver knew his passenger was armed he stopped the car at the r man's request


it doesn't appear that it's a conflict in that it appears that it was how the parties were attempting to describe what happened to the two cars but again it goes back to try of fact issue because it


anything like that he never said he was unsure he never said the police told him who to pick out never said he was drunk detective mohanned testified at trial that he never said he was unsure so the notion that he was unimpeached is just flat out wrong he was certainly a drug


and there is neither federally nor in illinois any such right for the defendant to turn around a right that he has where he can simply is not allowed to be compelled to wear jail guard but now he can compel other people to


structure is a collection of the old costs from the old past years because that's what the the whole idea of the test here is what i mean is would you say yes or it's this notion why you're i apologize i


there's no basis you don't know that that's what they'd actually charge this company for doing it you know the act if they actually set down and did they would actually decide whether cost would be how much they need to make a profit sometimes if it would be lower than what they publish is the rate


if requested evidence that evidence was not what was required where the commissions where commissions teeth on this and at the answer i think is that the commission's response is it's to


raised this issue several times when trial court the state again did not bring up this argument in any of those proceedings


legislature didn't intend for each of those to be a tree or the way that it's written it applies exactly the way that this court explained back in two thousand and four that both acts of agri from a sexual assault all are being


case law makes clear that this kind of right is a that although contingent is a vested property right they have a vested property right to that corpus it may be contingent on their father dying


when they were walking to the apartment the boy was not being forced or held or coerced he willingly helped mr black with the groceries to his apartment now as he was trying to leave mr black again offered to pay him money for his help and the boy


the the amendment to the it was amended but i don't think that the amendment went so far as to to give credence to this particular situation the amendment just altered section four of the illinois interest act did


clarifying provision that is paragraph five of section four and which specifically states that three sixty five or three sixty basis does not violate the interest act and as a result i think that sort of takes off the table the notion


it seems a little less likely when the defendant takes the stand and says yes i committed a crime for the jury to say not guilty


red flags and the only way they can do that is by bringing in people who have health care expertise that would help them do that that's what this whole thing as i read it is about so you know even if it all gets back to gas


is on the defend that it's not this court's obligation or responsibility to meet that burden for the fandom and on appeal the defendant stated one line stand by counsel would have been useful to stone snowden in terms of helping him


representation up by easter but the thing that all of these classifications have in common is that they fundamentally they destroyed the framework of the five of the trial it's been described as systemic


speak nor do i necessarily say i want to nor can i say that the other side of this is vulnerable to skepticism and probably believe the truth here


just it is a big haul to the scene they call in find out what happened he said his knife they are now he wants to make a phone call to find out what happened that's number one number two when victims and when when


favor us they contradict it it's but it's a you know it's a classic case where cross examination and if hearing of the expert testimony would be thank you very much i'd like to reserve as much time as i still


needs to be right there does not need to be a trial here as justice as you pointed out this really is a question of law there were there was evidence that was taken in the


of information and there were two types of claims at issue in that case and the offending conduct fell into two categories the plaintiffs in that case were prepared copyrighted equity research reports you know the five page or twenty page


case it's not the kind of copying or the publication of bit of information that's the problem as i said we think that happens all the time and that's not the offending conduct that was recognised by the court in board of import of trade it's the intangible assets that they're using


law and the diluted case the jackson jordan case those very cases of the hazard that hester case involve actions by the attorney that occurred after the case was dismissed


coherent which is an important factor in a dying declaration the statements about who did this and where it happened both did take place in the ambulance cell there were two witnesses to that statement they're both paramedics they're not police officers their primary function is to give aid


that a particular priest or reverend of the other george yes there was to that he lived on the property it was to


code is not complied what if what if it during that period of time the person that received the tax deed has sold it to someone else in good good faith and so you have a different owner and we might have a license argument


behind extensions by the tax lien buyer and the assignee well i didn't understand i don't understand what what's the purpose why would why would anyone in that situation


obligations of one set of partners or those to another and soon as a simply example where the case was permitted to remain dismissed and the partners were permitted to have proceed and sooner if there is a sense and sense which says that the


know the legislature didn't say we're adopting the new tots and so i think i agree that there is you can read the statute the way that i think your honor has suggested but i also think you


promise or was that the judges from us because the government i think of in terms of the prosecuting agency which would be cook county state's attorneys and of course they don't get into the amount of credit that the defendant will receive upon


restatement tox uses the word pretty and there was a question about why did a go off wait why didn't they intervene well you know this is not a case in which we live in a way allow for capital fitness to


the principals agreeing well the problem of course is twofold there was absolutely no evidence that this particular document was he did it the principles agreement that was you know the fact that there were no time much less than


hopefully it's this case it's want to be clear my strongest case i think it will be this case before i sit down i want to remind the court we had a second so what you're saying is that


under under department policy and rules as a matter of practice they are submitted to the district court all as progress and package and the just the court has them before it at the same time so they have the application the


the assistant united states attorney should have when the assistant united states attorney prepares the application that and the affidavit and a proposed order if then is submitted to main justice


deliberations at a time when he was known to be the one holdout after he denied any wrongdoing and expressed a willingness to deliberate and follow the law based on a challenge from a church well he would already shown himself to be anti could fence and whose challenge


alleged violent behavior or tempted by a behavior during the conspiracy all came in and in our view the instruction was that the judge gave the cover all that was


just dorgan but let me tell you about something else i mean it's outrageous conduct you know looking back on this and reading this is incredible to see how a mention of


priest from the f e c who are sitting here at my left are entitled to make contributions in any amount except to members of congress there's a different package of ethics rules on government employees as you well know and different package on contractors but the basic point


funded by the corporations who are contractors and those pacs can make the identical contributions that my clients cannot make in addition corporate officers can make contributions corporate shareholders mr armstrong you should that could be that could be a problem under


from your perspective scars out letter carriers as the as a precedent that it's approved proving of and letter carriers of course was a case that said federal service is different in the line quote it is federal service should depend on


that enough for conspiracy i think c d s of looking around for some magical extra little bit that in substance makes no difference or should make no difference i think it does make a difference and i think


why we had a approving care cips both before and after north carolina those care cypriots were compelled by section k three and they were not in error at the time they were made and i'd like to talk about that


supreme court's instruction which it issued at e p a s behest that these over control issues be addressed and resolved through as applied challenges to individual state missions budgets e p a asked for that remedy


challenge as applied challenges would necessarily be meritorious as applied challenges i think that there's no doubt that i agree completely but the there is the possibility let me just ask you this there is the


burdens that are talked about i'd like to begin actually by directing the court to page forty eight to sixty three the federal register and appendix pages three thirty two and three thirty three and also somewhat later section


but then when they got to section two c they said we recognize that uniform cost thresholds does leave open the possibility that there will be over control and that's to be address and as applied challenges and i think what's going on here is that you know the court determined


mother this child is doing well in each of the child i will bring the child back and he in fact did bring the child back that permitted him to argue that look ladies and gentlemen my client was just trying to help his son he was concerned he was


it's reasonable for congress not to have accounted for this particular narrow set of hypothetical facts that i hear you correctly earlier the on the face of the these missions in the fog of war do not make a distinction between


i think well first of all that this is the first time that we're hearing that argument and so if that argument had been presented to a judge call your she might have had a different reaction but that's not the argument that was presented there was an argument that there was a self contradiction in the in


with no no here's what i'm getting at as i understand part of the argument is that there are questions as to whether this agreement was freely and voluntarily entered into other questions as to whether the


saying is that you can't get to an usually aggravated misconduct in cases where even if the overall conclusion was bad faith by the poor there is still evidence of good faith which cuts against a finding of unusually aggravated conduct so that would be helpful if you would focus on


evidence of that v liberal ations agreement was it was an event to an attempt was made to introduce that before administrative law judge laws and she accepted i believe some of the evidence but not all of it i do believe that that was raised as


jury you're going to have to believe you have two diametrically opposed versions of the facts here you're going to have to believe one or the other and you have a perfect provided the other so once you take that away the jury if there's a negative inference all the


would have any any number of things the cases recognize the prejudice that is inherent in this type of not fulfilling this type of promise and in this case the defense was built around it was


if they had said we're going to who'll federal costs there may have been some collateral effect on commerce that would fall under the incidental or collateral type of analysis but when you go in and say we're setting the


consideration was used immediately to offset current current assets so arriving at the eighty nine million dollars arriving at the thirty million dollars of


the time delay is great for drugs that are trying to get to market in the most efficient way it's a unique burden on one industry without any real explanation for why why they would hit a kind of transaction that has never been enforced


well i'd be happy to start with that your because i don't think brand x is properly read that way that the central dispute in brand x and the ambiguity that the supreme court identified there was whether internet access service was on the one


five years it was typical hearing that took place with george mullins and keep in mind if you read his decision which is rendered orally at the end of a whole day of evidence very difficult we were new orleans was in july they shut


on that was my question so so when the back pay his order the court would have jurisdiction but when it isn't we would not and that is just very nature sovereign immunity in the appropriate


example someone argued that a federal statute limiting the terms of the operation they had to limit the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the boys said no that's not how we read that federal statute it doesn't apply in this contacts


and also be the feeds the where they go there where they gather their contents whether it be from news or french or tame and that's from all over the country and all of that coalesces into a single product which is then


our crystal for the public health interveners the cryptic statements must be considered in light of the district court's findings of massive fraud which demonstrate that public health


under normal conditions oh how how i guess my problem is how would they develop this dataset that would allow them to figure out what that margin should be right so in reading the briefs it sounds like we're dealing with a great


say hey let me look at my own facility and see what makes sense and then be let me make of my own monetary determination as to whether i want to implement that because it will save you money again is the is the sort of the


circuit stating that in the after criminal bench trial the defendant needs to file a pleading to preserve view of the legal issues in that case and i want to just say briefly with respect to the obstruction of justice argument at least four


the health insurance issue or his decision not to allow him to can continue that coverage it's not attributable to the transitional policy which pennsylvania adopted by your argument on standing is to decide a transitional


it's unnecessary for us to decide whether the requests themselves were protected activity then cite allison ellis and you've got the parent of a culture climbing to pass on whether that e mail was itself


arm is alan and then she does nothing about it shows her nefarious motive if you will and there's also all the ass that this hell takes against her following that just a few weeks


permitting was significantly improved alliance with pirates whether it impose significant burdens or the costs are justified and whether the implementation of force and programs of the relevant requirements are sufficient and e


it's also not a department of energy statute it's focusing on what for yes and one purpose arguing here is you know the siting the


no the department of energy would not go back to square one that's particularly the case with respect to the two thousand and fourteen authorizations in this particular case with respect to some let's just stick to what before


there is no there will be no increased traffic on the river sorry yes we are saying there will be no increased traffic even though there's going to be an increase in exports ok well that's not necessarily so so