place at the time of that inmate's conviction and that is it therefore did disadvantage him so of course the prison can impose a system of custody


none of this was commented a quiet upon in any way by the california supreme court and i would suggest that that was an unreasonable application of the facts to the law in this


that valued additional environmental protections over jobs and the new administration came in and and it looked at that balance and decide to strike a different balance consistent with its value is because that's the strongest one if you read the district judge


i don't see that in the rot i see that interpretation by by what you've said and what the dissent says in our lower panel they don't say they're looking for certainty they just want to settle that particular lawsuit there was nothing in there that says nothing else will happen in


relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and so i guess it comes back to the question why is it what is wrong with the state law enforcement officer going to a state court to get a state order there


all of the applications who's to say that he'd be instructed not to answer those because he's already it intil he has authority start off with a problem you don't get to have authority but you don't get authority until you have a request correct so if they if you get a request that


dwelling on the question of the state court records obviously we're not asking the court to the district federal district court to compel a state court to end over its records these records are held by the agency but they're held by detective jackson


haven't established permissions market stipulated fact if i may around have stipulated facts in the record that the c c c permissions market is well established in my functioning that the plaintiffs rely on permissions income


time and the fact that georgia state did something different in an existing market where there were licenses available and and they were being purchased


licenses anymore when they can do with the georgia state where well but the georgia state where your honor is first and foremost a nonprofit educational institution which is very different and these are works that are created for educational purposes well but


there are going to be infringements and that the publishers have to be paid under certain circumstances that has to be the case but the mere fact that licensing is available it seems to


arrest and we still take position that she was not resisting arrest she simply jerked her arm in response to being grabbed unknowingly and unexpected so given that any type of extreme


provision to his client right yes but my view my view is that doesn't get any farther than if you read it himself i mean he did writ read english this is this is a client he has a college degree yes


needs to be reviewed strictly under our written agreement from three years ago ok if they don't if they've high it doesn't properly


affidavit and there's no contention that the affidavit on its face did not provide probable cause i don't think that that that's an issue but it is important at this background at the time that we knew that law enforcement knew


you're familiar i hope with our lighting system when the yellow like goes on that means that your time is about to expire so start wrapping up if we take you beyond the lights then don't worry about it you're on our time and and not yours


this last one i think was a five year extension through twenty eighteen so it's let's talk about the merits then mr hauck what in your view a serious infraction


to acceptance of responsibility they had said they were in the plea agreement one of the promises was one of the few promises was we will not object to the recommendation for acceptance of responsibility and is as long as a probation officer and the only


city and in that case the supreme court left open or sort of hypothesized about this area of the provision of firearms to officers and the fact that they were called upon to exercise deadly worse


into him but just the fact that they all state transferred johnson after what i'll call the first and sort of more gruesome set of circumstances does the fact that they transferred him after that break the chain that stopped in the


still have i understand that yes i mean it is i what you are clear i'm asking a different question would it have been clear to the driver that that person was in fact a police officer yes it would have been clear so officer evan cohen had a vest on


these are serious medical needs now when you go to the situation later on in the deposition of asking them well in this situation mr stevenson you know does this signal to you move no clearly it doesn't but i mean what defendant that's being sued for you know killing someone


relevant legislative facts your honor mr mitchell bitch was accused of obtaining naturalization and citizenship by way of false representation as to material statements on his and four


suspicion that a burglar would be armed the subsequent retrieval of the bullet that was already identified before the hand went into the pocket did not add to the officer's knowledge it was not what justified the subsequent area search of the crime scene which


am find someone matching the description and in fairness the description was a black man with a white shirt yes so going back to judge jordan's question if this were eleven am and they also spotted a black man in a white shirt i mean


the court has no further questions i would respectfully from set forth in the briefing and here again request of the court reversed the district court's decision to deny suppression of the whole stromboli and would you would like is if you if


agreement can be enforced against national union to going directly to the contract exclusion the words of the contract exclusion say that the insurer the insurer will not be liable for losses in connection with claims made against


there is no perfect solution to the problem so the board requires the parties to develop the r t c models and then the board selects from the r t c models and it's an adversarial process and as you pointed out when you were


for a plaintiff in a fraudulent transfer case is under eleven u s c five fifty a court should avoid the transfer return the parties to the original condition and then attempt to value the result so it's helpful to go through that exercise


adjustments to it both of them increased inventory and tori's held on a balance sheet it cost not value we know that tronics made a significant margin on its inventory and reduced the liabilities by certain obligations owed to equity insiders


to test the opinions of the other experts and see if they're valid person on the protective cross appeal that's briefed the way i read the case law is if you when you can't complain about something that the judge didn't rule on at the


in this case does make some distinction the fifth circuit specifically referred to the fact that there were a substantial number of defendants in all fifty eight of those defendants could not constitute for deemed to be a primary defendant for purposes here and i think it's


significant counsel in response to a question stated that this provision was not in the agreement in two thousand and nine and in fact that's absolutely wrong and that's a key issue and if you turn to


problem came about well yes aaron and the buck stops here in terms of the drafting of the pleadings and if they were confusing and confusing to the trial court that's certainly on me but i believe this


physical evidence that a jury could look at and say they could completely know if that definitely because the officers testimony itself is conflicting they don't know they don't know who shot what first because rutherford gives a different version and hoarsely


around i saw a vest i saw illumination and then it was hoarsely as he went down suggesting that the first shot came from officer whitener is that not that's pure speculation or rather he's a witness on the scene you want me to


and allow where the parties can fully briefed all of the issues and at the very least allow us if necessary the opportunity to both correct any pleading deficiency that there may be and a good introduce evidence


make a later is there any reason to remand with regards to the aggravated assault conviction yet you've got you've got binding precedent in this circuit


was a murder attempted murder where the defendant actually shot someone so that's in the one as a part of the statute and then ask themselves bait is premeditated attempted premeditated murder is that a violent felony


clos to him and if you think that first degree murder doesn't fit in there for the reasons you've articulated then it seems to me that there's a pretty good argument that aggravated assault does count because you've got just one opinion out there


fifty four time bar so we have this confluence of outs so to speak for seek or petition or that would allow them to get around the one year time bar is so when you add all these things in


justified this ability to characterize goodell as being the new sheriff who wasn't going to tolerate that question about jurisdiction you have to allege the citizenship of all the partners


no your honor that phrase says the not been presented and that's one of the problems with the injunction order and what i'd like to do is there are three issues that i'd like to address today and that's one of the issues that i'd like to read because these are critical questions and i think your honor


you your honor may please the court jack straw on behalf of the defendant palance the district court in this case rested its decision upon the mistaken conclusion that evaluation of the navy's


emergency was expected was foreseeable i think the real question becomes in light of the evidence that was forseeable did the navy make reasonable decisions or negligent


million reasons to you fully and so you know the fact that it's in and a missed labeled provision of the contract i'm not really sure how far that gets you well you've got to look at twelve and thirteen as fifth third pointed out the two are independent paragraphs we


partying needs to move to him and their complaint simply asking to amend the complaint in opposition to a rule twelve decision is insufficient that's been repeated over and over again that did not happen what


just want to emphasize what set issue on the subpoena on this appeal raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion when determining that under rule twenty three it could


my understanding is that he has no legal no no duties for the company other than legal duties the fact of the matter is is that you general was the general counsel at this time of the signing of arbitration agreement or vice president


so i think that what this case boils down to frankly is a claim that's familiar to parents all across the country of it's not fair it's not fair that you heard her late motion and not arly motion but i think that the facts of this case


heat of passion we cannot tell by looking at the verdict in this case whether in the court found that this had been a killing done with expressive malice and if it had not been dissipated and heat of passion a valid finding


there's no evidence that mr griffin this decision was based on some inaccurate stereotype that he had for older workers in fact he testified that ms robinson did an excellent job as manager the only


intent to say that you can win millions of dollars in an impact case purely because there is this almost intuitive impact upon racial minorities who are disproportionately


this court was inclined to send this back it wouldn't need to because had that judgment remain intact it would have been over then and that's what should have happened


a employee and with the city for many years he suffered from alcoholism and that led to his first and second dui of these


contrary to their own regulations nothing in the regulations nothing in the forest service manual allows the agency a choice of whether to comply with oil or creates an exemption from for ya for fee waivers


consistent with the purposes of point and there applicable here it seems to me that you live and so i've got i've got to have a reason not to find those applicable


so within a year of that she needed to have pursued with a geisha in court in order to be within this period of limitations didn't she know why because she had two years because she


the motion for discretionary appeal that's his order that that's the only order and there's not even a notice of appeal in the dark in this case this in and there is one in a different district court case but not in this one so why we say the


on something would fail to notice things going on around him in the periphery so this was very important to the notion that valdez lack the knowledge that polanski had gone and gotten the gun which was what his defense was when


well i think that the


doesn't have to be the exact same language they just found them in any fair and it doesn't have to be specifically the county in virginia like the


provide for payments through the use of rates that take into account providers to the commission of providers specific mention of cost and that are reasonable and adequate to meet the cost which must be incurred by each patient efficiently and


and the question is for these defendants their product does it cause damage to other property and clearly bostic sealant by failing causes damage to other property and the other property here is the completed window


well and that's precisely what struck products i thought a lot seeks to place responsibility and liability from vanda market all the way through to the present your ability you're just throwing the economic loss knocking out the window with your interpretation of what the product


and with respect to the continuing violations theory which would apply only to the excuse me with respect to the continuing violations theory the


sufficient evidence for evidentiary and factual matters not legal and constitutional issues over which this court under a petition preview of a criminal alien can review and constitute consequently we would


colloquy mr here alone indicates that he is not aware of a valid court order he says in the plea colloquy i was confused by the court orders there was one court order that required his surrender on march fifth there was another court


that entirely differently they did not act consistent with the position that they've taken during the course of litigation but you can't and i ask you just sort of the


in for a brief period of time which was if you were on probation and committed a felony you get a life sentence and here's where the that's where the problem is if this didn't you didn't exist he would have received a


complaint in state court to go after the recovery of the civil penalties and i would ask the court to compare and contrast that with asic is saying to this court as well hey we got penalize six thousand bucks for destroying the bradys orchard and destroying their


that door to be locked in order to afford on the case when mr lawrence comes up and says no it was open i'm sure it was open he investigates he goes to the prison he stands where officer lauren was standing he says i don't think lauren was


courts determination and i think that indeed is entitled to a presumption


that mr fein prepared for mr sonnets which in turn was handed to mr that that mr van dyck the stockbroker had disclosed mr chandler's investment style and the general size of his


a construction project can be framed as a negligence claim because then under the grant of coverage and damages for which the insured you can legally yes whether it's


their employment and they would have been covered by feel so the assassin and metropolitan cold cases are the only ones that support the plaintiffs position and even they don't support planes physician on any of the commute being covered by feel or there are no cases


douglas feel compelled i just as black wrote a scathing dissent and i think there were two other justices who join in but francis is the law of the land these these clauses are are still valid and nothing has changed boring


you have in your brief from a california so it claims that act says that it's a plaintiff does not comply with these requirements the exhaustion etc or cannot because of the action of state officials the potential claims


you to hold the matter in but in advance all of what's commonly done in haiti is cases and allow the individual to go to stay court present the claim including his claim that he shouldn't be required to exhaust his prisoner of these because


warrant in support of the arrest warrant was filled with conclusions lies misstatements and


was saying in the foundation case it's so different from this case i mean it was a can charge there were a notice of censure of the wrong address there was originally a dispute as to the amount the minute the tenant


go against your conscience is it reasonable for me to assume that you might just obey my instructions or not follow my instructions and mr black it is reasonable for you to assume that now this all took place


and in that course in that case this court repeated what he said over and over again which is district court factual findings on jurisdictional issues have to be accepted unless clearly erroneous it brightens view of what allegations need to be accepted for purposes of


secondly in the pacific bell case the permanent there were permanent rates there that were closed to administrative review there was the possibility under state law of


the pennsylvania commonwealth court will be in a much better position to decide this issue there's there's no reason to reverse the district or suspension order here in order to have these issues litigated in the hawaii district court


held that the fact that in ohio as it may have known that arnold schwarzenegger was located in california could not be something more that the effects test requires in its drafting


and i think of research actually really thoroughly identify the term title is broad it's not defined in the policy in this instance kelly had a license to exclusively use this i m t logo it was their exclusive property right to use it in this country and the cases are


order is not currently appealed from that issue was not specified as the issues presented for review by this court if as i understand the argument mr archer is making it's that in the earlier


disparity of interests between the objecting party and the class representatives to settle the case the injuries of the objecting party arose after the expiration of the settlement fund for agent orange and injured injuries so


could the jury have to be nuts to come up with any amount over fifty thousand dollars no they didn't clearly this is a situation where the jury of the case is even that the defendant relies on the hershey chocolate case where


of cynthia like her deposition excerpts are that exhibit eleven in the appendix these witnesses allegedly were involved in removing the morphine from the


that testimony and credibility alone is not sufficient to raise a material i genuinely


you have of a malfunction is the amount of morphine in the tube on the date of death and that is the most significant the only thing you have correct it's a race if there is evidence in this record that there were thirty


be that even if you knew that it was a federal law enclave that you still have a separate clock under fourteen forty two because the decision of whether to move out of federal enclave is a completely different decision than it is this new move is a federal officer if you don't know you're being sued as a federal officer


v m a police officer claim that's not the family claim so when the government's brief says that the b i a projected the claim for lack of evidence this point to the one part of the motion to reopen is


about the number of times he was attacked and he changes his testimony he says they called me in two thousand and four they called me in two thousand and thirteen two thousand and fourteen and that's the day i packed and then he says how many times were you caught in homosexual activity two times


that's the one i was caught january march the times anyone sees me they come after me with a machete to hurt me so in total you were attacked five times why did you say three times well two thousand thirteen was when i was caught red handed then the other was


targeting this petition or because they wanted to recruit and there's a long line of cases census levels are tiago and rica's resists are just a really long line of book publishing and published case that say


get a little concerned that the district court reached this issue so the district court reached the ineffective assistance of counsel arguments but without having a hearing and it seems that maybe you do have a point that these need further development but usually we don't develop these things on


agree that the testimony would be consistent with the written statement and believable then testimony is not necessarily required and again that can ignore to an applicant's benefit where an applicant does not want to relive the trauma


and look only to the evidence of future torture then the question would be are all members of m s thirteen who seek to leave the gang eligible for cat relief in the united states because if they return to el salvador they will likely be killed if the


stayed he was exercising within the boundaries of his home he was very clear on that that is not an inconsistency he then stated he lost consciousness which he changed to semi consciousness and


the the other area i want to ask about is the inconsistency regarding whether mr singh's grandfather received threats before the august two thousand and ten attack did mr singh have an opportunity to explain that i didn't see it


it has to do with the penalty phase and we've already spent i think two hundred thousand dollars how much are we going to spend on this the amount of money you're going to spin can't determine what the


blindness here there there are police officers and the employee of his father who would be willfully blind to the murder of him or even murder him themselves possibly hernandez believes that one of


immigration judges reliance on that alleged inconsistency as further evidence that it's it's not supported by substantial substantial evidence and i


person and i know i think you can do that and i'm hoping that you well absolutely now you want me to get into the july first twenty thirteen order and decision of involuntary disbarment


as the government observes the minimum is about an hour to an hour and a half depending on how you interpret the the record because there was a comment about a break took place at two thirty eight there was a discussion


the district court had very good reason not to want to inquire further and i would also note that i think inquiring further would of not change the calculus even if a juror had seen this particular display it's not the type of display that is so


and i don't you know cops are allowed unfortunately i think it's bad law cops are allowed to lie and interrogation you may go to judge watchwords point about the voluntariness a waiver of counsel but how does it make the that the


flies mission i think that the statue creates two categories your honor i think if i understand the petitioner's argument he's arguing that it creates more than two categories of aliens who are


because at this point you have you know a motion to dismiss is a shortcut to the voice of trial but once you have a trial leave had the best deal process available no system so that washes out any prior


flight from persecution and i just wanted to make that point about that letter i think i think some of some of the characterization of like why she brought the letter with her i think was mischaracterizing


but if you go with salazar in kuranda which i think is distinguishable for a number of reasons all you can be held liable for is what was inside that box for possession and that's point eight four grams and i did the calculations on that it ends us right back where we


deposition is is much less than what it is while it might be a substitute for under the sixth amendment there's a lot to be desired is all theory i'm hearing nothing


obtained and so based on that i think you know he expressed a stated that numerous times throughout the hearing it's very hard to think that he considered anything else given the fact that on the second time around the judge did know about


do have to consider the circumstances surrounding it i agree but the first prong if it is clear i think it's pretty clear that you are green implicitly or openly


afternoon your honour's andrius st joy and for the defendant roig holmes i first very briefly like to touch on the the mistrial issue this case was was really largely about it intent the actual


crime it doesn't apply can you hypothesize how someone could make a knowing false statement in good faith how someone can make a statement they knew to be false in good thing


instead the importance of the fact that there was a generally rising standard of property values and it was a security itself it was the underlying property that was more significant despite that proffer the district court excluded


to say look there was really no intent to defraud here these were investors who were going out and and giving the industry generally what it was asking for at the time your time is running out but i wanted to ask you


last why wasn't that sufficient because it doesn't give the breakdown for us in the in the last case that a case i had where the breakdown was ok they were putting in x amount of money for fines they were putting in x amount of money for


intelligence on her former employer the cali drug cartel she petitions this court for several forms of relief to address the risk she faces as a drug informant because her criminal conduct ceased in one thousand nine hundred five before your ira this court should


you were not able to flush out and we would have shown then answer the question so the main piece of information was the motivation for them


invited his counsel to return and ask more questions after she gave her series of questions invited him to do a redirect he didn't take it i don't believe and when mr


more status right i mean the person is not just reading it don't you don't have to believe me believe the bible the word of god to christians so why didn't he just suppose she hadn't brought the bible in but if you're you know studied the bible


at here at step one the court ask where the context was possibly prejudicial you know the meaning it had a tendency to be injurious to the defendant if so the contact is


supreme court precedent what the extortion was it included threats obtaining of property by threats to non tangible property that was not really disputed and what the sentencing commission did was to shave that part of the


you could go to the marshals or go to the court and simply say listen i think there's a problem with these laws with with the defendants there they should be separated i can't give you the exact details but there is need to separate these these two we think that that would be the in the best course of action


the blame is mostly on michael's but grossberg himself is saying listen i can't rise to the occasion i haven't complied with certain things that i need to do that i should have been doing these in meeting that he's at least contributing to the problem he's claiming chambers


of government forces in jamaica and to the extent that he attempts to satisfy that burden the immigration judge reasonably deduce that actually what that's not the case in light of the record evidence that i just


other courts have said the same thing can you remind me what we have in the record that's speaks to the question whether the p l o i guess itself directed or authorized terrorist activities as opposed to whatever we're going to call the subgroups that


this case the offer to sell is a substantial to of crime because it's it's mentioned within the drug statute that i'm sorry i'm not understanding i understand it is but i mean that you could put the two


defend that as certainly an example of shifting testimony the applicant initially testified that the specific men who attacked him in july of two thousand and nine recognized him as a member of the b s p placed on a


that on the record as a whole doing an individualized analysis of what this petitioner offered that humanitarian cylon was it was not something that he would grant and i think it's there's nothing to say that it was arbitrary irrational or contrary to


argue that there were be i e cases in which to respond to every opening was granted in similar circumstances and that he should get reopening under that line of cases right i be argued that the court had reopened correct


viable remedy is the money damages and for a discussion of what happens to remedies when the employers change the nature of their business i would point the court to em hard industries nine zero seven f


because the the holding that there was no prejudice was direct plea in a related to the court's assessments of materiality for the same reasons under cooper b neven at this point should find that the default was not


because mr snow did not think that his case was being governed by the at the anyway based on the wording of the nine hundred and ninety seven dismissal order mr snowden didn't believe that his case was going to be governed by and he did brief that the nature of the dismissal order stated that the at the didn't apply


that was discovered as parts of the car are removed and there's not a claim i have heard from your claim that this car was ready for inspection and order from the very beginning in fact it is the case that it took time for


exist these rights exist but you can compete to pay them five thousand dollars a year i mean that it particularly if there are if it's not linked to nil rights i mean there's there's no possible argument that this is in pay for


order to prepare an order so the prevailing party determination was if we were going to prevail and you were to enter your to prepare an order the supreme court standard as i understand it is when the court has given its final word


on the subject that's sufficiently final and there's no requirement to have a piece of paper file this is not necessary necessary that's what i understand the supreme court standard to be not not in the


the fact that it's different isn't a complete explanation for why it is at least with regard to just chill involvement somewhat less rigorous and i gather that with regard to other


sponsor instructing the jury that this witness war two halfs and that depending on the nature of the testimony he could either rely upon hearsay or he couldn't you could rely upon hearsay and


doesn't mean that he has to do two record touring acts it doesn't mean that he has to know who is going to do that to rack touring acts only that the gang itself will do that the evidence of that in this trial was legion first


inducement is no more than ordinary and the defendant's familiarity is strongest argument that he couldn't produce the two ounces is to say that


of contexts it is wrong it is no longer valid law to cherry pick amount or getting paid that was the basis here that is not the right legal analysis your honor asked earlier if you send it back to


in an unusual posture in light of the last few comments of the court with respect to the unit of damages i'm kind of urging the court not to intervene with the award of punitive


the intent to the motion to intervene i guess what you're telling me is that there's really nothing in the record that tells us in the record what i am sure and what the other attorneys were


a special ed centers all special it centers are our special day classes that happen to be in their own campus ninety five percent of school districts don't have special at centers if you need a nonpublic school because you can't be with any children who are non


about thirty three percent well give me a second let me let me play it out a little bit to the district has historically had a hugely disproportionate reliance on the use of segregated campuses to educate students with moderate to severe disabilities this over


overbroad completely but the issue here was harm in another words what you had was representations being made to these parents everything's going to be fine the entire facility is going to be transferred onto the general education campuses so when august you


area don't know what to do and really what's happening is they're abrogating from the system they're just keeping their kids at home that's where you are truancy issue and that's the most dangerous thing here you need a systematic change it's what is this about this is about class council representation


testimony or right this judge had to read one hundred forty three pages of their declarations over two hundred pages of their declaration of steel waiting for me i'm still waiting for ok i'm going to get it right now at


he had to do it himself it's not fair to the judge aside from what it did to counsel it's just not fair to the others that would be somewhat helpful to me for you to address is the cross check


all of the various types of claims and he proceeded to try twelve cases ok and out of those twelve cases then of applying collateral stop last soon found the facts in the remaining cases that were not actually try


directly anyway intended to benefit in consumers well and the end at some level they were because nobody really cares about the electric companies trading power with each other in the end to get sold to the consumers well that's true your honor in the


character twenty years i don't know the case of my top of my head but in the sixty's there were many cases in that regard on cases brought by the agency talking about extramarital affairs and many courts found that this isn't in our community but


proper statement spoke in armenian i understand it was russian i understand all that but what a judge wilson went through this pretty thoroughly yes i'm trying to put myself in the


test by occurs in every case but that doesn't mean it's the kind of decision that needed to be done in this particular case and the examination of the client was not as the government counsel points out kind of you know very nice


s is doing so in the courts as well despite that if it's a fight the fact that if you're corrects the defendant would be not guilty you don't get discovery on this and it's similar in other ways to this case because unlike the cases that


zero and entrance policy that covers negligently inflicted injury but not intentional assault and battery the plaintiff pleads an intentional assault and battery and nothing else and


respect well i think that you know anything homeowners policies are usually construed more liberally i would agree with that but there is a distinction between doing something yourself versus an agent or employee doing it and you're being held liable


non koreans african americans or whatever there is no coverage for that that's not an accident and i think that's the point that the court is making here finally with respect to vicarious liability your honor


agreement when we look at that that informs us that nothing was transferred because you can't split the goodwill of this business and you can't first transfer it purportedly to your sister and take that


believed to be errors in the dates of the police report that is it believed that the police report was made in august of two thousand and ten but claim to describe a kidnapping that occurred in the future which would be factually impossible but the record shows that in fact the dates were


missing was saying that this one schultz god was so similar to the one that he gave to the investors and there's some statement that it was on the same or company's website that there were some of the statements on the web site were similar to some of


this he did not see could not see i understand your point your honor he certainly was able to see mr her in the street oh sure ok saw him with his hand in his front pocket he saw him and he he knew he


search circumstances that officer viri outfaced would have concluded that firing under those circumstances would have been a violation of the fourth amendment the fact that one reasonable officer decided not to shoot and his circumstances are


to noble for the core no i'm in at least as to i don't know where the fact find position but right it is a little odd to ask people to exhaust that question because whatever the panel would decide when to make a difference when what i think here


you would say you're not threatening to prosecute him for not paying taxes well i can't make any representation as to what he may or may not be prosecuted to for but that's why this is such a weird case i mean one does not ordinarily see cases abound in which


an attempt to stifle public debate is to prevent anyone from responding to mr mullins allegations that the officers lied in the police report and the first moment cannot countenance that i see that amount of time then for the questions


name there were none of those details in the record there's a letter back from cigna expressing complete confusion as to what this was about asking for the details that they would have needed to process the claim so it is a truism that the claim wasn't paid until after the litigation is filed


hospital didn't have it so we strongly believed and continue to believe that the error in the the judgment below is the conclusion that cigna received a claim when there is not in our view a scrap of evidentiary record to support that and


it was over by that point so in essence it was to follow up on the questions you were asking opposing counsel at one point is an unreasonable for a law firm that says they're doing this pro bono to spend what they record as hundreds of


position is reprehensible that it was about let's finish this pay the fees that we've incurred to date and walk away but it where is the offer that i asked you about that you gave me this reference that is that that you that you didn't petition for


that tells us that your client was repaired to wrap it up and instead of filing a petition for fees incurred today elected to do something other than what ultimately happened which is these this frolick to try to collect payment directly and


since he can't dispute the failure of the i j a to advise him of relief his sole grounds abele of appeal would have been that he's not removable as charged if you were to say that iranians finding on that automatically takes care of exhaustion to


buy infringing goods that's not infringing after they haven't done it so i'm going to assume that what happened is each of these four people each of the fifty million people are actually also infringers in other words they were told make a selfie you have authority


think your honor is example again about the super bowl yes it sounds very serious that somebody is potentially on those assumptions getting all that money but the other side look at what the copyright owner lost the copyright lawyer lost the potential


a copy of the print made multiple copies and put it on the internet multiple people made other copies and it basically destroyed the opening one hundred million dollars lost there on the picture so obviously if you're the plaintiffs and you're going


punishments and that's john and mime isn't punishment there's nothing that says in it that would seem to rule out restitution altogether because the supreme court's comment suggested that punishment works in the background always that's why the excessive fines clause may kick in so your argument seems to


only as defendant argued in their reply brief to repeal as the supreme court said in the dorsey case it says case law makes clear that the world or word of p repeal plies when a new statute


understand it but maybe i'm wrong on that man the city i mean the city county tended to counter the expert reports that the plane just put into the record first on larry rather show and second


summary judgment he put down that not only the mixed motives standard of proof was applicable but he said to government in a footnote said the government to agree with that


that i did want to bring up in this argument regarding paragraph eight of the twenty thirty three to the extent that this court may consider that contract paragraph eight states that all applicants just sign a contract including a waiver acknowledging that they are


found that even when a municipality contract with a nonprofit corporation that is that there is a contract in effect between the two that does not make the nonprofit corporation running a you know or does not meet the municipality running


anybody so you're saying let's say that a cop a contractor leaves trash on the platform in the trash falls into the gulf of mexico


may please the court joseph boyle for nagra vision go tek did not consent to jurisdiction in california and if they did not consent to jurisdiction in california all of the other personal jurisdiction arguments drop out and you can run from personal


requiring them to concede jurisdiction and i seems to me that the emperor did this term concede when you when you view it in light of the quote here is the kind of


whether this was told you know whether the captain was required to have a license and whether the my client management the vessel owner knew about what


or an absurd interpretation of twenty one zero one forty which doesn't make any reference to what it is that must must be getting old to constitute tonus


have no no reason at all for him to resist the court's effort to get that information it could be layered i'm fascinated by it but if if they submitted a view on how to what the statute means would


here's a hypothetical if every pilot or captain of a boat had to have a certificate from alcohol anonymous they passed if the judge said that's the law but he was wrong and then the judge said he


set forth here and once the court does we then ask the court to find that mr simoneau has failed to set forth a viable retaliation claim under the false claims act tasca


well before the audit is actually conducted our obligation to repay an overpayment isn't is that contingent in some sense and it's very clear in the definition of obligation but that's not a good argument that the definition of


was normal to him and he said he was actually in the house for a specific purpose which is important too because he said i'm in the wheel house so that i can look and help find the place i'm gone i want to see the jack of hearts that i'm going to have but this is on the way


earned the insurance policy that paid for his medicals therefore is in time the fifty seven thousand dollars he's not entitled to anything more because that was not part of his marking don't


trying to movie yes and down the road a little bit to where i thought the pressure points were the procedural error that we raise at first is that the court assertion that the criminal activity was only three people as opposed


say you're a courier for the big mexican ring what you have to do we are going to look at your enterprise your criminal enterprise was the act of walking across the border each of you aiding and abetting each other in the same manner


cited to us all the time and it's very rarely relied on i mean people the judges just surfing is there some other way we can decide this case so i mean we there my sense of it i agree


that he carried in any way and leadership or managerial role it could very well be said there would be no enhancement under the arab or vacation it could very well be that this court


exchange that followed later that you contend there was some additional conditions that were put on but at any point did either of the plaintiffs say you know i can live with this first condition i'll move


grievous and both mr self and counsel were offered the opportunity to withdraw the plea in that case it just was technically not the right way to offer to withdraw the plea this case there wasn't even that pause in proceedings to ask


affidavit was submitted with the opposition briefing many of those arguments about the tax returns were made in the reply brief then there was a star reply that yes made some arguments about you know that what the meaning that there were other discrepancies on that tax


tank where dozens for what what difference would not have made those who made no difference to the spill your honor and that's part of the reason they were contesting the second point which is there was equipment included in the ad that the government and the court said should have been installed to prevent the spill which had nothing to


this case you have you have a you do have that you have a clear statement that it's fourteen he's the case is being remanded based on fourteen forty five c and the court the what law could not be clear that forty five forty five c is not jurisdiction i mean


accidental deaths insurance policy issued there we did there was no showing that he's even bitten where he was bitten how he was bitten things of that sort so i mean they they knew they had west not correct


know your honor because there is not there that the conflicting evidence here all of the evidence in the record is essentially supporting that these other concurrent causes contributed to mr wells dead the only


has happened he is protected from that the exact humanitarian purpose of d p s is still in place for him unless the current administration removes it so he's getting the benefits of t p s the way i see it but


entered without inspection but those people are also not admissible as an immigrant and then there are deemed admissible as an immigrant upon the grant of t p s it what's your best case for that i mean a lot of study that well your honor for example flores


reuben was also a scholar on the subject of negotiations and judge ruben actually argued that in every negotiation the lawyer owed a duty of fairness to the other side


defendant we've got nine twenty two g prove that's what you're pleading to but then withhold the fact they know at sentencing they're going to dump a murder on the guy and prove it only to a room a preponderance and get life would that be a legitimate legal


separating and cases where you serve the husband but if the wife is the defendant and she's moved or vice versa and we've cited those cases they have not been able to cite any case that said that you served the spouse when there's a separation and that's


so it would be completely unworkable they have a rule to assume how old was the son who answered the door the one time that's not in the record i can tell you he was in his twenty's but we don't know the relationship but it's not in the record judge


the federal question and they brought that up now because the because under the westfall act they had to ask for a g certification and when they didn't that destroyed their basis for removal in the first place there


attached to it they couldn't find the other two and it was concluded that when there was a recent upholstering job they didn't replace all the screws they just had one left but the court relying upon the warnings label on the chair the warnings label says this


try to do best we can to cover our bases and anticipate every argument but when reasonable care or lack thereof is not raised by this or pointed out to us it's you know


and in state court and third of their judicial district in ruston was a collateral attack on the can of order of the commissioner conservation because if the first thing they should have done was go in before the


are authorized by the legislator you should be going through some factors maybe this is answering my question and you try to rephrase it i'm trying to say what is the best precedent best case law of


parker v brown and dismissed the individual board members


misstatement everybody looked at it a hundred times and thought the word not was there and didn't see it and didn't but it really wasn't there i mean that's the kind of thing reformation is almost every day reformation not every day remedy but until


to put chemicals equipment to being into a hole in the subsurface of the state of louisiana from a on a fixed platform


these two defendants in the asian dredging actively when they made a can out of the issue in this case the lower court ruled basically said look if there's evidence that dredging took place


traverse the crossing and go to different sides of their property the district court we believe failed to properly applied a standard for some adjustment for three reasons


tracks to spread apart and the dram and they never link the two so what they're basically saying when they talk about successive incremental damages i can damage this table by tapping it according to their experts but


out the wellbore to improve production at that well on that platform that's me ask you this didn't matter service agreement recognized the potential for the need of the vessel


is that the injury the activity occurring at the injury moment was in fact maritime if you look at it from l t i standpoint mr daughter on standpoint right he is a vessel and how does he go out to do just a


court to speculate completely as to whether remoteness here said well you know this could happen this could happen this could have the facts or the rule says that they have to order the fact is that it would only take


and there is also an amended version of the rule which is still working its way through the amendment process has not yet been finally approved but it's another reason why the court should not consider the merits just just a couple of numbers


they claim the right to custody as they factor custodians classification for which there is no exact parallel in illinois five days later on april ninth john wyndham and the father came to illinois and served


was filed mother father and baby were in illinois if they were not defacto if in fact as a matter of law they are not they facto bestowed


respond in from indiana and then no response from the judge in indiana in light of l c and right in light of in re joseph v d i believe that that is


remedy afforded by the appellate court it's not just that they could be found guilty of felony murder it's that they can only be found guilty of felony murder by necessity their very argument is that unless these


clearly argue that owners who toil and pay for a structure pay the costs associated with it should have the right to utilize that structure as well as protect their liability we need to remember that


divided but that the courts generally and the annoy at least the reviewing courts up until a cassock work consistent


the prejudiced standard he was entitled to relief on the grounds that the errors in the information prejudices ability to raise a defense and we trust both of those issues in our brief pointing out one that the typical jackson standard for


which is whether or not these seemingly otherwise disparate acts were all a single act that's some might say that's a question of law where brown is here says that the single intentional design element is a question of


simply i would i would suggest that because the the the terms of the workman's comp were so broad that for instance if you have a clerk that works for you any trips and he falls and he were to claim workman's comp


reason but i think that the reason this case came up here was so that the court could address the more important issue which is whether or not the toward immunity act will


any acts it was an act of the governmental body your honor i want to make sure that i answer your question are you asking me if there's any limits on the discretion your honor yes your honor there are


court has found in some other cases that if you're confined to a juvenile facility a juvenile home you can still get credit for time served as long as that is confinement that confinement is custodial in nature so exhausted difference how many hours


into the statute but again do you define those and so that we're it's custodial the context of the court of corrections and that has traditionally meant initially incarceration in a facility and then the changing of all the


about the time period and in response to justice comments questions it's very interesting that in minnesota minnesota is a state which follows the date of offense and in a subsequent case minnesota's supreme court ruled that the rule should


teeth or something like that and we know that that victim is going to receive the ras in court then a more affluent victim simply due to inherent your prejudices now there's nothing that this court can


source rule in doing the research i chased back to nineteen zero seven where we have jones and adams versus george in that case this court held the plaintiff may not recover gratuitously render nursing services


again here these were medicare levy and it is yes and i'm not referring to the amount that medicare medicaid actually paid for those bills certainly those are recoverable damages


and as you correctly point out that rather than across a bill you would file a motion to dismiss based on effect of post conviction court botched up the whole stricklin analysis because the prejudice prong wasn't met if you are going


crash data were never challenged successfully ford wishes to say that their seat performs better in low speed collisions but our crash data which was it before the jury in visual form in a graphic form proved otherwise


where the product is familiar a car used in from other circumstances someone driving right in the engine consumers would have an expectation that just like climbing a ladder the ladder wouldn't collapse consumers have an expectation of driving a


restatement second section three twenty four eight however section three twenty four day which is the voluntary undertaking statute talking about when one voluntary one voluntarily undertakes


harm but the law does not say what imminent threat of harm is but it's up to the therapist or the counsellor or the physician in their sole discretion to decide whether or


ability the likelihood of injury burden of guarding against the injury and the consequences of imposing that burden and just so in this general framework i referred to a few moments


investigation the time was narrowed down to two thirty pm and then finally to approximately two thirteen or two fifteen pm so if the jury found the jury was in a position to find that carol beeman either had been incorrect or had lied regarding


court act when you look at that but can come into evidence i think only the attorney client privilege applies in juvenile court cases so so whatever happened would not be privileged with respect to the juvenile court proceedings


addresses criminal license reckless conduct and here


revoked without proper proceedings in front of the prisoner review board and those determinations can be challenged in court through hate me through a mandamus action but until a prisoner is released


relief first mr beecham has earned enough good conduct credits to be immediately releasable the state's argument that good kind of credit should be ignored in the hay vs action contravenes all statutory and case law


lack of better words a deal that makes sense for both of them and that as a result of that agreement the parties stipulate between themselves to the dismissal of the foreclosure proceeding obviously


characterized as a right as a radek driving i mean you know you have an explanation for it later on we got to to puddles we don't know there's a lot of potholes but this is what the police officer saw sure right and then he turned before they got to the driveway he turned on his


the police officer to go in and third of all what we need to look at in this case is that what happened inside this was not a case like santana where the police just went inside grabbed the guy pulled him outside they went inside the house and


treasurer in cook county when when they receive these double payments notifies the taxpayer by the way your bill is ready been paid and there's even new the case for new sa statutes now to require the pay or the financial institution to tell me


number in the second point i would make is it's a property tax code that has to control it has to ought provide the guidelines for how collectors collect taxes and upon proper application for refund refund taxes and the third point i


well when you determine when the weather when it is it is a exactly have is it a tax payment i'm sorry i'm going to cut you off because i i roll my eyes and myself as i tried to make sense of how to say this as i write it i think it's a tax payment but i'm


to as a community monthly income allowance which allows diversion of income which is otherwise payable to the institutionalized spouse to be diverted to the spouse at home the current rate is somewhere around twenty six hundred dollars a month


databases jurors are generally aware from their own life experiences that they are used for reasons other than that what i'm talking about the inference being drawn from the fact that police officers just would be the same with the fingerprints well


articulated the appropriate standard of review and that in the light most favorable to the prosecution could any rational trying to fact have found all these central elements of the crime however it went in did more of a denotable standard of review


cited justice posner in the seventh circuit where he says the requirements of justifiable reliance backstops the jury's determination of actual lions is on this theory that a person who plays an ostrich


day when the opinion that is carefully read a day is all about materiality and it is not about the missing elements which he claims here this jury had to find a lot against the


rodney jay birth versus three firm for you carefully company has taken under advisement as agenda number nine


prosecution in preparation for its case allowing the court and the base is no basis whatsoever to defer ruling when all of the montgomery factors are known to the court


problematic of events for the defendant when this was a print that was made in the victim's wide as the state's witnesses testified repeatedly which indicates not only that this was defendant but


full on just as i understand your argument on the why the exceptions couldn't be raised is it because the exceptions apply to dates and sequence a chronology of events and the way i read your brief was that they


but you're but your claim if i understand it correctly is that you want your malicious prosecution claim to survive which is quite different than what you're talking about now in terms of what the counties practices and procedures where i do process crack ok so what i'm


instructions as in reading the case law there is a general unanimity instruction i believe that's instruction nineteen right if that was in there just by itself then argument as well as to specific unanimity instruction


it's also the case that there are other guideline provisions that refer to the guideline but not the application in b one b two which suggests that the commission thinks it has free standing force


psychological evaluation and to obtain a mental health diagnosis as the eighth circuit court held liberty interests are not implicated by such a transfer and the due process clause is not does not prohibit such a


paragraph of page five with the district court says and i quote the court finds additional questioning by trooper edgeways after informing hofmann he was not going to give him a ticket was relevant to the officer determining his suspicions


accessory after the fact what he had to find that her information was provided in furtherance of the crime of being an accessory after the fact whether it's hers or mr separate selling certainly found that mr selby salo was at the very least an


case i'm sorry on case i usually don't bring all the cases i cite in a brief because i travel from a lengthy and i don't have the time i can start doing that but i could also point this court even if you


state court reached the merits of the claims without this missing it on procedural grounds to talk about a single judge i don't recall if in lambert if it was a single judge or not but i can let me have my question is


her conduct isn't she i guess i would say isn't she within her rights to stele them reputedly you're not coming in without a warrant it is certainly within her rights to say you have i'm not letting you in but that doesn't mean again in this context of


the things that we have in the next and all the other cases that are cited was the call in sniper from inside the the location officers responded to it was purportedly coming from inside the house i'd say that the cases are in the us about that but they had a reasonable basis for


the government argues that there could be no confusion about the guy can live on conspiracy and i don't understand that at all during the instructions the court said for instruct regarding


statement however the administrator who took the statements was there at the hearing and was able to address that issue but the real issues that the father addressed were whether or not this act even constituted hazing under the district policies


and when the student was heard it was really the students father the father simply asked that the that the punishment be reduced that the sanction be reduced and that it be changed in its nature it's a very nice day outside i don't have


own based on that particular circumstance right because there's nothing in my opinion me being one of three which suggested that that ought to be their finding no it said to go back and do further fact finding on that specific issue


difficulty i had with your argument on the rand issue is that you know bottom i thought the district court said basically he just volunteered the information that was it he had tremendous guilt about what had happened and he wanted to cleanse his


plan to start with the question of prejudice and then address the issue of performance and then the issue of deference under the age the prejudiced standard is a familiar standard i have to show on behalf of the petitioner


develop an agreement it wasn't it didn't receive notice of the the sale motion and there was a pending state court action in that case and the county was then allowed by the bankruptcy court to proceed with


pornography that's the last issue i would like to address it's that the length of time that mr gustafson had admitted he collected child pornography was since early two thousand and there had been another


so how is it he has been convicted on facts that were not even presented to him at trial and your honour's i want to save some time for for a rebuttal so if i could stop there unless there's something we're from the government and then you


twenty eight months and mr barker would in fact be out of custody as of today ok so then if i look at two k two point one eight two which as i understand it is that


k two point one eight two is pretty important i'm either got a nor that and for some reason and i couldn't find a case that would suggest i should or if i read it in


the organ statute for unfair labor practices and that's under that would be under a six year statute so you don't you don't need any tolling under twenty eight u s c section thirteen sixty seven we believe that twenty eight u s c thirteen


tolling period terminated as soon as the district court entered its order or judgment not on peale so that was in two thousand and ten and then they didn't file this case till two thousand and thirteen why shouldn't they get the benefit of that


favorable inferences when we're doing this and you know it's an interesting exercise to sort of switch it off to strickland never said i didn't tell him i never denied that he threatened him never denied that before tasing he shut the curtains


as claims that were paid in two thousand and six if you look at those those are actually claims that were paid under the easy one three nine nine code in two thousand and five and then one claim that was paid in two thousand and six says we are not quite as versed


is discretion the court has in finding whether that conduct is related but as to what you take with the district court yes as to the amount of restitution that should be included as part of the scheme the district court itself


describe could be disputed facts you say there was a lot of snow moved around which directly contradicts that foundational testimony i don't i don't believe so your honor not completely i think if there were one rock in those photographs


zucker greg case at that point in time for some reason after the district court denied their motion to enjoin


but i didn't see anything that punched me in the nose and says this case is over me leaving is we've got the issue that was raised before about whether knowingly becomes part of this under washington state law and that


was implemented here on the same evidence we're talking about the local officials saw all of that they made a determination and they applied the law the local official saw the number of plants and carried away twenty nine of them they all had doesn't mean that there was awareness that there was


respond to that comment the an admission by a defendant clearly is probably one of the most important and powerful things or evidence a jury can hear i suggest that if we're going to allow


the rules to have someone in the jury here an admission by silence the the trial court ought to have a little more gatekeeper responsibility in other words the rule says he has to hear the comment he


i think that under these circumstances well he said he said because i was persuaded i think by mrs wix suggestion that the defendant earned that prior criminal record and to ignore that if this is as a significant factor in the sentencing in this case would be


understand there are some situations where abuse of discretion either way the court rolled we would have to say we would have to affirm maginnis that one of these situations the court could has said i don't think you had a chance do you pat you would have an uphill battle on that


think of a name oh my name is mr glass because they say glass on the table maybe he saw that and that was the name that occurred to him to use it doesn't shill francis but a reasonable jury would not have to come to that conclusion or


record show it does not hear us office apologize to these points it does not your honor one last thing on the the issue of the defamation you have to show actual malice in the


the arm of the state analysis is a is a political two false claims that cases and it's that economic issue which i think is present here and i think those factors are more appropriately considered by this court in determining the arm of the tribe issue but i think


or you don't think that's significant i don't because it's under norm of the tribe analysis it's still an arm of the tribe and we look through a sovereign stone or from the ninth circuit court says we look towards sovereign immunity


bifurcation and the judge said no we're not going to reconsider i'm not going to allow that because again you're missing this whole concept of prejudice and that's in the record and then at that point that's when i then asked the judge ok well if you're not going to


that company was bound by that written personnel policy and i believe that the language from that case is something to the effect of having announced a personnel policy you can't be that the company can't selectively enforce it


s'posed of those motions they continued under the case of bill burke versus b s f a timely post trial motion that isn't rendered untimely merely because of failure to comply with the local rules my


now than what this trial brief specifically limited you to before trial thank you your honor actually it was the final pretrial order which did reference that letter


invalidated an application and it would have prevented the precise situation that you have hypothesized which is gosh isn't it possible for there to be a sentencing policy statement or guideline that runs afoul


not someone who entered a guilty plea under eleven c one c could still claim that their sentences were based on the guidelines because as i'm sure your honor is aware when the parties negotiate an eleven c one c plea agreement they presented to the


wanted was ultimately to succeed in finding or to have the mill there to process it and also by achieving that goal what you get is other regional mining operations might be stimulated to explore more or to find


which and it lists two dates and you see the way the dates are written it's with the month with the slash of the year i mean that the day with a slash and then the year and then the next two slashes that you're talking about yes yes until


say that you have to go by what it says and even without that particular argument there are other reasons why service is defective if for any reason we had to remain on this and henri man it was established


that third on the nail and nail date there was also an attempt at personal design is that the end of your no your honor and judgment because there are other reasons there are at least four other reasons why service was defective in this case


honor after after all these ten years i think it's time to put an end to the case you shouldn't allow this total shift to procedure after hundreds of pages and then now focus on something that perhaps judge bats could have dealt with at the


i i don't believe she's addressed that i don't think she either way right now she didn't she didn't deny i don't believe this money was sent at her direction i don't believe she denied that she retained a law firm yes well that's neither here nor there is it


that it's correct the relief awarded would leave multiple clients of mine in a worse position than actual new hires because for actual new hires that the rate of highest average pay applied to all of their years of


probably something that the public has a concern about the that question's presupposes the kind of thing that was argued by the plaintiff in their brief that this


court found in that case that there was a severe restraint on liberty and the court declined to extend that


obligations or any part thereof and it says that the ass and he will only be liable for those things that are assigned that was what was agreed to between what kovi and dexia so that we have not improved our position because of you the contract i've just stepped into the rights that dexia freely


grace they were truly non parties the supreme court in devlin has said has rejected the formalistic approach to party for class members that the state proffers and said whether a non named class members a party or not will depend on context that's what justice ginsburg


and the proof of the thing the district judge said is in the pudding when they believed that they were going to get a higher set of investment banking fees to offset those fees they took a lower mark when they realised that the income was actually going to be lower they raise them on that


crowd of people aggressively then purposely accelerated his scooter into mr douglas which is itself an act of excessive force then purposely ran over his left ankle or foot area


he didn't douglas didn't resist arrest any the district court found indicated that the video didn't indicate any resistance certainly the officers testified as to resistance and there is an instance


conclusion that he was drawing because of the fact that he was hit fact plaintive just describes it as a glancing blow not a direct hard impact with a scooter second of all even if he was impacted intentionally i don't think the force was clearly excessive in these circumstances and i've laid out the


is an injury i mean is it indeed plausible that a box that subjects me to add just less valuable than one that does not the the ads last for a few seconds with one stroke


because they did the actuarial valuation for two thousand and thirteen because it was a lot cheaper to do it that way what they did is take the exact paragraph that appears in


arbitrator to make a final judgment and in making a final judgment although the district court could have the face if they needed some facts and they didn't in this case could have gone back to the court and said


wouldn't be correct why why isn't that there are two subdivisions to section three zero one three zero one a basically says that you have to be a signatory to the agreement or a party judge and


judge and as well as in his brief decision at the end of the transcript was that he was concerned that there was no direct contact the t c i never had any direct contact or communication with starr funding that's not necessary your honour's no direct


didn't know that and i'm the truths are funding should be required to know that let me answer that in in two ways your honor the duty to inquire arises when ever there is a novel transaction or


sector for example you don't have to be a civil servant even as a plasterer to get the prevailing wages you could be appointed and that was considered by mr marson a at at a during discovery you can


why they know you are required under our burden shifting analysis to come forward and say this is pretext and they really were discriminating against the caretakers p i


duties mended it added to this and that is that is not contested to get prevailing wages our position of course they contesting that and the other one is to reduce the time to become a


person who is not qualified to talk about what class or helpers in the private sector do merely because he worked as a plaster helper we're not sure if he was a prevailing rate placer helper worked on public projects none of that in one thousand ninety has nothing to


classified as an advertisement why isn't that the right standard to apply rather than to look to the subjective motivations because i guarantee you if anybody from right it comes in and answers honestly they're going to have to say the reason we're doing


what else is inconsistent in his statement a different height was more than half it was a half a foot your honor every change that the same night so this theory that he consulted with his sister and they made up some


dorrian to continue the prosecution moreover under that case and is there any evidence that he was aware of any of the d n a evidence for example you know that the process both of the investigators and factor joseph testifies


honor the the evidence is prior to his terminations based on the civil service law there was animists expressed towards mr pena pereira based on his disability or to meaning what


seven of nine of the record indicated that they didn't know that he was from colombia in till the intel that this lawsuit was filed so it doesn't make sense to say that they were targeting that they were creating a hostile work


question had that case been decided today i don't even think the government would have appealed nor do i think this court would have vacated the sentence what i recall about it was the


the fact that mr schank accepted responsibility so the idea that this sentence shocks the conscience or takes us into a place where this court should be seriously considering reversing judge johnson sentence i respectfully submit we're nowhere near that and you're


know but his testimony in cross is pretty detailed and he was slapped at least five times that in fact they have arrested him several times at his home and also when they met him on the street isn't that pretty detail information that


sell the apartment out from underneath mrs mary and non debtor and their children that's not something that the bankruptcy court was designed designed to allow for she's not there the back of the court found that there's only one creditor in the case at the balance argued


raised in a motion for reconsideration frankly after mr casino had pled guilty so mr teano pleads guilty then raises a motion to reconsider on this point that is the point at which the


what well your honor that what the intent was what the specific intent was now but that for instance the district court viewed the video and saw someone acting calmly i saw someone


question is what was the motive what was commissioner kelly's motive when he chose to terminate him notwithstanding the fact that the hearing officer who hears many many of these cases thought terminations was not was not appropriate and i think the most


this widespread investigation was itself undertaken for discriminatory reasons that's correct and i and i can tell you some of that evidence which again the district court didn't reach one of the most striking pieces of evidence is that


somebody on arrest warrant in violation of the terms of that very warrant and so your honor we rethink that's a clear principle there's a number of other cases we cited page fourteen but you're right even if you don't want to say that the violation of the


namely testimony from the female petitioners exp ause which is in the record at page forty five to five sixteen testimony of a mutual friend you may not have assumed that it was a sham marriage


the present different situations that they represent different situations except the same type of stipulation was signed it was a similar stipulation and you know mr incentive came out


honor and where do you live i live in florida we're going to turn a tree rumble who drive palm coast florida from around over over seventy years here on with my kids also


is the exclusive rights of those hells when that rights been taken away then the question becomes a federal one because the question becomes have you taken property without just compensation so the district court was not free


that is not that is what new york state law and then it's amplified in city law permits those vehicles to do is to except by prearrangement so of course like kells again the question in the in the law is well what's a pre


to the restitution because plane error occurs when you have sort of waived your opportunity to raise an error in the trial court and there was no opportunity here it was raised on the t l and that's the only


investments he was in to investments with a guaranteed interest rate which was not dependent upon the stock market he had the ability to exchange his annuities certain piece every year free of tax


to the issue of nancy brand's comparative fault in continuing to drive a vehicle for one to three miles on a flat tire the jury was in stress this difficultly instructed and


that could have been should have been done before the settlement mediation well it could have been done before the mediation because they had the pows are person now


i believe that the state keeps repeating that she knew of her injury but did you know much in paragraph thirty one plaintiff became severely depressed yes and and when she was transferred back to the case


in the context of a complaint of discrimination and our response is there the same as there are the same duties that a employer always has for example suppose you're a does that mean the plaintiff in essence a private attorney general


the union began its own investigation and provided the complaint form to spectra and then spectra conducted its investigation and so it would be in the


christoffersen title to present his claim for punitive damages it did not argue that the basis was by charisse liability it did not argue that the basis was not a form of direct liability simply


is equivocal such that ownership is not established for summary judgment purposes but we're talking about summary judgment and standing by to essentially proceed to trial on the case so how do those contractors statement proof


there's no discussion went there's nothing they come come in under hawaii a lot to say with the context of that statement well i don't believe there


solution the to say come back when you're ready and when you are able to get one hundred percent not that you're you're sort of never going to be able to to be a surgeon but that would certainly they could have made that decision that would have been in the discretion but they also had broad


us a minute for about what you were going to the last question there was lots of evidence in the record because the person who brought the charges against my client the first time around was a doctor galliano if you look at the transcript of the


do it by making somebody pay for you want to do this case ok i have one question about timeliness the district judge said the time started at


of this case it was wholly appropriate to apply the six year statue of limitations very appropriate particularly given that he was continuing to deal with


many years ago we had looked at that issue it was never fully briefed but i'm not certain i would agree with mr hogan that you know that's a slam dunk issue and that's been resolved if there's a some part of this case involved with with what we can consider


presumably there's a fight you could in theory have a civil claim for trespassing judgment be in the attendant remedy to that claim but the fact of the matter is he's never alleged and it's the pfizer logic that


get coverage pursuant to the policy the terms of the policy as and also as the claim standards is in effect in pablum so if you go into a facility and it has a nurse on site five hours a day five days a week you would get


issues but it was the plaintiffs who sued who decided to sue civilly for the return of the products for return of the devices and for education that their constitutional rights were violated in the


the witnesses to come in and testify then they ignored the statements from the family members which were in the record now judge this court has


account the constitutional situation at the time of the establishment of the court which was it could not be a territorial court because there was no territorial power and in time that issue has come up regarding what was the power of congress in legislating towards the trust


just say categorically as a tight as a territorial court if it is ordered that that's proper because shore again tells us these rigid categories are thing of the past we can't look at it and say just per se as a territorial court as as a public rights court as a


that became the attention of the court on the fourth day so for the fourth day of testimony i know that but so were you your answer is that we don't know when the jury him or herself first became aware ok because the judge


situate us in terms of the timeline because you're going to talk about what the summary judgment ruling and i just want to use the offer of judgment made way earlier the offer of judgment was made substantially earlier than the summary judgment rule summary so so what other than the complaint were the defendant


litigation that i don't get it i just don't understand when you when you say additional funds i don't quite follow your determination that that doesn't benefit the your adversary these four for the


raised that could be supported by some of the facts in the record that we don't exactly argue them specifically in the court held that's not enough this court held that's not enough you have to specifically raise these arguments you didn't raise the arguments and so that the fact that there's really some facts in the


that he attempted suicide before the police even arrived and that they were aware that his girlfriend reported that he had tried to cut himself with a knife so the facts in the light most favorable show that mr community may have attempted suicide and she may have


your honor once this july thirty letter is sent and received which we read as saying that the dio he was proposing to take the what we understood up to that


program or offer free appropriate public education that is precisely this issue and in any event in defending the due process case and they injected this issue into it by saying we can just freely transfer eyepiece from one place to another without


that's passed through or not pass through depending upon what the foreign bank decides to do but in this case there can't be a pass through there's but one transaction and there's but two parties to it there's the plaintiffs and apple to look beyond


one to one with him if this school staff is interpreting close adult supervision to mean that he's going to need two people with him at all times so based on that that he's officer said no


the the district judges posts show deference to the hearing officer if those facts are fine he's a thorough and careful and i believe what i try to argue today is the show you want he cites these factual findings that's


so don't you think given that it's not it's not a clear case to say well you know we should grab this case and tell the bilby what to do i think it is and the reason is that the recusal


inmate or correctional officer was not damaging any prison property and posed no threat to anybody when these six shots hit him as he was already removed from the scenario do you believe that immunity applies to this


relief as it stands if miss maneuver is deemed to be challenging her two thousand time conviction and there is no jurisdiction because she is not in custody pursuant to that judgment if she is deemed to be judged challenging her two thousand and twelve conviction then the


is the employees came to him and said we don't have the equipment to perform the required tests can you help me with this precise language the terms of what they testified to absolutely your


once it does that product is gone from the market gone completely none of these sales are possible but the competitor in that market who had to endure it has no cause of action that is a clearly erroneous line of


you in line upon wonderful that if the label conveys a misrepresentation that could support a lanham act claim even though the f d a has not made a formal regulatory determination that the


back it up so it was very difficult in this case to try and respond other than doing what i did and show the entire history of the case and there were numerous instances where discovery motions were made


competent to say that you've just told us he wasn't qualified as an expert so why does anybody pay attention to what he has to say well i think in this case the well is a reasonable force outcome of when you have damage to the property you're


and that's where the eleven victims number came from the government did not come see it at sentencing that's a very the earlier bankruptcy report the xin all had filed was at least eleven also was it not correct right at least eleven in the claims register and


prosecutor argued i believe it was miss have with us at argued first that corporate control that a beneficial interest in done deal that was the first time anyone heard that phrase that they also mentioned first bank during the trial but they didn't argue that


regulation that was the end of the matter to the extent that there was any ambiguity in the trade is there there was actually an ambiguity treasury relation we don't interest me here we think the plain language of the regulation covers it and in both


to to evaluate the medical evidence in accordance with the recognized and accepted diagnostic criteria used by physicians so what that regulation i think says clearly is that whatever other evidence the claimant may submit


that determined that there was going to be a side deal where one would pay twenty five thousand dollars to the other for the transfer of the title to the property and that collateral agreement was able to be proven to show that there was a different interest other than joint tenancy


and the documents they say were fraudulent were prepared not by family but by company set up and the documents supposedly fraudulent because it had been back dated but the


were completely within sight pan there's no she didn't do any predicate act as required by the statute that affected even foreign commerce they showed up at her door brought by somebody else but


doesn't address the impact of changes in the child's program that's an ip issue they said this transition plan prime was so necessary they couldn't address yes why at the time without first addressing the transition plans that's what's left that's


are not what he was convicted of and that's what we're trying to do years figure out what subsection he was convicted of that's right your honor and all that what's what's your best evidence that he's convicted of subsection that is violent well just in


was convicted under it's not just an issue of let's find this out by ruling things out piecemeal it's what we can look at in this your philips shepard documents does not definitively identify which subsection


violent act right correct your honor oh i will judge just specifies a understand i'm pleading to it why why is that enough i don't know your honor if if this court is to find that it is a subsection


collusion and that is that collusion has to be for the specific purpose of violating the rights of the secured party and then i'd also want to point you to nine three one two b three which says that a cash may only be protected by


was finances did not come out until the fall of two thousand and fourteen so how it isn't doesn't that isn't that part of the argument of thermo credit that we did not while we knew what was going on


the jury you should not be allowed to guess that josh was using your zone that night and this is just the first hurdle of the government has to get across is who was using the phone again back to that car


contact in the victim's phone named josh let's assume that that that that was sufficient to get to the jury then the question becomes is there sufficient evidence that ewing sold dayton the drugs that


transportation at this time the child was stable everything was fine and they could have gone through all of the processes and worked with the cleaning clinics employee health plan and their medical department to effectuate a transfer if it was medically


don't have a constitutional right to a lawyer you've got a statutory right but that right is subject to limits and one of them is you can't exercise that right in a way to delay the proceedings and when you come in two days before here are three years before answer i need a continuance


also say that they're not committed to what they are now and they're going to revisit these things as more knowledge becomes known that was in one thousand nine hundred seven and this particular provision has not been revisited since the states


prison system in the state of ohio all of them are subject to the same the very same media restrictions as are these for restricted population in minutes and that's when


restricted population inmate gets an interview anyway so whether or not the prison officials have quote unquote unfettered discretion is irrelevant because no restricted population inmate


she testified in the deposition that the only reason that that would not be in the file list that she had made a determination that it was not it was not relevant that was her testimony


helping him on his passport the interview lasted ten or fifteen minutes the man filled out things turned the file application around and said sign here and our client signed there


answer questions and the district court could have said that it's ordered to but it didn't it required him to to comply with paragraph or essay and the district court repeatedly comes back to this identify and recover language and in finding that it requires something more


the supreme court has never specifically allowed a particular attacks on credibility it all has to go to to bias what they've established as a general rule that is applied to


to address and i think it's appropriate probably makes most sense for for me to address both the first and second assignments very together because they go hand in hand the second being that the court did not state


arrive at which is never going to arrive but that's right as normally what you're looking for as evidence of how the eighty seven was arrived at is to say we agreed to the eighty seven because we agree that it has these elements and that under the guidelines that would be sort of my or


him he based on that based on the lack of indication of which subsection if any subsection of that statute would fall under the residual quads that makes it unconstitutional


i understand it's binding so i'm just asking the question to your answer respectfully to all the judges on the harper panel we think that decision was incorrect we think the panel you think the decided was either act the reasonings and correct the day we didn't ruled in your


in the charging documents in this case so these charging documents preclude the possibility the who is actually convicted of one of those other variants of the offense because he couldn't have been convicted of a very you know the offense with which he was never charged


of the documents in the record to which the government refers are not shepherd documents while shepard does recognize that charging documents can be referred to it is in the context of when somebody has pled guilty as


are the government never had possession of a t m s or the a t m journals and again although that may have been better practice this court the supreme court and youngblood have been very clear that even if that amounts to some sort of negligent practices on the part of the government that's not


extensive discussion about whether or not he has changed his position and he has never changed his position in fact his position was on march fourteenth two thousand


the yes our position would be that in these circumstances those kinds of inquiries are not part of the equation that sort of operates as an exception to the rule that waivers are generally enforceable even we're talking about the waiver of


you can commit a class c felony aggravated assault the vast majority of those ways and the most frequently charged type of class c aggravated assault are the ones in subsection a and those variants of the offense categorically qualify as violent


sit and listen to the facts and determine for themselves whether you know this person he saunters was discriminated against or retaliated against and so forth and so on but whether he followed up in this timeframe my answer that is yes that he did follow


excluded evidence makes the procedure fair and meaningful these substitutes have to pertain to the time of the original request for benefits right that is correct but evidence


maybe sometimes you can i'm not an expert in evidence law but you can come in and say well that's a nice evidentiary rule but it shouldn't apply here because this is good evidence and are you saying that it doesn't apply here because you think it violates due process in


judge i think if you establish that there is a great deal of variability among experts as to what that x ratios or as to what as to what skews me as to what an engineer graham shows


require some form of intent to threat or for some paul i would say intent that's similar to the attempted use case law that says threatening


person of another with with nobody getting hurt i mean that that just takes this i mean i did that doesn't make a lot of sense to me i'm having a hard time understanding that but let me try and explain what the position is just catholic's the position is


building and your person could be up on the tenth floor and there could still be a confection the last thing is about mens rea i have to go back to that even if a threat could be conveyed recklessly because this


putting on board the paralytic in the last execution ohio waited only a minute and ten seconds before starting to act the paralytic after finishing madame slim expert testimony shows them a dazzling these at least three to five minutes to be


amended the rules and one of the amendments was to suspend the normal funding mechanism for the plan all the things and nine b including ninety six so from fiscal years two thousand and ten to two thousand and thirteen none of those rules were in effect the


which we don't think there is we're entitled to deference


a police officer he was on duty he thought he was responding to a call it was not an emergency call he was speeding going excessive over the speed limit he drove through a red light striking and killing another driver


three primary reasons st appellants in no way dispute the presence of nearly every badge of fraud in this case nor could day as ms as board transfer her interest in a coastal home


testify to one of which is their own customer that's in the record the other thing is that as i said before the strength of the market is dependent upon the plaintiff demonstrating that there are consumers


listen i am somebody who's tried all kinds of cases i know how to do this this is no problem even if there wasn't an actual inquiry there's nothing like that in this record so what you're claiming and this is not what i got out of your brief


may it please the court person counsel your honour's on michael brennan roberts i represent the respondent happily and our position is fairly straightforward the kentucky supreme court's holding is not contrary to your an


think the court needs to take the extreme step of saying that every time that a defense attorney chooses not to cross examine a witness that would be some court site some kind of denial accounts assuming the courts that don't follow our rule that they get at this problem through


what period of time are you advocating and what is the and what's the rationale for that shorter period of time you're advocating i'm out of time but i know i have to answer your question you know have to do anything but we would


price of fuel and then we're back and then we're back to the remedy though is your you're not arguing that the tax is completely come via light is and all of the money should be


buy into the sea but what they what they use in tennessee they're just completely different taxes and if i could can answer just trances question about this because i have one more about to be in tennessee and be in tennessee because it wasn't a sales


delays and then we give him the i keep saying morning yeah what it may have actually been at noon but anyway when we're getting ready to start the trial with a here's here's our explanation now


suppliers there is a several instances where people have traveled with large sums of money to bring back larger quantities of drugs but as i say said earlier it is just incredulous that someone would travel all the way from billings