00:01 - >>WELCOME MY NAME SCOTT COOPER,

00:03 - A MINUTE OR KNEE AT THE LAW

00:04 - FIRM A SHIPMENT KRAMER HERE IN

00:06 - HARRISBURG ON WITH MY FRIEND

00:07 - ROBERT SHAAB WHO'S IN A TOURNEY

00:09 - WITH ROSEN JENKINS IN GREENWALD

00:11 - FROM UP IN LUZERNE COUNTY.

00:13 - WE'RE HERE TODAY TO A WELCOME

00:15 - YOU TO PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR

00:17 - COURT ON BONK SESSION.

00:20 - IN HARRISBURG THE SUPERIOR

00:22 - COURT IS ONE OF THE 2

00:23 - INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS

00:25 - IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF

00:26 - PENNSYLVANIA. THE OTHER CORE IS

00:29 - THE COME OFF COURT THAT COURT

00:31 - GENERALLY DEALS WITH.

00:33 - AGENCY APPEALS NON CRIMINAL

00:36 - CIVIL SUITS, THE SUPERIOR COURT

00:38 - ON THE OTHER HAND

00:39 - GENERALLY HANDLES APPEALS FROM

00:41 - THE COUNTY TRIAL COURTS

00:43 - INVOLVING A CIVIL CASES

00:46 - AND A CRIMINAL CASES.

00:50 - THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS

00:52 - 15 ELECTED JUDGES AND 6 RIGHT

00:55 - NOW A SENIOR JUDGES THAT ARE

00:58 - APPOINTED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA

00:59 - SUPREME COURT. WHAT YOU'LL SEE

01:01 - TODAY IS WHAT'S KNOWN AS AN ON

01:04 - BOND. A COURT.

01:07 - GENERALLY WHEN THE SUPERIOR

01:08 - COURT SITS THEY SAID IN PANELS

01:11 - OF 3 AROUND THE AT VARIOUS

01:14 - TIMES OF THE YEAR.

01:15 - THOSE CASES ARE HEARD BY 3

01:17 - JUDGES UNDECIDED AND MORE OFTEN

01:20 - THAN NOT

01:21 - THAT'S THOSE CASES ARE DECIDED

01:23 - AND THAT'S THE END OF THE CASE

01:25 - IN SOME SPECIFICS PUTS

01:27 - PRESSURE CIRCUMSTANCES. CASES

01:29 - DEEMED A IMPORTANT OR

01:32 - MORE IMPORTANT AND ON BOND

01:35 - PANEL WILL

01:36 - BE HELD WHERE 9 OF THE 15 ALIKE

01:39 - THAT SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES,

01:41 - WE'LL HEAR THE CASE AND THAT'S

01:42 - WHAT YOU'LL HEAR TODAY. AND

01:44 - THESE OPINIONS TODAY WOULD THEN

01:47 - BE BINDING ON ANY

01:49 - 3 JUDGE PANEL AND THEN THE

01:51 - TRIAL COURT TO THIS IS ALMOST

01:53 - LIKE A A SUPER SUPERIOR COURT.

01:57 - TODAY,

01:57 - THE ONLY OPINIONS THAT WOULD BE

02:00 - A HIGHER AND WOULD BE

02:02 - BINDING ON THIS PANEL

02:04 - WOULD BE EITHER THE STATE

02:06 - SUPREME COURT WHERE THE US IN A

02:08 - SUIT, A SUPREME COURT. SO

02:10 - BASICALLY THIS IS A IMPORTANT

02:13 - STEP IN THE PROCESS AND IT'S

02:15 - ONLY HELD MAYBE 2 OR 3 TIMES

02:17 - A YEAR. THESE CASES TODAY

02:19 - YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR 5 CASES.

02:22 - THE PRESIDING JUDGES MARY

02:24 - JANE BOWS, SHE'S FROM OUT

02:25 - NALINI COUNTY. SHE WAS FIRST

02:27 - ELECTED IN

02:29 - 2001 AND ROUTINE FOR A IN 2011.

02:34 - SO WITH THAT WILL WILL GET

02:36 - STARTED ON THE FIRST CASE.

02:38 - THE FIRST CASE TODAY IS

02:40 - MARY VS AMERICAN LAFRANCE AND

02:44 - THERE'S A SERIES OF OTHER

02:45 - CASES, THESE CASES INVOLVED.

02:50 - CLAIMS FOR

02:51 - PRODUCT LIABILITY. FOR HEARING

02:54 - LOSS AS A RESULT OF A

02:56 - FIRE ENGINES, THE INCIDENT

02:58 - OCCURRED IN NEW YORK.

03:00 - BUT AMERICAN LAFRANCE WHICH IS

03:03 - NOW OWNED BY FEDERAL SIGNAL.

03:07 - HAS REGISTERED GOING BACK IN

03:11 - 1969 AND THEN THEY REAFFIRMED

03:14 - IN 2018 2011.

03:16 - THEY REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS

03:19 - UNDER WHAT YOU'LL HEAR PROBABLY

03:21 - WILL HERE IN THE A PAIN IN THE

03:22 - ARGUMENT. UNDER SECTION

03:24 - 53 A ONE. AS A REGISTERED

03:28 - BUSINESS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF

03:29 - PENNSYLVANIA. WHAT REGISTERING

03:32 - AS A BUSINESS IN THE

03:33 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

03:34 - DOES IS IT ENTITLES YOU TO

03:36 - CERTAIN RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

03:38 - TO MAYBE FILE SORT OF LAWSUITS

03:41 - WHO ARE TO GET CERTAIN TAX

03:42 - BENEFITS. AND THEY'VE

03:45 - REGISTERED UNDER THAT

03:47 - WHAT THE MURRAY

03:49 - PLAINTIFFS DID IS THEY SUED IN

03:51 - THE COMMONWEALTH

03:52 - OF PENNSYLVANIA, ARGUING THAT

03:55 - SECTION 53 O ONE.

03:58 - WHICH IS A GENERAL WHICH IS A

04:00 - JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENT

04:01 - THAT BY. THE COMPANY

04:04 - REGISTERING TO DO BUSINESS IN

04:06 - THE COMMONWEALTH OF

04:07 - PENNSYLVANIA. DAVE'S SUBJECTED

04:09 - THEMSELVES TO JURISDICTION.

04:11 - EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN

04:13 - OFFICE HERE OR THE INCIDENT

04:15 - DOESN'T OCCUR IN PENNSYLVANIA.

04:17 - AND THAT'S THE ARGUMENT YOU'RE

04:18 - GOING TO HEAR TO DATE THE

04:20 - PLAINTIFFS ARE GOING TO ARGUE.

04:23 - THAT

04:24 - BASICALLY BY CONSPIRING JUST

04:27 - DURING AS

04:27 - A BUSINESS IN THE COMMONWEALTH

04:29 - OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE HAS

04:31 - ENACTED A STATUTE

04:33 - THAT SAYS IF YOU'RE REGISTER

04:35 - YEAR. YOU CAN BE SUED HERE.

04:37 - SO NOT ONLY CAN YOU BRING

04:39 - LAWSUITS BUT YOU CAN BE SUED

04:41 - HERE AND THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY

04:43 - CONSENTING TO JURISDICTION.

04:45 - THE IN A COMPANIES ARE GOING TO

04:48 - BE SAYING

04:49 - THAT UNDER A US SUPREME COURT

04:51 - DECISION WHICH CAME OUT WITHIN

04:53 - THE LAST 2 YEARS AND YOU'LL

04:55 - PROBABLY HEAR BE REFERRED TO AS

04:57 - TIME WORE LIKE

04:58 - TYLER CHRYSLER THAT THERE'S

05:00 - ONLY 2 PLACES IN A COMPANY CAN

05:03 - GET SUED.

05:05 - OTHER THAN THE PLACE WHERE THE

05:06 - INCIDENT OCCURS EITHER WHERE IT

05:09 - HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE

05:10 - OF BUSINESS OR IT'S A PLACE OF

05:13 - INCORPORATION SO THAT'S GOING

05:15 - TO BE THE MAIN 2 ISSUES.

05:18 - THE MAIN TO ARGUMENT IT'S GOING

05:19 - TO

05:19 - BE ONE. WHETHER BY JUST

05:22 - REGISTERING IN THE

05:23 - COMMONWEALTH. YOU'RE SUBJECTING

05:25 - YOURSELF TO JURISDICTION UNDER

05:27 - A SPECIFIC STATUTE.

05:29 - VS NO WE CAN ONLY BE SUED WHERE

05:33 - THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WHERE WE

05:34 - DO BUSINESS SO WHERE WERE

05:36 - INCORPORATED ONE OTHER.

05:39 - ARGUMENT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR

05:40 - BRIEFLY MOST LIKELY IS THERE'S

05:42 - A WAIVER ISSUE AS TO WHETHER

05:44 - OR NOT THE WAY

05:45 - THE PLAINTIFFS. THE MURRAY

05:48 - A PLANE, IT'S WAIVED A THE

05:50 - ARGUMENT ABOUT CONSENTING TO

05:52 - JURISDICTION. IN THE TRIAL

05:54 - COURT. BUT THAT'S PROBABLY

05:56 - A WAR. COLLATERAL ARGUMENT IN

05:59 - THE CASE, THE MAIN ISSUE IS.

06:02 - THIS SUBJECT TO THE

06:03 - JURISDICTION AND WHO CAN BE

06:05 - SEEN WHERE THEY CAN BE SUED.

06:07 - SO LET'S NOW GO TO THE

06:09 - ARGUMENT.

06:14 - >>OH YEAH, OH YEAH, OH, YEAH,

06:15 - OH MAN OR PERSONS HAVING

06:17 - BUSINESS BEFORE THE HONORABLE

06:18 - JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT OF

06:19 - PENNSYLVANIA HERE HOLDING BEING

06:20 - OUT HERE IN THE SHELBY HER GOT

06:22 - TO SEE THE COMMONWEALTH AND

06:23 - THIS HONORABLE COURT THE

06:24 - ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THE HONORABLE

06:26 - MARY GAME BOTH RESIGNED.

06:39 - >>GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

06:45 - RAINY HALLOWEEN.

06:47 - >>TO THE SECOND ON BOND OF ORAL

06:50 - ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPERIOR

06:51 - COURT THIS YEAR.

06:53 - AGAIN MY NAME IS

06:54 - MARY JANE BOWS AND AS PRESIDING

06:56 - JUDGE I KNOW FOR ICE I THAT I

06:58 - SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I

06:59 - SAY WE ARE DELIGHTED TO BE HERE

07:01 - AND WE ARE

07:02 - LOOKING FORWARD WITH GREAT

07:03 - ANTICIPATION TO HEAR ORAL

07:05 - ARGUMENTS.

07:06 - BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE

07:07 - THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE

07:09 - THE DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF

07:11 - THIS COURT WHO ARE HERE TODAY.

07:13 - TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS IT

07:15 - HONORABLE JACKIE SHOWDOWN

07:17 - WESTMORELAND COUNTY MORNING.

07:19 - TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS THE

07:20 - HONORABLE AND LAZARUS OF

07:22 - PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

07:24 - ALSO PROVIDED LITTLE TREATS

07:26 - HURT. OUR COUNCIL HERE TODAY AT

07:29 - THE OTHER WAY.

07:30 - THANK YOU TO MY RIGHT IS THE

07:32 - HONORABLE DUTY OLSON OF

07:34 - ALLEGHENY COUNTY MORNING

07:36 - TO MY LEFT IS THE HONORABLE

07:37 - FIXED A BILL OF CUMBERLAND

07:39 - COUNTY MORNING. TO MY RIGHT IS

07:42 - THE HONORABLE ALICE DUBOW OF

07:44 - PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MORNING

07:46 - TO MY LEFT IS THE HONORABLE

07:48 - DEBBIE KUNSELMAN OF BEAVER

07:49 - COUNTY READ IT

07:51 - TO MY RIGHT IS THE HONORABLE

07:53 - CAROLYN NICHOLS OF PHILADELPHIA

07:56 - COUNTY MORNING.

07:57 - AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST TO MY

07:59 - FAR LEFT IS THE HONORABLE MARY

08:00 - MURRAY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.

08:02 - GOOD MORNING.

08:04 - AND ELATED TO BE HERE WITH ALL

08:06 - THESE FIND JURORS TODAY.

08:08 - THE SUPERIOR COURT

08:10 - IS ONE OF 2 INTERMEDIATE

08:11 - APPELLATE COURT

08:12 - IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE EVERYONE

08:14 - HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO

08:17 - APPEAL A CASE FROM A

08:19 - TRIAL COURT. THIS COURT WAS

08:21 - FOUNDED IN 1895 AND HAS BECOME

08:24 - ONE OF THE BUSIEST COURTS IN

08:25 - THE COUNTRY. EACH YEAR

08:27 - APPROXIMATELY 8,000 APPEALS ARE

08:29 - FILED IN COURT.

08:31 - WE HAVE 15 ELECTED JUDGES WHO

08:33 - SERVE ON THIS COURT AND WE ARE

08:35 - ASSISTED BY 6 SENIOR JUDGES FOR

08:38 - AND ON BONK SESSIONS SUCH AS

08:40 - THIS 9 OF THE 15 COMMISSION

08:43 - JUDGES HEAR THE CASES.

08:45 - JAMES WILSON WHO WAS ONE OF OUR

08:48 - FOUNDING FATHERS AND ONE OF THE

08:49 - FIRST UNITED STATES SUPREME

08:51 - COURT JUSTICES. ONE SAID THAT

08:54 - LAW AND LIBERTY CANNOT

08:55 - RATIONALLY BECOME THE OBJECTS

08:58 - UP OUR LOVE

08:59 - UNLESS THEY FIRST BECOME THE

09:01 - OBJECTS OUR KNOWLEDGE.

09:03 - MY COLLEAGUES AND I HOPE THAT

09:05 - THIS COURT SESSION WILL CREATE

09:07 - IN YOU THE CITIZENS OF

09:08 - PENNSYLVANIA. IT IS OUR TO

09:10 - LEARN MORE ABOUT THE LAW AND

09:12 - THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE WHICH IS

09:14 - THE BIRTH MOTHER OF LIBERTY.

09:17 - AS ALWAYS WE ARE GRATEFUL

09:19 - TO PCN FOR CARRYING THESE ORAL

09:21 - ARGUMENTS ON ITS

09:21 - CABLE CHANNEL. SO THAT THE

09:23 - CITIZENS OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN

09:25 - SEE THIS COURT IN ACTION AND

09:27 - UNDERSTAND OUR ROLE IN THE

09:28 - JUDICIAL SYSTEM. AS YOUR

09:30 - INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT.

09:33 - WE WANT TO THANK EACH AND

09:34 - HARDWORKING CAMERA MAN MATT PRO

09:37 - PICKY AND JOHN FOR OURS FOR

09:39 - THEIR LOYAL SERVICE. I WOULD

09:41 - ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR

09:42 - COMMENTATORS SO HAVE ASSISTED

09:44 - US HERE TODAY ATTORNEYS SCOTT

09:46 - COOPER OF SCHMIDT KRAMER

09:48 - IN HARRISBURG AND ATTORNEYS

09:50 - ROBERT SHOD OF ROSEANN JENKINS

09:53 - AND GREEN WALL IN WILKES-BARRE.

09:55 - WE ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR COURT

09:57 - CRIERS JACKPOT AND SCOTT PERSON

09:59 - OR FOR THEIR

10:00 - OUTSTANDING ABILITY TO HAVE OUR

10:01 - ORAL ARGUMENT SESSION MONTH

10:02 - SO SMOOTHLY THAT OPHELIA NOT

10:05 - CHIEFS AFTER TURNING OUR

10:06 - PROPRIETARY JOE SLEVIN AND OUR

10:08 - SECURITY TEAM, JAY RAY SICK AND

10:10 - JOHN BRENNAN.

10:12 - WE HAVE READ YOUR BRIEFS AND A

10:14 - WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE FACTS

10:15 - AND YOUR ISSUES SAY TIME IS

10:17 - BEST PROCEEDING DIRECTLY TO

10:19 - YOUR ARGUMENT.

10:21 - WE ARE IN ERROR CORRECTING PORT

10:22 - SO PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF OUR

10:24 - STANDARD OF REVIEW IN THAT

10:25 - REGARD. IF

10:27 - COUNCIL FOR A POWER LUNCH WOULD

10:28 - LIKE TO SERVE TIME FROM

10:30 - REBUTTAL. PLEASE DO SO BEFORE

10:32 - THE START OF

10:33 - THE ARGUMENTS. PLEASE INTRODUCE

10:35 - YOURSELF TO THIS COURT BEFORE

10:36 - YOU BEGIN ARGUMENT.

10:38 - AND IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST

10:39 - ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPERIOR

10:41 - COURT PLEASE LET US KNOW SO WE

10:42 - CAN WELCOME YOU TO THE BAR.

10:45 - I KNOW I SPEAK FOR MY

10:46 - COLLEAGUES, I SAY IT IS AN

10:47 - HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE

10:49 - YOU. THE CITIZENS OF THIS

10:51 - COMMONWEALTH AS A JUDGE.

10:53 - BUT THE SUPERIOR COURT. NOW WE

10:55 - WILL CALL THE FIRST CASE TODAY.

10:57 - MURRAY VERSUS AMERICAN.

11:36 - >>THEY PLEASE THE COURT THOMAS

11:38 - JAY JOYCE, THE 3RD THE BURN

11:39 - CAPELLI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

11:42 - YOUR HONOR I'D LIKE TO JUST

11:43 - PRESERVE ABOUT 3 MINUTES FOR

11:44 - REBUTTAL AND ALSO JUST I'M

11:46 - GOING TO BE ARGUING THE WAIVER

11:48 - POSITION. JUST 2 MINUTES FOR

11:49 - THAT THAN MISTER MISTER BACKER

11:51 - LORD OF THE

11:51 - JURISDICTION ISSUE. OK SO JUST

11:53 - GIVE YOU KNOW IT'S ON THIS U N

11:54 - 2 MINUTES S AND THEN 3 MINUTES

11:56 - FOR REBUTTAL, CORRECT.

11:58 - >>AND I THINK I GOT THAT THAT'S

12:00 - HIGH LEVEL MATH BUT WE'RE GOING

12:01 - TO RUN WITH IT OK.

12:05 - >>I HAD THE PLEASURE YOUR HONOR

12:06 - OF ARGUMENT A VERY KSAT BUT AT

12:07 - THE PANEL LEVEL ISSUE ABOUT

12:09 - WAIVERS. THIS IS NO DOUBT WILL

12:11 - 3 OH 2.

12:12 - >>OF THE.

12:14 - >>ROOSEVELT PROCEDURES REQUIRE

12:15 - YOU TO ARGUE WITH IN THE TRIAL

12:17 - WHERE WE DID NOT DO THAT

12:18 - HOWEVER I DO THINK THAT

12:20 - SUPREME COURT CASE OF UNIONTOWN

12:21 - NEWSPAPERS INC ALLOWS

12:23 - US TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT ON THE

12:25 - AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL SO EVEN

12:27 - THOUGH WE DID NOT ARGUE CONSENT

12:29 - BY JURISDICTION AT THE TRIAL

12:30 - COURT LEVEL WE FOCUS SONS

12:32 - CONTINUE SYSTEMATIC BUSINESS IN

12:33 - PENNSYLVANIA. I THINK IN LIGHT

12:35 - OF UNIONTOWN WHICH IS WAS

12:38 - CITING THE VIXEN CASE FROM THE

12:39 - SUPERIOR COURT I THINK THAT AS

12:41 - THE NON MOVING PARTY. WE HAVE

12:42 - THE RIGHT TO A

12:43 - TO MAKE THIS NEW ARGUMENT, THE

12:45 - APPELLATE LEVEL THAT'S THAT'S

12:46 - THAT'S THE POINT THERE.

12:57 - >>NOT ROLL OVER HIS ONE MINUTE

12:59 - TO YOU. THANK YOU

13:01 - YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU AND MAY

13:03 - IT PLEASE THE COURT I AM SHIP

13:04 - BACK ARE HERE FOR THE

13:05 - PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION FOR

13:07 - JUSTICE.

13:08 - >>AND I JUST SENT A POINT OF

13:09 - ORDER I CAMPBELL THE REBUTTAL

13:12 - FOR THEM FOR THE FOR THE FOR

13:14 - THE TALENT.

13:16 - THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO

13:18 - PRESENT ARGUMENT AND TO BE HERE

13:20 - WITH YOU TODAY.

13:21 - THERE ARE THE 3 DIFFERENT AS I

13:23 - SEE IT 3 DIFFERENT PIECES OF OF

13:26 - THE DECISION THAT

13:28 - YOU MUST MAKE AND ONE IS THE

13:29 - ISSUE OF LABOR WHICH HAS BEEN.

13:32 - ARGUED BY THE ALLEY AND OF

13:34 - COURSE TO THE LAST WAS

13:36 - ADDRESSED IN IN THE DESCENT OF

13:37 - YOU WROTE IN THAT AND YOU KNOW

13:39 - ONE PANEL DECISION THE SECOND.

13:41 - IS JUST

13:43 - OFFICIALLY HOW WHETHER THERE IS

13:45 - JURISDICTION OVER THIS

13:46 - DEFENDANT ON THE FACE OF THE

13:47 - STATUTE THAT COULD PUT THE

13:49 - CONSENT EXCUSE ME PUT THE LABOR

13:50 - ISSUE TO THE SITE JUST HOLD THE

13:52 - CAMERA FOR A MOMENT ON THE

13:53 - ISSUE OF IS THEIR JURISDICTION

13:55 - UNDER

13:55 - THE STATUTE AND THEN 3RD THERE

13:57 - IS A

13:58 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.

13:59 - 2 UNDER DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS TO

14:02 - REGISTRATION JURISDICTION.

14:03 - >>I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN

14:04 - SEPARATE THOSE 2 BUT.

14:06 - >>OK

14:09 - >>BUT I THINK I THINK I CAN

14:10 - BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF IT

14:11 - BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF YOU

14:12 - JUST IF I CAN USE THE METAPHOR

14:14 - THAT I HAD EARLIER IF YOU CAN

14:16 - JUST HOLD THE CAMERA FOR A

14:17 - MOMENT ON. ON THE STATUTE, THE

14:19 - PAST WAIVER WE'RE NOT YET AT

14:21 - THE AT THE CHALLENGE AND LOOK

14:22 - AT THE LOOK AT

14:23 - THE STATUTE WITH 53 OH ONE SAYS

14:26 - IS THIS IS A STATUTE OF THE

14:27 - GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HE SAYS THAT.

14:34 - THE COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

14:35 - EXERCISE GENERAL JURISDICTION

14:36 - OVER A

14:37 - FOREIGN CORPORATION, THAT HAS

14:38 - REGISTERED AS A FOREIGN

14:39 - CORPORATION, BUT THAT ISN'T THE

14:41 - QUESTION.

14:42 - >>WHETHER THE REGISTRATIONS

14:44 - STATUTE PROVIDES EXPRESS NOTICE

14:47 - OF CONSENT TO GENERAL

14:48 - JURISDICTION. WELL THAT IS IT

14:50 - THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL

14:51 - CONCEPT AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S IN

14:52 - THE END WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO

14:53 - BUT THE POINT THAT I JUST WANT

14:54 - TO ESTABLISH RIGHT NOW.

14:56 - >>IS THAT ON THE FACE OF THE

14:57 - STATUTE ON THE FACE OF THE

14:58 - STATUTE, OUR STATUTE SAYS THIS

15:00 - COMPANY WHICH REGISTERED AS A

15:02 - FOREIGN. WHICH REGISTERED AS A

15:04 - FOREIGN CORPORATION

15:05 - PRETTY LEAVE WAS NEWS 19 SAM,

15:08 - 1969 THEY REGISTERED AS 1969

15:10 - AND THEY HAVE MAINTAINED AN

15:11 - SUPPLEMENT IN THAT

15:12 - REGISTRATION. EVER INCLUDING

15:14 - FILINGS IN A 1998 2001 TO

15:19 - 2011. SO THIS IS A YES

15:21 - THIS WAS A FILING INITIALLY

15:23 - DONE IN 1969 BUT IT HAS NEVER

15:25 - BEEN WITHDRAWN AND IT HAS BEEN

15:26 - SPREADS AND IT HAS

15:27 - BEEN MAINTAINED.

15:28 - >>NOAH GRAY ON ITS FACE IT

15:30 - SEEMS TO APPLY IN PENNSYLVANIA

15:32 - IS ONLY ONE OF A COUPLE OF

15:33 - STATES THAT

15:34 - PROVIDE FOR CONSENT TO

15:36 - JURISDICTION VIA THIS

15:37 - MECHANISM, YOU KNOW I DON'T CRY

15:40 - BUT I DON'T KNOW THE FULL LAY

15:41 - OF THE COUNTRY WITH THE MINUTE

15:43 - WE WALKED WITH RESPECT TO THIS

15:44 - ISSUE WHICH IS CERTAINLY

15:45 - UNUSUAL ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA

15:46 - STATUTE IS IS THAT OUR GENERAL

15:49 - JURISDICTION STATUTE.

15:50 - >>EXPRESSLY IMPOSES GENERAL

15:52 - JURISDICTION ON FOREIGN

15:53 - CORPORATIONS THAT REGISTER AS A

15:54 - FOREIGN CORPORATION.

15:55 - THERE IS THERE ARE STATUTES IN

15:58 - IN THE IN THE IN THE

16:00 - FOREIGN OF THIS OF THE

16:01 - ASSOCIATION CODES.

16:03 - >>THAT HAVE A VARIETY OF OF

16:06 - LANGUAGE SOME OF WHICH.

16:09 - >>WOULD APPEAR TO IMPOSE

16:09 - GENERAL JURISDICTION OR AT

16:10 - LEAST REQUIRE FOR REGISTRATION

16:12 - OR FOR SERVICE

16:13 - OF PROCESS. WHAT IS UNIQUE

16:14 - ABOUT PENNSYLVANIA ACTUALLY IS

16:16 - THAT NOT ONLY IS THERE THE

16:17 - ASSOCIATION

16:18 - LAW THAT MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM

16:20 - THE STANDPOINT OF JURISDICTION,

16:21 - THERE IS THE STATUTE ITSELF

16:22 - THAT SAYS THERE'S GENERAL

16:24 - JURISDICTION OVER A FOREIGN

16:25 - CORPORATION. SO IN THE FACE

16:27 - OF THAT. THERE IS A

16:29 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND OR

16:30 - DUE PROCESS UNDER DIMER

16:32 - AND WHEN WAS THAT STATUTE

16:33 - ENACTED 1978 1970 S.

16:37 - >>A A.

16:38 - >>YOU KNOW THERE IS A

16:39 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE AND OR

16:40 - THE DIME.

16:40 - THEIR DECISION. AND THE

16:43 - CHALLENGES THAT THAT UNDER DUE

16:44 - PROCESS THAT THAT UNDER THE

16:47 - FRAMEWORK OF DUE PROCESS, THE

16:48 - DIAMOND DECISION THE US SUPREME

16:50 - COURT DECISION IN TYLER

16:51 - CONFINES GENERAL JURISDICTION

16:53 - TO PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS

16:55 - AND A PLACE IN

16:57 - THE CORPORATION AND

16:58 - REGISTRATION JURISDICTION IS IS

17:00 - OUT OF BOUNDS.

17:01 - >>I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT

17:02 - THAT WAS A A DECISION THAT

17:05 - CHANGED THE JURISPRUDENCE OF

17:08 - CHER'S SECTION.

17:09 - >>WELL I I ACTUALLY WOULDN'T

17:11 - AGREE WITH THAT BUT BUT UM I

17:13 - MEAN IT IS CERTAINLY AN

17:13 - IMPORTANT DECISION IN A LINE OF

17:15 - CASES BUT THE CITY

17:16 - HAS CONSTRAINED AND RAIN DIDN'T

17:19 - IT HAS IT HAS BEEN LINE IT HAS

17:20 - TO FIND A CONCEPT THAT I THINK

17:22 - WAS RATTLING AROUND IN THE

17:23 - CASES BEFORE THEM INTO THAT TO

17:25 - THE EXTENT THAT IT SAID

17:26 - SOMETHING MORE EXPLICITLY

17:27 - PERHAPS AND HAD BEEN SAID

17:28 - BEFORE A I I MEAN I THINK GET

17:30 - ANY DECISION OF THE SUPREME

17:31 - COURT IS IMPORTANT.

17:32 - BUT THE THAT THE POINT THAT I

17:33 - WANT TO MAKE TO ALL OF YOU IN

17:35 - THE CONTEXT OF WHAT OF WHAT

17:36 - YOUR WORK IS.

17:37 - IS THAT IN THE FACE OF A

17:38 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE IN THE

17:40 - FACE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL

17:41 - CHALLENGE OF THE STATE STATUTE.

17:43 - YOU HAVE A CONSTRUCTION OF

17:44 - FRAMEWORK. YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY

17:45 - A STANDARD OF REVIEW, A THAT

17:47 - THAT THE GUIDES AND VINES HOW

17:49 - YOU DO YOUR ANALYSIS AND THAT

17:51 - STANDARD IS THAT THERE IS A

17:53 - PRESUMPTION. THERE IS A

17:54 - PRESUMPTION THAT STATUTES ARE

17:55 - CONSTITUTIONAL.

17:57 - STATUTES WILL NOT BE DECLARED

17:58 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THE

18:00 - STATUTE AND THIS IS THE THIS IS

18:02 - A RECORDING HEAR FROM

18:04 - FROM THE ONE OF WHAT THE

18:05 - STATUTE SAYS IT'S BECAUSE HE'S

18:07 - ACTUALLY PREDATES THAT GUY

18:08 - MILLER. WELL IT DOES BUT BUT

18:11 - THERE IS A CHALLENGE TO THE

18:12 - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE

18:13 - STATUTE

18:14 - AND YOU I'M NOT OPENED IN

18:16 - DECIDING WHETHER IT'S

18:17 - CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT YOU HAVE

18:19 - TO START WITH THE PRESUMPTION

18:20 - THAT THE STATUTES TO THAT A

18:21 - STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE

18:22 - CONSTITUTION AND THAT MEANS IT

18:24 - MAY NOT BE DECLARED

18:25 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THE

18:27 - STATUTE CLEARLY PLAINLY AND

18:28 - PALPABLY VIOLATES THE

18:29 - CONSTITUTION

18:30 - AND SO YOU'RE INTERPRETING THE

18:32 - STATUTE TO MEAN THE BUSINESS

18:34 - REGISTRATION.

18:35 - >>IS

18:35 - EQUIVALENT TO CONSENT TO

18:37 - PERSONAL JERSEY, YOU KNOW

18:39 - THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT

18:40 - I'M MAKING NOW WHAT THE

18:41 - ARGUMENT THAT I'M MAKING NOW IS

18:42 - THAT.

18:43 - >>THERE'S THAT A IN A IN A

18:45 - CONTEXT FOR ALL DOUBTS MUST BE

18:47 - RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF FINDING

18:48 - CONSTITUTIONALITY WHERE THAT

18:50 - CHALLENGER TO THIS WITH A

18:52 - PROPONENT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

18:54 - HAS A HEAVY BURDEN OF

18:55 - PERSUASION ON THE CHALLENGE AND

18:57 - WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS BASED ON

18:58 - THE DIME. THEIR DECISION WHAT

19:00 - IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR YOUR

19:01 - PURPOSES. WHAT IS REALLY

19:03 - IMPORTANT FOR YOUR PURPOSES IS

19:04 - TO RECOGNIZE

19:05 - THE DINER IS NOT A CASE ABOUT

19:07 - REGISTRATION JURISDICTIONS IT

19:09 - DOESN'T DISCUSS REGISTRATION

19:10 - JURISDICTION, IT'S NOT ABOUT

19:11 - REGISTRATION JURISDICTION.

19:12 - IT'S ABOUT IT IS A CASE ABOUT

19:14 - WHETHER A GERMAN PARENT

19:15 - CORPORATION COULD HAVE CAN BE

19:16 - SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL

19:17 - JURISDICTION THEREOF THE

19:18 - CALIFORNIA COURTS. NOW PLAYING

19:20 - A THE ARGUMENT BE PRESENTED

19:22 - IS TRYING TO OPEN A DIFFERENT

19:24 - DOOR BEYOND WHERE DAHMER WENT.

19:26 - >>BUT UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL

19:27 - ISSUE IS IT YOUR BURDEN HERE

19:29 - REALLY TO RECONCILE WHAT YOU

19:31 - WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED HIS

19:32 - CONSENT UNDER THE STATUTE WITH

19:33 - THE CONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN BEING

19:35 - PLACED ON PALMER'S I'M NOT

19:37 - REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT

19:38 - HERE. I MEAN I KNOW THAT THE

19:40 - COURT SPEAKS IN TURN TO DUE

19:42 - PROCESS BUT COMMERCE PREDATED

19:43 - THE DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS

19:45 - WELL IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK BUT

19:46 - THERE IS A COMMERCE THERE IS A

19:48 - COMMERCE

19:48 - CLAUSE CHALLENGE.

19:50 - >>AND THOSE CASES ARE ARE QUITE

19:52 - DISTINGUISHABLE THERE'S MOST

19:53 - NOTABLY THE

19:54 - DAVIS CASE WHICH INVOLVED A

19:55 - RAILROAD WHICH INVOLVE

19:56 - RAILROADS AND THERE WAS A

19:58 - MINNESOTA

19:58 - STATUTE WHICH WITH THE WORLD TO

20:00 - SHUN LOOK LET'S RECONCILE

20:02 - BEFORE THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO

20:03 - BUSINESS IN A STATE YOU HAVE TO

20:05 - REGISTER.

20:06 - >>THEREFORE THE STATE IMPOSES

20:07 - UPON YOU

20:08 - GENERAL JURISDICTION WHERE YOU

20:10 - WHERE YOU WANT TO WATCH HAVE NO

20:11 - OTHER CONTACTS IN THE CAUSE OF

20:12 - ACTION AS THE RELATION TO THE

20:13 - STATE. HOW DOES THAT NOT

20:16 - BURDENED YOU'RE RIGHT.

20:18 - YOU KNOW TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE

20:20 - WELL IT IS EXCEPT FOR THAT

20:21 - LET'S ACCEPT FOR A MOMENT THAT

20:22 - IT IS A BURDEN. WHAT IS

20:24 - IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND IS

20:25 - THAT THE US SUPREME COURT ON

20:27 - MULTIPLE OCCASIONS HAS RATIFIED

20:28 - AND THEN HELD THAT SUCH THAT

20:31 - STATUTES OF THIS MILL YEAR

20:32 - SACHA TO THIS NATURE ARE

20:33 - CONSTITUTIONAL. AND IT DID SO

20:35 - IN EX PARTE SHELLENBERGER 1877

20:38 - DID SO IN SINCLAIR VERSUS COX,

20:39 - THE PENNSYLVANIA FIRE INSURANCE

20:41 - AND ROBERT MITCHELL

20:42 - OF LOUISVILLE, THIS

20:43 - IS A SOME LIGHTER THAN AGO

20:44 - EARLIER ERA WELL BE MAY BE THAT

20:47 - THAT THAT'S ALL THAT DONE IS

20:48 - THAT IS A FIND THAT IS TRUE

20:50 - THAT THESE CASES RANGE FROM

20:52 - 1877 TO 1939. AND THERE ARE

20:55 - 2, 4, 6, THERE ARE

20:56 - 6 OF THEM THAT'S RIGHT BUT FOR

20:58 - THE INTERNATIONAL SHOT FROM THE

20:59 - STANDPOINT OF THEIR

21:00 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.

21:02 - THAT'S REALLY WHAT THESE ARE

21:03 - THE DECISIONS OF THE US

21:04 - SUPREME COURT AND UH YOU KNOW

21:06 - THERE'S ALSO A MARBURY VERSUS

21:09 - MADISON. THAT'S STILL

21:10 - GOOD LAW. THAT THAT'S EVEN

21:12 - ORDER THAT SAYS THE US SUPREME

21:13 - COURT GETS TO DECIDE WHAT THE

21:14 - LAWYERS AND THESE ARE THE

21:15 - DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

21:17 - THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER

21:18 - HAVE SAID THAT A STATE MAY

21:19 - CONDITION. THE STATE MAY

21:20 - CONDITIONS THE BIRD.

21:23 - A FOREIGN CORPORATION BY

21:24 - CONDITIONING THE RIGHT TO DO

21:25 - BUSINESS. KIND OF BEING SUBJECT

21:27 - TO GENERAL JURISDICTION.

21:29 - SO IN THE FACE OF THE US

21:31 - SUPREME COURT STATUES EXCUSE ME

21:33 - IN THE FACE OF THOSE US SUPREME

21:34 - COURT CASES THAT

21:36 - THAT'S A. THIS IS

21:38 - CONSTITUTIONAL. THE QUESTION

21:40 - THEN ARISES WITH RESPECT TO

21:41 - THEIR CHALLENGE IS THEIR

21:43 - CHALLENGE ENTERED I'M WERE

21:44 - ENOUGH TO OVERRIDE ALL OF THOSE

21:46 - US UP IN COURT CASES I WAS IS

21:47 - NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING

21:49 - BECAUSE YOU'RE REQUIRING

21:51 - THE THE CORPORATIONS WHO WANT

21:53 - TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS AND

21:55 - REGISTER AND PENNSYLVANIA'S A

21:56 - FOREIGN CORPORATION TO GIVE UP

21:58 - THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

22:01 - AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES

22:03 - SUPREME COURT IN DIME.

22:05 - >>I MEAN THEY'RE THERE AND I'M

22:07 - WHERE THEY'RE LIKE HEY, THE

22:08 - ONLY WAY YOU CAN SUE A FOREIGN

22:09 - CORPORATION. IT SAYS

22:11 - CORPORATIONS INCORPORATED THERE

22:13 - ALREADY IS AT

22:13 - HOME WHICH MEANS IT'S NOT EVEN

22:15 - DOING BUSINESS OR BUT

22:16 - SIGNIFICANTLY THAT IS THE LOCUS

22:19 - OF THE CORPORATION. SO THERE'S

22:21 - A REAL SHIFT HERE TOO

22:22 - THE CONSTRAINING

22:24 - JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN

22:27 - CORPORATIONS AND HERE IF A

22:29 - CORPORATION WANTS TO

22:31 - POTENTIALLY DO BUSINESS IN

22:32 - PENNSYLVANIA LIKE WHY HAVE TO

22:33 - REGISTER POSSESSED LAW BUT THEN

22:35 - THE MORE EXPOSED MYSELF TO A

22:37 - LITIGATION THAT MAY ARISE

22:39 - ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

22:41 - >>AND LET ME JUST ADD ONE MORE

22:42 - IMPORTANT NOT TO THE ANALYSIS

22:44 - IS THIS IS A CORPORATION THAT

22:46 - NEVER. EXPERTS SAY THEY

22:48 - OBTAINED THE PRIVILEGE TO DO

22:50 - BUSINESS THAT NEVER I ACTUALLY

22:53 - DID BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

22:55 - SO I ALSO COME BACK TO AN

22:56 - INTERNATIONAL SHOE ANALYSIS

22:58 - WE'RE IS YOU KNOW HOW DO YOU

23:01 - RECONCILED AFFECTING THE

23:02 - EXERCISE A PRIVILEGE TO DO

23:03 - BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

23:05 - WITH INTERNATIONAL SHOE THAT

23:06 - HAS SOME MINIMAL CONTACT.

23:09 - >>HAS TO BE MEANINGFUL

23:10 - RELATIONSHIP IS ENOUGH.

23:12 - EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE CASE IS

23:13 - IT THAT YOU SO I I A AND I

23:17 - THINK IS A DEBATE HERE ABOUT

23:19 - WHETHER THERE WOULD BE THAT

23:20 - SPECIFIC JURISDICTION. I

23:22 - DIRECTLY UNDER USUAL FRAMEWORK

23:24 - OR

23:25 - OR IF WE WERE DOING IF WE WERE

23:26 - LOOKING AT THIS JUST WITHIN THE

23:27 - CONVENTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF

23:28 - GENERAL JURISDICTION AS

23:29 - DESCRIBED IN.

23:31 - >>WITHIN THE

23:31 - CONVENTIONAL JURISDICTION.

23:33 - OUR FRAMEWORK OF GENERAL

23:34 - JURISDICTION HAS DESCRIBED AND

23:36 - I'M I WHERE WE TALK ABOUT

23:37 - PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND

23:38 - AND PLACE OF INCORPORATION AND

23:39 - WE TALK ABOUT.

23:42 - >>CONTACT THAT'S

23:43 - THE SCENARIO WRITE IT WHAT TIME

23:44 - WHICH WAS WHICH IS MY POINT I

23:46 - CLEARLY THERE'S THERE'S NO

23:47 - JURISDICTION IF IF THAT'S THAT

23:49 - WOULD BE THE TOUCHDOWNS BUT THE

23:52 - FRAMEWORK FOR YOU THE FRAMEWORK

23:54 - FOR YOU IS THAT THERE IS A

23:55 - CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE BASED

23:57 - UPON DINER, WHICH DOES NOT

23:59 - DISCUSS REGISTRATION

24:00 - JURISDICTION. ALTHOUGH THE US

24:02 - SUPREME COURT HAS DONE SO MANY

24:03 - TIMES AND WHERE RESPECTFULLY.

24:08 - ARE NOT PERMITTED.

24:10 - 2. OVERTURN A STATE STATUTE AND

24:13 - BY

24:14 - THE WAY. IT WHERE WHERE SOMEONE

24:16 - CHALLENGES A STATE STATUTE,

24:17 - THERE'S AN OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY

24:18 - THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL WHICH WAS

24:19 - NEVER DONE HERE AND THERE ARE

24:20 - CASES THE TALK ABOUT WEAVER IN

24:22 - THAT BUT THAT'S THAT YOU CAN

24:24 - ALSO FROM FOR ANY REASON SO I

24:26 - DON'T WANT TO KNOW IS THAT FOR

24:27 - YOU WANT TO LEAVE ARE YOU ONE

24:28 - LAST TIME ABOUT.

24:30 - >>WHAT I THINK MAY BE THE CRUX

24:32 - OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

24:33 - HOW DO YOU RECONCILE

24:35 - THIS CONDITION WITH YOUR

24:36 - OPPONENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED

24:37 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION.

24:39 - HOW WOULD YOU RECONCILE THAT

24:40 - WITH THE NOTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL

24:42 - FAIRNESS WHICH PERMEATE ALL THE

24:43 - DUE PROCESS CASES. HOW DO

24:46 - YOU RECONCILE SUBJECTING

24:47 - YOURSELF TO GENERAL

24:48 - JURISDICTION, WE HAVE NO

24:49 - CONTACTS WITH THE STATE WITH

24:51 - NOTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS

24:53 - THE THE

24:55 - FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND THE

24:57 - FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS LIES AND

24:58 - LIES IN THE REGISTRATION.

25:00 - THIS IS THERE THERE IS A THERE

25:02 - IS A QUID PRO QUO,

25:03 - THERE IS THERE'S A TAPE THERE

25:04 - IS A THERE THERE ARE CONDITIONS

25:06 - THAT YOU CAN AGREE TO ACCEPT.

25:09 - >>WHERE YOU CAN OR YOU CANNOT

25:10 - ACCEPT THE DUE PROCESS THAT

25:12 - TOOK THE PAIR SPLIT. WELL OK,

25:14 - 5 OK, BUT BUT THE CONDITION

25:17 - HERE IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO

25:19 - REGISTER AS A JURISDICTION AND

25:20 - THE AND HAVE THE BENEFITS OF

25:22 - BEING A DOMESTIC CORPORATION.

25:25 - AND WHEN YOU WHEN

25:26 - YOU REGISTER. YOU HAVE IN THIS

25:29 - IS THIS IS AN ART THIS IS IN

25:30 - OUR ASSOCIATION CODE. YOU HAVE

25:31 - ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

25:32 - OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION.

25:36 - BUT YOU

25:36 - ALSO THAT, BUT YOU ALSO, BUT

25:37 - YOU ALSO HAVE ALL OF YOU ALSO

25:39 - HAVE ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF

25:40 - BEING A TO

25:41 - THE RESTRICTIONS.

25:41 - >>AT THE EXPENSE OF GIVING UP A

25:43 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT

25:44 - IS A THAT IS NOT TRUE FIRST OF

25:48 - OUR COUNTY YOUR TERMS UP SO YOU

25:50 - CAN ANSWER JUST OF THOSE

25:51 - QUESTIONED THEM.

25:53 - >>YOU CAN USE YOUR REBUTTAL ME

25:55 - SAY THAT THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.

25:58 - IN A SEASON-SAVING YOU DON'T

25:59 - WANT TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

26:00 - WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL CAKE

26:01 - A LOOK AT THE TIME FOR

26:02 - REBUTTAL. OKAY.

26:28 - MORNING YEAR HONORS ME PLEASE

26:30 - THE COURT.

26:32 - >>MY NAME IS DAVID DUFFY FROM

26:33 - RETURNING FROM CHICAGO AND I

26:35 - REPRESENT FEDERAL SIGNAL

26:36 - CORPORATION HAVE THROUGHOUT

26:37 - THIS LITIGATION.

26:40 - >>MY CLIENT,

26:41 - THE SEARCH. MISTER DEPUTY LIKE

26:43 - TO INTRODUCE A POLICE HAVE

26:44 - ABSOLUTELY ALONG WITH THE AT MY

26:46 - LOCAL COUNCIL FROM A

26:47 - PHILADELPHIA MIGHT MAKE HIM

26:49 - FROM THE LAB AND NEIL TERM AND

26:51 - MY

26:51 - COLLEAGUE TOO HAS WRITTEN A LOT

26:53 - OF THE WORK AND DONE A LOT OF

26:54 - WORK ON DURING MANSE FROM A

26:56 - CHICAGO AS WELL THANK YOU THANK

26:58 - YOU FOR BEING MAKE IRAN IF

26:59 - YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ME TO DO

27:00 - THAT AND MUCH APPRECIATED

27:02 - THAT'S OKAY. MISTER DUFFY.

27:06 - >>CLARIFY FOR ME NOT ONLY WAS

27:07 - THERE THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

27:09 - IN 1969. THERE

27:11 - WERE SUBSEQUENT FILINGS THAT

27:13 - WERE MADE BUT TO

27:14 - THOSE INVOLVED.

27:16 - >>YOUR HONOR THERE'S NO

27:17 - DISPUTE, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T TALK

27:19 - ABOUT WAIVER, BUT THERE'S NO

27:20 - DISPUTE THAT IF THE COURT LOOKS

27:22 - AT THE CORPORATION FILINGS OF

27:24 - FEDERAL SIGNAL. THE FEDERAL

27:26 - SINGLE HAS REGISTERED TO DO

27:27 - BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF

27:28 - PENNSYLVANIA SINCE THE STATUTE

27:31 - THAT IS AT ISSUE WAS INACTIVE

27:33 - THAT'S NOT IN DISPUTE, HOWEVER,

27:35 - I.

27:36 - >>ARE YOU CONCEDING THE NOTICE.

27:39 - >>ABSOLUTELY NOT SO FROM

27:40 - OUR PERSPECTIVE NOTE IS IS A

27:44 - COMPLICATED QUESTION

27:45 - THERE ARE 2 ASPECTS OF CONSENT

27:47 - THERE ARE INHERENT IN DUE

27:49 - PROCESS, JURORS PURDY'S WHICH

27:51 - IS BOTH THAT

27:53 - THE CONSENT THE VOLUNTARY AND

27:55 - THAT IT BE KNOWING THAT THAT

27:57 - TYPE

28:00 - >>GO TO ANY DISEASE AND.

28:02 - >>WE'RE HONOR I THINK THE

28:03 - RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE IS

28:05 - MINIMAL BUSINESS THE FEDERAL

28:06 - SIGNAL DOESN'T PENNSYLVANIA.

28:08 - I BELIEVE THAT IS IN OUR PAPERS

28:10 - IN THE AFFIDAVIT WE PUT IN

28:11 - FRONT OF THE TRIAL COURT.

28:13 - SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH MINIMAL

28:14 - BUSINESS YOU A NEW IT IS.

28:16 - >>THAT PERSONAL JURISDICTION,

28:17 - COULD BE EXERCISED BY

28:19 - PENNSYLVANIA BY.

28:20 - COMPLETING THE BUSINESS THE

28:22 - UPDATED

28:22 - BUSINESS REGISTRATION.

28:24 - >>UPSTART JUDGE AND DIDN'T

28:25 - UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION WILL

28:26 - THE EU ON NOTICE THAT

28:28 - PERSONAL JURISDICTION COULD BE

28:30 - EXERCISED BY PENNSYLVANIA

28:31 - COURTS BY DATING THE

28:33 - REGISTRATION WHEN THE STATUE

28:35 - BECAME EFFECT. WELL, I DISAGREE

28:37 - FUNDAMENTALLY WITH I'M JUST

28:39 - ASKING ON AND HEAR RESPECTFULLY

28:41 - OR HONOR OUR POSITION REMAINS

28:43 - THAT THE NOTICE YOU IMPOSE IS

28:45 - CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE UNDER THE

28:47 - STATUE RIGHT.

28:48 - >>THE REALITY IS UNDER THE

28:49 - ASSOCIATIONS CODY BUSINESS IS

28:51 - MANDATED TO FINALLY

28:53 - REGISTRATION IN THIS STATE.

28:55 - IT IS NOT IT IS NOT TOLD IT IS

28:57 - NOT INDICATED THAT THERE IS IN

28:59 - FACT GENERAL PERSONAL

29:00 - JURISDICTION ACT.

29:01 - >>THEY'RE FISHER ENG TO THE

29:02 - FILING THOUGH IS YOU ARE FILING

29:04 - FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO DO

29:05 - BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

29:07 - SO HOW IS AND THEN THERE FOR

29:09 - AND AS RESULT OF THAT YOU ARE.

29:12 - >>FOUND BY.

29:13 - >>CHANGES IN THE LAW FOR ALL

29:15 - THE LIES AND HOW IS THAT ANY

29:17 - DIFFERENT.

29:18 - >>MY GETTING MY DRIVER'S

29:20 - LICENSE 16 TO HAVE THE

29:21 - PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE CARS

29:23 - IN PENNSYLVANIA. AND IT'S LAWS

29:25 - CHANGE NOBODY NOTIFY SAYS

29:27 - NOTIFIES ME THAT IS A CHANGE IN

29:29 - THE LAW BUT I'M STILL BOUND BY

29:30 - THE LAW.

29:31 - >>YOUR HONOR FIRST OF ALL I

29:33 - THINK THERE'S TOO QUESTIONS THE

29:34 - FIRST POINT IS

29:35 - I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND

29:37 - ARGUE THE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

29:38 - POINT FEDERAL SIGNAL IS A

29:40 - IS A CORPORATION IF IT DOES

29:42 - BUSINESS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY

29:44 - IT DOES BUSINESS THROUGHOUT THE

29:45 - WORLD. I'M NOT GOING IT TAKE

29:47 - ISSUE WITH THE

29:47 - NOTICE OF YOUR IMPLIED

29:50 - KNOWLEDGE OF UNDERSTANDING THE

29:52 - LAW WHAT I AM GOING TO SUGGEST

29:53 - THAT I THINK IT GOES BACK TO A

29:55 - JUDGE TO

29:55 - BILL'S QUESTIONS. IT RELATES

29:57 - SPECIFICALLY TO THAT

29:58 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION

30:00 - QUESTIONS LET'S ASSUME FEDERAL

30:02 - SIGNAL REGISTERED IN 1969 IT

30:04 - CLEARLY HAD NO NOTICE THAT

30:05 - DIDN'T EXIST. IT MAY HAVE

30:07 - REGISTERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE

30:08 - PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE

30:10 - NOW I SUPPOSE THERE'S THIS

30:11 - IMPLIED NOTICE. THEY'RE

30:12 - CERTAINLY NOT ACTUAL NOTICE.

30:14 - THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD

30:15 - ANYWHERE. WE DIDN'T GET THE

30:16 - OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THAT

30:17 - RECORD BECAUSE FRANKLY THAT WAS

30:19 - WAIVED IN THE TRIAL COURT.

30:20 - BUT LET'S COME LET'S GO TO

30:22 - COUNCIL. THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY

30:24 - SAYS THAT YOU'RE SUBJECT TO

30:25 - GENERAL JURISDICTION.

30:26 - >>BUT ISN'T NOTICE REALLY A

30:27 - RED HERRING DOES NOTICE PUTTING

30:30 - YOU ON NOTICE OF AN

30:31 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION

30:33 - SOLVE THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS

30:35 - OR THE BURDEN ON COMMERCE.

30:36 - THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION

30:38 - BECAUSE THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY

30:39 - THE POINT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW

30:41 - THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT IN

30:43 - EVERY STATE THAT'S LOOKED AT

30:44 - THE QUESTION WHERE THEY DON'T

30:45 - HAVE WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL

30:46 - MAGIC LANGUAGE FOR PURPOSES OF

30:48 - THIS. LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

30:50 - >>A JUDGE SHOW THAT YOU RAISE

30:51 - THE QUESTION HOW UNIQUE IS THE

30:53 - STATUTE WAS INCREDIBLY UNIQUE.

30:54 - THERE'S NO OTHER STATE THAT

30:56 - EXPRESSLY SAYS GENERAL PERSONAL

30:58 - JURISDICTION UNDER OUR LONG ARM

31:00 - STATUTE IF

31:01 - YOU INCORPORATE OR IF YOU

31:02 - REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS OR

31:04 - SEPARATELY IF YOU CONSENT THAT

31:06 - SPECIAL LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE

31:08 - AND THE HIGH SOME OTHER COURTS

31:10 - HAVE LOOKED AT THE QUESTION.

31:11 - NOT TO TOUCH THE QUESTION WELL

31:13 - WHAT WOULD HAPPEN

31:14 - IF WE INCLUDED THIS MAGIC

31:16 - LANGUAGE DOES THAT SOMEHOW TAKE

31:17 - IT OUT OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

31:19 - FRAMEWORK AND THE ANSWER IS

31:21 - UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW IT MY

31:23 - RESPONSE BECAUSE YOU DO CAN

31:25 - EDITION THE ABILITY TO DO

31:27 - BUSINESS IN THE STATE

31:29 - SIMPLY UP ON THE ACT OF

31:31 - REGISTERING I HAVE TO TRADE

31:32 - AWAY MY MINIMAL CONSTITUTIONAL

31:35 - PRESIDENT LEON FARE SO IT'S

31:36 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT IT'S

31:38 - FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR SUCH IT'S

31:40 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE

31:42 - SUPREME COURT IN THE TIMELINE

31:43 - OF DECISIONS HAS ESTABLISHED

31:46 - THE FACT THAT I AM

31:47 - NO LONGER. A SUBJECT TO

31:49 - ALL-PURPOSE JURISDICTION

31:51 - SUBJECT TO BE SUED FOR ANY

31:52 - FOCUS IN THIS THING.

31:55 - THEY ARE HONORED IF I GO BACK

31:57 - TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT TIME

31:58 - WHERE DOES YOUR I HAVE NOT

31:59 - AGAIN I'M.

32:01 - >>ABSOLUTELY I'M HERE TO

32:02 - CONCEDE THAT TYLER DIDN'T TOUCH

32:04 - THE ISSUE OF CONSENT.

32:06 - >>BUT THE REALITY OF WHAT

32:07 - CONSENT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED

32:09 - UNDER THE LAW IS THIS IS

32:10 - THIS IS A CONSENT THAT IS IT

32:13 - REAL CONSENT ITS CONSENT IS A

32:15 - LEGAL FICTION I WAS SURPRISE

32:17 - WHEN COUNCIL BROUGHT UP

32:18 - THE NOTION THAT THESE OLD CASES

32:20 - THESE PUT NEUER AREA CASES FROM

32:23 - THE REGISTRATION STATUTES LIKE

32:25 - THIS THEY DID IT SO

32:26 - CORPORATIONS COULD BE SOON IN

32:29 - SUE IN STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF

32:31 - SPECIFIC JURISDICTION.

32:32 - THEY WANT TO ITS CITIZENS OF

32:34 - THIS STATE TO

32:35 - HAVE REDRESS AGAINST

32:37 - CORPORATIONS THAT DIDN'T HAVE

32:38 - TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES, BUT AS

32:40 - YOU ALL KNOW BY READING THE

32:41 - RECORD THAT IS NOT

32:42 - THIS CASE. THIS IS A 180 JUST

32:45 - ONE INSTANCE, A LIST OF

32:46 - BUSINESS REGISTRATION EVEN WITH

32:47 - THE UPDATED STATUTE DOESN'T

32:49 - ABROGATE DUE PROCESS.

32:51 - >>MEANING MEANINGFUL

32:51 - RELATIONSHIP.

32:52 - >>THE INTERNATIONAL SHOE LONG

32:54 - LINE OF CASES WHERE THERE HAS

32:55 - TO BE.

32:56 - >>SYSTEMATIC CONTINUOUS

32:58 - CONTACT.

32:59 - >>I BELIEVE THAT IT ALL AT THAT

33:02 - THE OTHER POINT THE COUNCIL

33:03 - MADE YOUR HONOR THAT I THINK IS

33:04 - SIGNIFICANT AS HE WAS

33:05 - ATTEMPTING TO SAY THAT WE ARE

33:06 - SEEKING TO RULE THE STATUTE AS

33:09 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE.

33:11 - >>IT'S ACTUALLY A 2 STEP

33:12 - ANALYSIS DOES THE LONG ARM

33:14 - STATUTE PERMITS

33:15 - THE CONDUCT DOES THE LONG ARM

33:17 - STATUE PROVIDE A BASIS FOR

33:19 - JURISDICTION AND THEN IS THE

33:20 - EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION,

33:22 - CONSTITUTIONAL EVERY COURT THAT

33:24 - HAS LOOKED AT THIS AND I

33:25 - BELIEVE MISAPPLIED IT

33:27 - HAS ASSUMED THAT CAN SOUND THAT

33:29 - IT IS CONSENT TO BE FORCED TO

33:31 - REGISTER AND THATS ON

33:33 - THE ISSUE RECONCILE SECTION 4 O

33:36 - 2 WITH YOUR ARGUMENT. FOR 2

33:39 - SAYS THAT WHEN

33:40 - YOU REGISTER AS A FOREIGN

33:41 - ASSOCIATION THAT YOU ENJOY THE

33:43 - SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS A

33:45 - DOMESTIC ENTITY TO THE SAME

33:47 - EXTENT AS IF YOU HAVE BEEN

33:48 - FORMED IN THE STATE. SO

33:50 - PENNSYLVANIA 6 IS EXTENDING TO

33:52 - YOU ALL THE BENEFITS OF A

33:54 - DOMESTICALLY CHARTED

33:55 - CORPORATION. BUT YOU'RE NOW

33:58 - WANTED TO SAY THAT.

34:00 - JUDGE WANT TO REJECT ASPECTS OF

34:02 - BEEN SUBJECT TO SUE HOW DOES IT

34:04 - 2 DAYS. RECONCILE WHAT MAY SEEM

34:07 - TO BE ON FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR

34:09 - YORK SOMETHING TO BENEFIT IN

34:10 - EXCHANGE FOR REGISTRATION.

34:12 - >>YOUR HONOR FEDERAL SIGNAL

34:13 - BACK TO OUR KNOWING AND

34:14 - VOLUNTARY CONSENT NEVER COULD

34:16 - HAVE FIRST SEEN LET ALONE

34:18 - CONSENTED TO THE NOTION THAT IT

34:20 - WOULD BE SUED BY A LARGE GROUP

34:22 - OF NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS WHO

34:23 - WERE EXPOSED TO ITS PRODUCT IN

34:25 - NEW YORK, AND YOU'VE NEVER

34:26 - RESIDED IN THE STATE OF

34:27 - PENNSYLVANIA. SO THAT'S NOT A

34:29 - KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY CHOICE

34:31 - TO SAY THE WHOLE DUE PROCESS

34:33 - ANALYSIS IN OUR SUBSTANTIVE DUE

34:35 - PROCESS.

34:36 - >>CONSIDERATIONS UNDER

34:37 - WORLDWIDE VOLKSWAGEN AND IS THE

34:40 - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CASES

34:42 - WHEN YOU LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL

34:43 - SHOE FOCUS UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL

34:46 - FAIRNESS OF THE STATE

34:48 - TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION,

34:50 - WE LOOK AT THE STATE'S INTEREST

34:52 - IN THE CASE HERE THERE IS NOT

34:54 - AN IF WE HAD IF THAT WERE THE

34:55 - CASE THEN.

34:58 - SURELY EVERY SAY WHICH FOLLOW

34:59 - SUIT AND THEN THERE WOULD BE

35:01 - JEN ROGERS SECTION ACROSS THE

35:03 - 50 UNITED STATES AND THOSE AND

35:05 - THAT SERVED ON THE MIND TIME

35:07 - WELL AT THE SUPREME COURT WAS

35:08 - TRYING TO ESTABLISHED. YES,

35:10 - JUDGE BOWS AND I THINK THAT IS

35:12 - THE REASON DIE MULLER IS.

35:13 - >>HIGHLY RELEVANT IN THE

35:14 - QUESTION OF HOW HAS THE LAW

35:16 - CHANGE AND WHERE DOES THIS

35:18 - OUTDATED PUT NEUER CONCEPT FIT

35:20 - INTO THE DIME LARUE BREAK

35:22 - IF YOU CAN INSERT MAGIC

35:23 - LANGUAGE AND YOUR LONG ARM

35:25 - STATUTE AND SUDDENLY MAKE EVERY

35:26 - CORPORATION SUBJECT ALL-PURPOSE

35:28 - JURISDICTION. WELL FIRST OF ALL

35:29 - I

35:29 - DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT GOING TO

35:31 - TAKE ISSUE WITH THE

35:32 - LEGISLATURE. BUT THE QUESTION

35:33 - IS WHY THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS

35:34 - WANT TO OPEN AND CLOSE VALVES

35:36 - TO THESE KIND

35:36 - OF CASES BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY

35:39 - AS A PRACTICAL MATTER TYLER'S

35:41 - COMPLETELY EVISCERATED BY THE

35:42 - BACK DOOR THIEF. I THINK IT THE

35:44 - BROWN CASE USE WHICH I THOUGHT

35:45 - WAS THAT

35:46 - VERY APT ANALOGY IF YOU'RE

35:47 - GOING TO GAUGE IN THIS LEGAL

35:49 - FICTION

35:50 - THAT CONSENT. BY RED

35:52 - REGISTRATION EQUALS CONSENT, WE

35:54 - KNOW WHAT CONSENT IS IN

35:56 - JURISDICTION. WE ALL KNOW WHAT

35:57 - IT IS I AGREE TO IT IN

35:59 - A CONTRACT AGREEING

36:00 - TO ARBITRATE STEPHANIE FOR 4TH

36:03 - IN THE COURTROOM AND ENTERING

36:04 - MY APPEARANCE WAVING BY FAILING

36:07 - TO DO SO OR FOR FAILING TO

36:08 - PARTICIPATE IN THE

36:09 - JURISDICTIONAL PROCESS, THOSE

36:11 - ARE ELEMENTS OF CONSENT, THIS

36:13 - IS CONSENT BY FICTION

36:16 - WHERE WE HAVE SAID HEY THIS

36:17 - CORPORATIONS KNOWINGLY

36:18 - CONSENTED AND HAS VOLUNTARILY

36:21 - CONSENTED TO BE HERE AND I

36:22 - DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF

36:24 - THE WAIVER POINT THEY PAID

36:25 - SEARCH SHORT SHRIFT

36:26 - A WAIVER AND IT'S STARTING TO

36:28 - GET BACK TO YOUR COUSIN AND

36:30 - THEN YOU CAN GET TO LEAVE OR

36:31 - BUT BUT

36:32 - HE KNEW.

36:33 - >>WHILE FOR THE PRIVILEGE

36:35 - BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.

36:37 - >>AND

36:37 - YOU ARE.

36:38 - >>CONSENTING TO ALL SORTS OF

36:40 - LAWS THAT EXISTED OR DIDN'T

36:41 - EXIST WHY SHOULD THIS BE

36:43 - ANY DIFFERENT.

36:45 - >>IT BE CONSTRUCTED CONSENT TO

36:46 - GENERAL JURISDICTION MAN

36:48 - YOU'RE CONSENTING TO FOLLOW THE

36:50 - THE OTHER

36:50 - LAWS, NEW I WANT THEM TO BE THE

36:52 - 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE

36:53 - US CONSTITUTION I BELIEVE

36:55 - BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL

36:56 - FRAMEWORK UNDERLIES A COURT'S

36:59 - EXERCISE

37:00 - OF JURISDICTION.

37:01 - >>OF THE BILL STATES ABILITY TO

37:03 - TAKE ACTION TO TO

37:05 - ADVERSELY IMPACT A PERSON OR A

37:08 - JURIDICAL PERSON LIKE A

37:10 - CORPORATION. THAT'S WHAT THE

37:11 - DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS IS BASED

37:14 - UPON ITS ULTIMATELY A QUESTION

37:15 - OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS IS IT

37:17 - NOT I BELIEVE THAT FUNDAMENTAL

37:18 - FAIRNESS IS A SIGNIFICANT POINT

37:20 - IN ANY DUE PROCESS AND HOMES

37:22 - COUNCIL BEFORE YOU GET TO HIS

37:23 - WAIVER QUESTION.

37:25 - >>HE RAISED A QUESTION THAT YOU

37:26 - YOU HAVEN'T NOTIFIED THE

37:28 - ATTORNEYS GENERAL THAT YOU ARE

37:29 - CHALLENGING THE

37:29 - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUE

37:31 - CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT.

37:32 - >>WELL JUDGE FIRST OF ALL ON

37:34 - FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD ANY ISSUE

37:36 - RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THAT BUT

37:37 - AS I UNDERSTAND OUR POSITION

37:39 - AND IVORY READ

37:40 - A LOT WE'VE NEVER ADVOCATED

37:42 - THAT YOU DECLARE THIS STATUTE

37:44 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE BELIEVE

37:46 - THAT THIS STATUTE IS

37:47 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN APPLIED

37:48 - TO US UNDER THESE

37:50 - SPECIFIC FACTS, YOU HAVE TO

37:52 - ENGAGE OR DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS

37:54 - WHEN YOU ENGAGE IN THE DUE

37:55 - PROCESS ANALYSIS, YOU'LL SEE

37:57 - THAT THIS CASE CAN'T BE BEFORE

37:59 - YOU ON THIS FICTION OF CONSENT

38:01 - BY REGISTRATIONS.

38:02 - >>THEY ARE ARGUING THAT THERE'S

38:03 - THIS IS A COST UNCONSTITUTIONAL

38:05 - EXERCISE OF A VIOLATION OF DUE

38:06 - PROCESS NOT THAT THE STATUTE

38:08 - ITSELF CASO WRECK YOUR HONOR.

38:11 - >>WE BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE

38:12 - JUDGE POSNER DESCENT INDICATE

38:14 - IT'S A SAFE AND FAIR.

38:15 - >>THE HEARING ALLEN SAYS THAT

38:17 - THE STATUTE IS NOT

38:18 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND IT THE

38:21 - SINGER ANNOUNCES.

38:22 - >>WE ARE HONORED THE REALITY IS

38:24 - I THINK IT POSES SIGNIFICANT

38:26 - CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS BUT THE

38:28 - REALITY IS

38:29 - IN LOOKING AT A CONSTITUTIONAL

38:31 - ANALYSIS YOU LOOK FIRST TO

38:33 - THE STATUTE. THE STATUTE SAYS

38:35 - THERE IS JURISDICTION. THAT'S

38:36 - WHERE WE STARTED THIS

38:37 - DISCUSSION, THEN YOU WOULD GO

38:38 - TO THE SECOND STEP.

38:40 - NOW WE LOOK AT WHAT IS THE

38:41 - CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IN

38:43 - THE PROBLEM COURTS MAKE IS THEY

38:44 - SAY OH YOU CAN SOON AND WE CAN

38:46 - JUST SKIP THE CONSTITUTIONAL

38:48 - ANALYSIS,

38:48 - CONSENT IN AND OF ITSELF

38:51 - REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONAL

38:52 - ANALYSIS ISN'T AS APPLIED

38:54 - ANALYSIS BECAUSE THE STATUTE

38:55 - DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN

38:57 - YOUR CLIENT WAS NO CONTACTS AND

38:58 - OTHERS

38:59 - TO DO.

38:59 - >>I GOT TO KNOW CONTACTS THAT

39:02 - BUT THERE WAS ABOUT SAID I LIKE

39:05 - THIS IS KIND OF A THAT BUT

39:07 - THE CAR.

39:08 - >>CONTACT ANALYSIS IS DIFFERENT

39:10 - HERE THE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS

39:12 - ANALYSIS UNDER WORLDWIDE

39:13 - VOLKSWAGEN LOOKS AT THE STATE'S

39:14 - INTEREST IN THIS MATTER AND THE

39:17 - STATE HAS NO INTEREST IN THIS

39:18 - MATTER, NEW YORK HAS AN

39:20 - INTEREST IN THIS MATTER WHERE

39:21 - THESE WERE.

39:22 - >>IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE

39:23 - STATE'S INTEREST IN THIS.

39:25 - >>WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

39:27 - THE DREAM OF HIS AND THAT LINE

39:29 - IS LOOK AT IT WITH OUR STATUTE

39:31 - WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A

39:32 - SECTARIAN BASIS ESTABLISHING

39:34 - JURISDICTION. WE VOTE SO IT'S

39:37 - ALMOST THOSE WHO REASONING YOU

39:39 - BETTER, THEY'RE SAYING TO US.

39:41 - WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION

39:42 - BECAUSE IT'S APPLIED UNFAIRLY

39:44 - US BECAUSE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE

39:47 - IF YOU LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTAL

39:48 - FAIRNESS. WE DIDN'T CONSENT

39:50 - BUT THE STATUTE SAYS BY DOING

39:52 - BUSINESS AND BY CONSENTING TO

39:53 - DO BUSINESS. CONTINUOUSLY.

39:56 - YOU ARE CONSENTING SO IF WE

39:57 - HAVE THAT CONSENT HOW IS IT ON

40:00 - CONSTITUTIONAL IS APPLIED.

40:01 - >>WELL, I RESPECT THAT JUDGE

40:03 - LAZARUS EXCEPT THAT WOULD

40:04 - SUBMIT THAT THE END THE COURT

40:06 - IN ALL THE SUPREME COURT

40:07 - OPINIONS AND I CITE THE COURT

40:08 - REPEATEDLY TO INSURANCE COMPANY

40:12 - OF IRELAND CASE THERE'S

40:13 - AN EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS OF

40:16 - WHETHER IT'S FAIR TO HAVE

40:18 - THIS PARTY. RESPOND WITHOUT

40:20 - SERVICE OF ACROSS CLAIM AS TO

40:23 - WHETHER THAT WOULD MATCH

40:24 - CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

40:26 - IT GOES TO A JUDGE TO BILL'S

40:27 - BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT

40:29 - TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS

40:31 - YOU ENGAGE IN THAT ANALYSIS ON

40:33 - THE CASE FACES YOU DON'T

40:35 - JUST SIMPLY FEET IS THE REALITY

40:37 - IS IF YOU SIMPLY SAY CONSENT BY

40:39 - REGISTRATION IS JURISDICTION.

40:41 - THEN YOU HAVEN'T FULFILLED IN

40:43 - MY MIND THE FULL ANALYSIS UNDER

40:45 - THE CONSTITUTION ON SELECT ON

40:47 - THE WAIVER ISSUE PRESSURE

40:48 - TIME'S RUNNING SINGLE YEAR.

40:49 - >>3 OH SPEAKS IN TERMS OF

40:51 - ANY ISSUES, NOT RAISE BEFORE

40:54 - THE TRIAL COURT OUR WAY FOR

40:55 - PURPOSES APPEALED THE QUESTION

40:57 - BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT WAS

40:59 - ALWAYS WHETHER THERE WAS

41:00 - GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER YOUR

41:01 - CLIENT, THE SAME QUESTION.

41:03 - THAT'S PRESENTED ON APPEAL

41:04 - BEFORE US DON'T WE HAVE THE

41:06 - SAME QUESTION BUT A DIFFERENT

41:07 - ARGUMENT.

41:09 - AND DOES THAT LEAD

41:10 - TO WAVER.

41:11 - >>YOUR HONOR WILL FIRST OF ALL

41:13 - THERE ARE 3 PROVISIONS IN THE

41:15 - STATUTE UPON WHICH WE'RE ALL

41:16 - TALKING ABOUT ONE PROVISION OF

41:18 - THE STATUTE WAS RAISED IN THE

41:19 - PLAINTIFFS PLEADING THE

41:21 - PLAINTIFF AS A BIRDIE AT THE

41:22 - VERY LEAST TO PLEAD THE BASIS

41:25 - OF JURISDICTION, NOT ALL.

41:28 - NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT PLEADED

41:30 - NOT ONLY DO THEY NEVER SEEK TO

41:31 - AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT TO

41:32 - ADDRESS IT SO THAT WE CAN

41:34 - ACTUALLY DEVELOP A RECORD TO

41:35 - BRING THIS COURT THAT WOULD

41:36 - INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE

41:37 - REGISTRATION OF LOSING 1028 A

41:40 - TOO BIG TO ATTACH DOCUMENTS AND

41:42 - YOU DID HAVE SOME PRETTY

41:44 - HEARING DISCOVERY. YOU ALSO DID

41:46 - NOT ATTACH A NOTICE TO PLEA

41:48 - WHAT I CAN SEE ON THE REPRODUCE

41:49 - RECORD TO YOUR PRELIMINARY

41:50 - OBJECTIONS.

41:51 - >>THEY'RE NOT LEAVE THE DOOR

41:52 - OPEN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUE

41:54 - ANYTHING.

41:55 - >>I DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES YOUR

41:56 - HONOR BECAUSE THE REALITY IS

41:57 - THE PLANE OF HAS A BURDEN.

41:59 - YOU KNOW PERSONAL JURISDICTION

42:00 - CONTACTS, IT IS A UNIQUE

42:02 - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BECAUSE

42:03 - IT GOES TO THE NATURE OF THE

42:05 - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO

42:06 - ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE OF ALL

42:08 - CASES OR THIS COURT WOULD WANT

42:09 - TO FULLY DEVELOP THE RECORD

42:11 - IT'S

42:12 - THIS CASE WHERE YOU COME TO THE

42:14 - COURT IN A KID IN TERMS OF A

42:16 - RECORD ON THE FUNDAMENTAL BUT

42:17 - IS IT A QUESTION OF LAW THAT WE

42:19 - CAN PASS REGARDLESS

42:20 - WHEN YOU KNOW YOUR HONOR OF THE

42:22 - COURT OF REVIEW OBVIOUSLY CAN

42:23 - ADDRESS QUESTIONS OF LAW

42:25 - AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE INHERENT

42:27 - AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT ANY

42:29 - QUESTION IN

42:30 - THE CASE. BUT IN THIS CASE I

42:32 - THINK WE'VE GOTTEN INTO SO MANY

42:34 - ISSUES IN THIS

42:35 - ABOUT THAT ARE FACTUAL IN

42:37 - NATURE REGISTRATION. WHAT DID

42:38 - WE

42:38 - DO COUNCIL WE AGREE WITH YOU

42:40 - AND THEN YOU'RE LEFT WITH WEB.

42:42 - I'M SORRY YOUR HONOR IF WE

42:43 - AGREE WITH YOU THEN YOU'RE LEFT

42:44 - WEB. WELL, YOUR HONOR I HANDLER

42:47 - FOR WHICH HAS 400.

42:52 - REALITY HERE AND I BELIEVE THAT

42:55 - THE COURT IT WAS WAVED AT THE

42:57 - TRIAL COURT AND I APPRECIATE

42:59 - THE COURT'S THE DOLE JUNTS OF

43:00 - SOME EXTRA TIME AND THANK YOU

43:02 - FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, OK,

43:04 - THANK YOU COUNTS.

43:14 - I'M TOUCHED A DEAL IF I CAN

43:16 - RETURN TO YOUR QUESTION OF

43:17 - FAIRNESS WASN'T HIS AFFAIR.

43:19 - YES,

43:20 - IT'S FAIR. IT'S HERE TO BE HERE

43:22 - FOR THIS DEFENDANT TO BE

43:23 - SUBJECT TO GENERAL JURISDICTION

43:24 - IN PENNSYLVANIA.

43:25 - >>WHERE THERE IS A STATUTE THAT

43:27 - GIVES THE THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE

43:29 - THE DEFENDANT A CHOICE THEY CAN

43:31 - CHOOSE

43:31 - TO REGISTER AND THE SUBJECT AS

43:33 - YOU POINTED OUT ALL THE RIGHTS

43:34 - AND PRIVILEGES AND ALL THE

43:35 - DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF BEING

43:36 - A DOMESTIC CORPORATION

43:38 - BY THE WAY THEY'RE ON NOTICE

43:39 - THAT THE STATUTE SAYS YOU ARE

43:40 - SUBJECT YOU ARE LIKE A DOMESTIC

43:42 - CORPORATION, AND AS THE POINT

43:43 - WAS MADE THIS IS A VERY

43:44 - SOPHISTICATED CORPORATION.

43:47 - >>AND AND THEY ARE AT A MINIMUM

43:49 - ON IF I HAVE

43:50 - CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

43:51 - >>OF OF THE OF THE GENERAL

43:53 - JURISDICTION STATUES EAT YOUR

43:54 - ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE

43:56 - CONSENTED.

43:59 - THERE'S JAY HAVE.

44:02 - MEANS IT MEANS THAT 2 WAYS.

44:05 - FIRST OF ALL THERE IS THEY

44:08 - THEY ARE A FOREIGN CORPORATION

44:09 - THAT HAS REGISTERED

44:10 - AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE

44:11 - JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST

44:12 - PROMINENT STATUTE, THERE IS

44:14 - CASE LAW IN THE FORM OF THE

44:15 - SIMMERS CASE FROM 1990 AND ALSO

44:18 - WITH BENJAMIN MOORE RECENTLY

44:19 - IN THE CONTEXT OF PENNSYLVANIA

44:21 - AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S

44:21 - FEDERAL CASES AS WELL AND US

44:23 - SUPREME COURT CASES

44:24 - THE TALK ABOUT REGISTRATION BY

44:26 - A FOREIGN CORPORATION REGISTERS

44:29 - THAT THAT IS THAT IS A FORM

44:31 - OF CONSENT NOW I WOULD

44:32 - CHARACTERIZE THAT FAIRLY AND I

44:33 - THINK.

44:34 - THEY MIGHT EVEN BE AGREED THAT

44:36 - THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

44:37 - WHAT WE THINK OF HIS EXPRESS

44:38 - CONSENT WHERE JUDGE ALSO DENIED

44:40 - YOU AND I HAVE AN AGREEMENT A

44:41 - REALLY GREAT BECAUSE MY FEAR,

44:42 - ONE SPECIFICALLY LIST CONSENT

44:44 - AS I I UNDERSTAND SO I THE WAY

44:46 - THAT I SEE IT IS THAT I SEE ICE

44:48 - I WOULD I I

44:49 - WOULD SEE.

44:50 - >>CONSENT THERE IS BEING IN THE

44:52 - NATURE OF MORE LIKE EXPRESS

44:53 - CONSENT LIKE AN AGREEMENT

44:54 - STRUCK THE CONSENT AND YES, AND

44:56 - IT IS IMPOSED BY YES ABERRATION

44:58 - OF YES, EXACTLY AND THE AND THE

44:59 - FIRST PRIME BEING MORE AND MORE

45:01 - CONSTRUCTIVE CAN STAND

45:02 - THAT IS BASED ON THE STATUTORY

45:03 - SCHEME ENACTED BY THE GENERAL

45:05 - ASSEMBLY AND THE POINT THAT I

45:06 - DON'T WANT TO MAKE IS THAT OUR

45:08 - US SUPREME COURT HAS MULTIPLE

45:10 - HAS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS AND I

45:11 - UNDERSTAND THE TIMING

45:12 - OF THESE BUT AS A

45:13 - MULTIPLICATION SAID THAT A

45:15 - STATE MAY CONDITIONS STATE MAY

45:16 - CONDITION CONSTITUTIONALLY A

45:19 - PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS IN ANY

45:20 - STATE

45:21 - ON ACCEPTING ON ACCEPTING A

45:24 - BEING SUBJECT TO GENERAL

45:25 - JURISDICTION. HERE OUR OUR

45:27 - ASSOCIATIONS CODE DOES NOT

45:29 - DISABLE A DOES NOT PUNISH A

45:31 - PARTICULARLY A DEFENDANT.

45:33 - IF IT DOES NOT REGISTER JUST TO

45:35 - BUILD. YOU MENTIONED THE

45:36 - COMMERCE CLAUSE CASES THERE IS

45:38 - THE DAVIS CASE WHICH IS THE

45:39 - PRINCIPAL CASE WHERE MINNESOTA

45:41 - HAD

45:41 - A STATUTE THAT BASICALLY SAID

45:43 - EITHER YOU EITHER YOU REGISTER

45:45 - AND BE SUBJECTED OR NO

45:46 - JURISDICTION AND THIS WAS IN

45:47 - THE CONTEXT OF RAILROADS OR YOU

45:49 - CAN'T LITTLE YOU CAN DO

45:50 - BUSINESS IN

45:50 - THE STATE. THAT'S NOT THAT'S

45:52 - NOT HOW WE DO IT IN

45:53 - PENNSYLVANIA. THERE'S THERE'S

45:54 - NO DISABILITY THAT IS IMPOSED

45:56 - UPON THE DEFENDANT EXCEPT THE

45:57 - CAN'T BRING CERTAIN KINDS

45:59 - OF SUITS. AND IF THEY REGISTER

46:01 - THAN THEY CAN BRING THIS LET ME

46:03 - LET ME FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT

46:04 - JUDGE HAS ASKED MR. DUFFY.

46:07 - IF THE INTERPRETATION YOU'RE

46:08 - ASKING US TO APPLY TO THE

46:11 - STATUTE IS IN ALL INSTANCES,

46:14 - IT'S IT'S

46:16 - CONSTRUCTIVE CONSENT WOULDN'T

46:19 - EVERY STATE IF A PAST THAT.

46:22 - PREVENTING BUSINESSES

46:23 - FROM ARGUING THEIR RIGHTS THAT

46:26 - THE US SUPREME COURT HAS

46:27 - ANNOUNCED IN. DON LEARN THOSE

46:30 - RELATED CASES. IT UNDERCUTS

46:32 - EVERYTHING US SUPREME COURT IS.

46:37 - I CAN ENVISION A SCENARIO.

46:39 - I THINK WE CAN WE CAN TAKE THIS

46:41 - OUT. I HAVE I WILL AGREE WITH

46:43 - YOU. I LIKED BUT NOT EVEN JUST

46:46 - CONCEDE I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH

46:47 - YOU THAT EVERY STATE HAD A HAD

46:50 - A STATUTE SUCH AS THE

46:52 - PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE THAT YOU

46:54 - COULD HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE

46:56 - THROUGH FOR THAT I'M NOT SURE

46:58 - WHAT THE BOARD LAST BUT THROUGH

47:00 - THE

47:00 - BACK DOOR. A WITNESS DESCRIBED

47:02 - THE SOMETHING LIKE A BACKDOOR

47:03 - REGISTRATION JURISDICTION.

47:04 - YOU COULD HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE

47:06 - THAT THE

47:06 - GENERAL JURISDICTION PRIMERS

47:09 - DESCRIBED AND I'M ARE

47:10 - ESSENTIALLY

47:10 - DEFEATED I I MEAN WE'RE NOT

47:12 - THERE YET THAT IS NOT THE

47:13 - SCENARIO YET IN FACT

47:14 - PENNSYLVANIA.

47:16 - 2 MY KNOWLEDGE AND I I THINK IT

47:18 - WAS AGREED BY MY MY MY BROTHER

47:20 - COUNCIL IT USED TO BE THE ONLY

47:22 - STATE THAT HAS A STATUE LIKE

47:24 - THIS SO THAT THAT SCENARIO IS I

47:26 - WILL AGREE WITH YOU POSSIBLE.

47:28 - IT IS NOT WHERE WE ARE TODAY

47:30 - AND IF AND THAT WOULD BE AN

47:33 - ISSUE THAT WOULD BE AN

47:34 - IMPORTANT ISSUE AND CLEARLY

47:35 - JUDGE WAS THE ISSUES THAT

47:36 - YOU'RE A SENIOR CENTER IS A

47:37 - VERY IMPORTANT FOSSIL DESCENT,

47:39 - THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING

47:40 - PRESENTED HERE ARE IMPORTANT

47:41 - ARGUMENTS AND IT COULD

47:43 - BE THAT THIS CASE OR CASES A

47:44 - CASE LIKE THIS

47:45 - COMES TO THE UNITED STATES

47:46 - SUPREME COURT AND THE US

47:47 - SUPREME COURT HAS TO DECIDE

47:49 - THIS ISSUE. BUT FOR YOU

47:50 - RESPECTFULLY FOR YOU

47:52 - YOU LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT YOU

47:54 - LIVE IN A LEGAL JURISPRUDENTIAL

47:55 - ENVIRONMENT WHEN YOUR STARTING

47:57 - POINT IS THAT THERE'S A STRONG

47:58 - PRESUMPTION IN THE FAVOR OF THE

47:59 - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE

48:00 - STATUTES AND YOU MAY NOT

48:02 - DECLARING STATUTE

48:03 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BY THE WAY

48:04 - THAT'S WHAT

48:04 - THEY'RE ASKING. THEY'RE SAYING

48:06 - THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

48:07 - THINK WE'VE COME FULL CIRCLE

48:08 - BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE

48:09 - ARGUMENT THAT

48:10 - BACKGROUND I I MET THIS MAN

48:13 - MIGHT MESS AND THEY'RE NOT

48:14 - DOING MATH. MINISTER DEFENSE

48:15 - MINISTER MATE.

48:18 - THEN I WILL CONCLUDE ONLY BY

48:20 - SAYING THEN UNDER THE

48:21 - CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN THE

48:22 - DIVERSITY OF CASES GIVEN THE

48:24 - DIVERSITY ARGUMENTS AND THERE

48:25 - ARE A LOT OF ARGUMENTS THAT YOU

48:27 - SHOULD NOT YOU MUST NOT.

48:30 - TO CLEAR THE STATUTE

48:31 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOT AT LEAST

48:33 - AT THIS MOMENT AND IF I CAN

48:34 - ONLY ADD BY WAY OF SAYING ONE

48:36 - MORE TIME. THANK YOU FOR

48:37 - ALLOWING ME THE PRIVILEGE TO

48:38 - APPEAR BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING.

48:40 - THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR COMING.

48:42 - WELL ARGUED ON BOTH SIDES.

48:43 - THANK YOU. THE NEXT CASE THE

48:45 - COURT'S GOING TO HEAR IS

48:46 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

48:47 - VERSE ERIC.

48:48 - >>MAXWELL, THIS IS A CRIMINAL

48:50 - CASE AND THIS CASE THAT COMES

48:52 - FROM THE DAUPHIN COUNTY TRIAL

48:54 - COURT. THE CASE SAID DATES BACK

48:57 - MANY YEARS AND RELATES TO A

48:59 - FIRST-DEGREE MURDER ROBBERY AND

49:01 - SIMPLE ASSAULT CONVICTION IN

49:04 - 1984.

49:06 - MAXWELL PURSUED. ALL OF HIS

49:08 - POST CONVICTION APPEALS.

49:10 - ALL OF WHICH WERE DENIED.

49:13 - THE MOST RECENT APPEAL THAT THE

49:15 - DEFENDANT HAS PURSUED

49:17 - RELATES TO WHETHER OR NOT A

49:19 - HE HAS THAT A NEWLY DISCOVERED

49:22 - FACTS THAT WOULD GRANT HIM A

49:25 - NEW TRIAL. THE ALLEGED

49:28 - NEW FACTS. OUR A CONVERSATION

49:32 - MAXWELL HAD WITH HIS BROTHER.

49:34 - THE SUN 32 YEARS AFTER THE

49:36 - TRIAL. WHERE THE

49:38 - BROTHER ALLEGE TO HAVE HEARD

49:40 - THE PROSECUTOR AT THE TIME OF

49:42 - TRIAL. TELL A POLICE OFFICER

49:46 - THEY WOULD NOT BE ANY AFRICAN

49:47 - AMERICAN JURORS. WELL MISTER

49:49 - MAXWELL'S A FIRST-DEGREE MURDER

49:52 - TRIAL.

49:55 - MR. MAXWELL PURSUE THAT

49:57 - THE APPEAL AND THE COURT IN

49:59 - DAUPHIN COUNTY SCHEDULED A

50:00 - HEARING.

50:01 - THE FIRST ISSUE THAT THE TRIAL

50:03 - COURT IN DAUPHIN COUNTY UNITY

50:05 - HERE WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE A

50:07 - APPEAL HAD BEEN MADE IN A

50:09 - TIMELY WAY. AND THE

50:11 - TRIAL JUDGE IN DAUPHIN COUNTY

50:13 - IN FACT DECIDED THAT A TIMELY

50:15 - APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKE IT.

50:17 - HOWEVER AT THAT TIME THE TRIAL

50:18 - JUDGE MADE A DETERMINATION.

50:20 - THAT HE WOULD RECUSE HIMSELF.

50:23 - IN LOT RECUSAL THE JUDGE IS

50:25 - WHEN A JUDGE IN THE FIRST

50:27 - INSTANCE MAKES A DETERMINATION

50:29 - THAT HE OR SHE.

50:30 - WANT TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF

50:32 - IMPROPRIETY AND THEREFORE

50:34 - ANOTHER JUDGE TO HEAR THE CASE.

50:36 - BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR AT THE

50:38 - TIME OF TRIAL WHO IS NOW A

50:39 - SITTING JUDGE AND OFTEN COUNTY.

50:42 - ALL THE JUDGES AND OFTEN COUNTY

50:43 - WERE RECUSE AND IT OUT OF

50:45 - COUNTY JUDGE WAS APPOINTED.

50:48 - THE JUDGE

50:49 - TO SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THIS

50:51 - POST CONVICTION RELIEF. IN FACT

50:55 - RECONSIDERED.

50:57 - AND THE FIRST TRIAL JUDGE'S

50:58 - DECISION AND IN FACT MADE A

51:00 - DIFFERENT FINDING THAT MR.

51:02 - MAXWELL HAD NOT. TIMELY FILED

51:05 - HIS APPEAL AND THEREFORE HIS

51:07 - APPEALS DISMISSED.

51:10 - THIS CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT

51:12 - FOR THE ON BUTTON SESSION AND

51:14 - THE COURT TODAY WILL

51:16 - PROBABLY HEAR 3 IMPORTANT LEGAL

51:19 - ISSUES. WITH REGARD TO

51:22 - THIS MATTER. THE FIRST IS LAW

51:24 - THE CASE.

51:25 - A LOT OF THE CASES A LEGAL

51:27 - DOCTRINE WHERE. JUDGE

51:31 - SHOULD NOT CANNOT CHANGE

51:33 - OR MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION

51:35 - THAT A PRIOR JUDGES MADE IN THE

51:37 - SAME CASE. SO AGAIN THE SECOND

51:40 - JUDGE IN IN THE NEXT WELL CASE.

51:44 - IN FACT FOUND THAT THE APPEAL

51:45 - IS NOT TIMELY WHEN THE FIRST

51:47 - JUDGE HAD DECIDED THAT WAS

51:48 - CURRENT. SO THE COURT WILL VERY

51:50 - CAREFULLY AT THAT ISSUE OF LAW

51:52 - THE CASE AND I THINK THE COURT

51:55 - WILL HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS

51:56 - TO THAT JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.

52:01 - IS WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR

52:02 - NOT. THE ISSUE OF.

52:08 - THIS WAS A

52:08 - NEW FACT

52:09 - THAT MAXWELL AND IN FACT

52:11 - LEARNED OF SOME 30 TO 33 YEARS

52:13 - AFTER HIS FIRST TRIAL. AND.

52:17 - I THINK THE COURT WILL PROBABLY

52:20 - QUESTION COUNCIL CLOSELY ON

52:22 - WEATHER THEY'RE NOT IT IS A

52:24 - NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT BECAUSE

52:26 - THE ISSUE IS

52:27 - THERE WAS NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN

52:30 - JURORS ON THE TRIAL COURT.

52:32 - A JURY AT THE TIME.

52:34 - AND I BELIEVE THAT THE

52:36 - COURTROOM. THE QUESTION CLOSELY

52:38 - AS TO. WHETHER OR NOT THAT

52:40 - NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT SHOULD

52:42 - BE CONSIDERED IN THIS POST

52:44 - TRIAL A CONVICTION RELIEF.

52:46 - I THINK THE 3RD ISSUE OF IS

52:49 - WHETHER OR NOT. MISTER

52:52 - MAXWELL A HAD HIS

52:54 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

52:56 - BY HAVING ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN

52:57 - JURORS REMOVED FROM THE JURY

53:00 - AND UH I THINK THE COURT RULED

53:02 - LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT ISSUE

53:05 - AS WELL SO LET'S GO TO THE

53:06 - COURTROOM.

53:08 - >>AVONEX CASES COME UP FOR SAYS

53:10 - MAXWELL.

53:57 - 50 I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE 2

53:58 - MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL BEFORE WE

53:59 - GET STARTED. THANK YOU.

54:08 - MANY WAS GETTING PARTS IN AND I

54:10 - REPRESENT THE APPELLANT ERIC

54:11 - MAXIM I'M GOING TO FOCUS HERE

54:14 - TODAY ON THE LAW OF THE CASE

54:15 - DOCTRINE WHICH IS EXACTLY THE

54:16 - ISSUE WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE

54:18 - PANEL OF THE SPORT.

54:20 - >>I DON'T BELIEVE

54:21 - THIS COURT TEND TO SIDE EITHER

54:23 - JURISDICTION OR THE SUBSTANCE

54:24 - TO MERITS CLAIM FOR PEACE OR A

54:26 - PETITION WHICH WAS FILED HERE.

54:28 - FIRST OF ALL THERE WERE 2

54:29 - JURISDICTIONAL DECISIONS WHICH

54:31 - IS EXACTLY RIGHT A LOT OF THE

54:32 - CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES. WE

54:34 - CANNOT DECIDE JUDGE EVANS

54:36 - JURISDICTIONAL BECAUSE JUDGE

54:37 - EVANS DID NOT GIVE US HIS

54:38 - FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS WE

54:40 - SIMPLY HAVE AN ORDER STATING

54:42 - JURISDICTION

54:42 - WAS MAX WITHOUT A FACTUAL

54:44 - DETERMINATIONS THIS COURT

54:45 - CANNOT GIVE THAT DEFERENCE A

54:46 - JUDGE EVANS WITH DESERVE AS FOR

54:48 - JUDGE BRACK SINCE DECISION

54:50 - UNDER SECTION THAT WAS THE

54:51 - SECOND DECISION UNDER SECTION 2

54:53 - COULD YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER

54:55 - TO THE MIKE I APOLOGIZE TO IRAN

54:56 - ARE

54:59 - >>AS FOR JUDGE BRAXTON DECISION

55:01 - ON JURISDICTION. WE WERE

55:03 - PREPARED FOR A SUBSTANTIVE

55:05 - MERITS HEARING THE

55:06 - TESTIMONY PRESENTED THE

55:07 - EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THIS

55:09 - SECOND HEARING WHEN SOLELY TO

55:11 - THE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM UNDER THE

55:13 - PEACE HERE RIGHT IT DIDN'T GO

55:14 - TO JURISDICTION. I HAD LIMITED

55:17 - MY QUESTIONS OF MY WITNESSES I

55:19 - HAVE CHANGED MY STRATEGY, MY

55:21 - ARGUMENT SO WE DON'T REALLY

55:22 - HAVE A FULL HEARING

55:23 - ON JURISDICTION FOR JUDGE

55:25 - THREATENED TO BACK TO THE

55:26 - JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WHICH

55:28 - JUDGE OLSEN'S DESCENT THAT.

55:31 - >>THEY'RE THE TRIAL

55:33 - COURT PEACE OR IT COULD HAD NO

55:34 - JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS WAS

55:36 - AN ISSUE THAT YOUR CLIENT HAD

55:38 - RAISED EARLIER. HE WAS JUST A

55:40 - NEW SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

55:42 - >>SO I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY

55:45 - NOW RESPECTFULLY

55:46 - TO JOLSON WHAT WE'RE LOOKING

55:48 - AT HERE IS THEY ARE LOOKING

55:50 - AFTER SECTION WHETHER THIS FACT

55:52 - IT'S NOT THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN

55:53 - RAISED BEFORE THE LANGUAGE IS

55:55 - SPECIFICS THAT WE'RE LOOKING

55:57 - FOR AND THE NEWLY DUST OR NOT

55:59 - POLITICS CONFUSING. THE NEWLY

56:01 - DISCOVERED EVIDENCE VERSUS AN

56:02 - UNKNOWN FACT THE UNKNOWN FACT

56:05 - IS A STATEMENT BY THE DISTRICT

56:06 - ATTORNEY ERNIE,

56:07 - THE CLAIM MIGHT HAVE BEEN KNOWN

56:09 - BUT LIFE AT TIMES THAT.

56:11 - >>THAT YOUR CLIENT BELIEVED

56:14 - THAT THERE WAS A BATSON

56:16 - VIOLATION BECAUSE

56:17 - AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE GOING TO

56:20 - BE PROHIBITED FROM SITTING ON

56:22 - THE JURY WAS

56:22 - A FACT THAT HE KNEW BEFORE THIS

56:26 - PETITION, CORRECT.

56:28 - >>HE KNEW THAT THERE WERE NO

56:29 - AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON THE JURY

56:30 - BUT HE ONLY BELIEVES YOUNGEST

56:32 - DIDN'T YOU RAISE A SPECIFIC

56:33 - BATSON CLAIM LIKE 1996 YES, SO

56:37 - THAT'S WHERE IT GOES TO A NEWLY

56:38 - DISCOVERED FACT.

56:40 - AS OPPOSED TO CONTRAST WITH

56:43 - A NEWLY A NEW SOURCE THAT

56:45 - CORROBORATES A FACT THAT THE

56:48 - SENATE HAS RAISED PREVIOUSLY.

56:50 - >>THE NOT NOT HAVE KNOWN THE

56:51 - REASON WHY IT

56:53 - WOULD KNOW AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON

56:55 - THE JURY BUT HE CERTAINLY KNEW

56:56 - THAT THERE WERE NO

56:56 - AFRICAN-AMERICANS AREN'T SURE

56:58 - EXACTLY AND THAT'S WHY TO FRONT

57:00 - SAYS WHY IS THAT A DIFFERENCE

57:01 - BECAUSE KNOWING THAT THERE WERE

57:02 - NO AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON THE

57:04 - JURY. HE COULD HAVE EASILY.

57:09 - I DON'T NOT BE SO EASILY, BUT

57:10 - HE COULD HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT

57:11 - WHY THERE WERE NONE OF THAT

57:14 - >>IT'S A AND THAT'S WHY I

57:15 - BELIEVE HE DID FILE ABOUT

57:17 - SOMETHING SO MANY TIMES NOW

57:18 - MOST IS PETITION SEE WAS PROSEK

57:20 - SO HE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT

57:21 - INTIMATE EARNING AN

57:22 - INVESTIGATOR SOMEBODY TO TRY

57:24 - AND DIG UP THAT EVIDENCE HE WAS

57:25 - INCARCERATED THE ENTIRE TIME.

57:27 - SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT HE

57:29 - MADE THE ASSUMPTION.

57:30 - HE HOPES THAT THERE WAS

57:32 - PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION HE

57:33 - DID NOT KNOW UNTIL WE HAVE THE

57:35 - STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS

57:36 - PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION NOW

57:38 - WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S

57:39 - ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE

57:40 - OR NOT

57:41 - IS

57:42 - SOMETHING THAT WE AGAIN CAN'T

57:43 - LITIGATE HERE. WE DON'T HAVE

57:44 - THE SUBSTANCE OF BATS AND

57:46 - ANALYSIS THAT WAS NEVER DECIDED

57:48 - BY

57:48 - EITHER REPORTS THAT BACK TO THE

57:51 - LAW OF THE CASE BECAUSE ONE

57:52 - THING THE JUDGE RULES RELEASED

57:54 - IN HER DISSENT.

57:56 - >>COORDINATE JURISDICTION.

57:58 - YOU WE KNOW THE ONE JUDGE KEEP

58:00 - ILLEGAL JURISDICTION CAN

58:01 - OVERRULE ANOTHER JUDGE AND EVAN

58:03 - SET UP THIS BIFURCATED

58:05 - HEALING PROCESS WHICH USES

58:06 - DICTION FOR SOME MERIT. BUT IF

58:09 - A RULING IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.

58:12 - DOESN'T THAT ALLOW THE SECOND

58:15 - JUDGE. TO DEAL WITH THAT.

58:18 - SO DOESN'T THAT ABROGATE

58:20 - THE LAW OF THE TASTE

58:22 - DOCTRINE IF THAT FIRST RULING

58:24 - IS ERRONEOUS WHICH THE JUDGE

58:25 - ALSO POINTED OUT IN HER

58:27 - DISSENT, THE LAWYER THAT A LOT

58:29 - OF NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT IT'S

58:30 - JUST THE EU SOURCE OF THE SAME

58:33 - FACTS SO

58:34 - WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTS BEFORE

58:36 - THAT'S THE ISSUE WAS HE JUST.

58:38 - >>ONE TO HE HOPED

58:40 - THAT THERE WAS PURPOSEFUL

58:41 - DISCRIMINATION BUT HE HAD NO

58:42 - FACTS ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT

58:44 - THEY WAS PURPOSEFUL

58:44 - DISCRIMINATION UNTIL HE HAVE

58:46 - THE STATEMENTS AND NOBODY ISSUE

58:48 - ANY.

58:50 - >>I'D BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND

58:52 - SITUATIONS WHERE A PATENT CLAIM

58:54 - IS RAISED WHERE A

58:56 - DEFENDANT HAS

58:58 - FACTS SUCH AS A STATEMENT BY AN

59:00 - ALLEGED STATEMENT BY THE

59:02 - ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

59:03 - THAT HE OR SHE WAS GOING TO

59:05 - EXCLUDE AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

59:07 - BATSON CHALLENGE

59:08 - IS MADE AND THEN THE ANALYSIS

59:11 - IS DONE IN YOUR CLIENT MADE A

59:12 - BATSON CHALLENGE REPEATEDLY AND

59:15 - THEY PCR E COURTS

59:17 - DID NOT GIVE HIM REALLY FIND

59:20 - THAT SO. WHEN YOU

59:23 - SAY HE HOPED AND PRAYED THAT

59:25 - HE'D GET A STATEMENT LIKE THAT

59:27 - I'D BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANY

59:28 - BATSON CHALLENGE WHERE YOU HAVE

59:30 - A ALLEGED FLAT OUT ADMISSION.

59:33 - YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

59:34 - >>BUT YOU AT LEAST GET THE

59:35 - CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENT, THE

59:37 - HAIR COLOR, WHATEVER A LOOK

59:39 - THAT THE CHURCH GAVE THEM AND

59:41 - WHY THEY EXCLUDE THEM. WE DON'T

59:42 - HAVE

59:42 - THAT CONTEMPORANEOUS BECAUSE

59:44 - THE BASON CHALLENGE FRANKLY

59:45 - DON'T EVEN EXIST IN 1984 WHEN

59:47 - HE WENT

59:47 - TO TRIAL. SO HIS ATTORNEYS

59:49 - DIDN'T RAISE THAT SON AT THE

59:50 - TIME IN THE 1990'S IN 96

59:53 - CORRECT, BUT STILL EVEN AT THAT

59:55 - TIME WE DON'T HAVE THE

59:56 - TRANSCRIPT OF EVERY SINGLE

59:57 - JUROR WHO WAS QUESTION ON

59:59 - 930 INDIVIDUAL VARDY ARE HERE.

01:00 - 02.540 SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO

01:00 - 03.850 FIND OUT WHY HE

01:00 - 06.160 EXCLUDED EASTERS UNTIL WE GET

01:00 - 07.990 THIS STATEMENTS THIS STATEMENT

01:00 - 09.080 IS WHAT IS THIS NEWLY

01:00 - 10.380 DISCOVERED FACT THAT OUR CLAIM

01:00 - 12.060 IS BASED ON ANOTHER CLAIM CAN

01:00 - 13.640 BE RAISED ON. I THINK MIKE

01:00 - 15.750 LANE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAISE

01:00 - 17.220 ABOUT THE CHALLENGE UNTIL HE

01:00 - 18.630 HAD THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE HE

01:00 - 19.790 HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ANY

01:00 - 21.730 PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION UNTIL

01:00 - 23.330 HE OBTAINED THIS STATEMENT FROM

01:00 - 25.080 THE DISH OF HIS PRIOR LAWYERS

01:00 - 26.840 FOR IMPROPER IN RAISING.

01:00 - 29.630 PETITIONS

01:00 - 32.210 THEY FILED. I WAS A SPY IN THE

01:00 - 33.900 TOURNEY AT ANY POINT IN TIME I

01:00 - 34.970 BELIEVE THE ONLY ONE THAT HE

01:00 - 36.000 HAD IN THE TOURNEY APPOINTED

01:00 - 37.020 FOR ACTUALLY DIDN'T RAISE THE

01:00 - 38.910 BATSON CHALLENGE IN THE

01:00 - 39.980 REPRESSION FILED

01:00 - 41.710 BY COUNCIL LEAVE THE BATSMAN'S

01:00 - 44.020 ONLY EVER RAISE PRO SE BY THE

01:00 - 45.000 DEFENDANTS.

01:00 - 48.110 NOW WE MOVE BACK TO BACK TO THE

01:00 - 50.310 JURISDICTION. THE QUESTION.

01:00 - 52.110 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBJECT

01:00 - 53.460 MATTER SECTION, NOT RAIN.

01:00 - 54.650 YES, YOUR HONOR.

01:00 - 57.100 JURISDICTION

01:00 - 01.290 CANADAY HERE IT SO I'M I'M

01:01 - 03.010 LOOKING AT THE COBS FIRST STEP

01:01 - 04.540 TO CASE THAT I BELIEVE WAS

01:01 - 05.290 CITED.

01:01 - 09.460 >>AND IT SAYS THE CORPS

01:01 - 11.000 NATURE'S SECTIONAL IS NOT

01:01 - 12.550 APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE OF

01:01 - 14.290 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

01:01 - 16.170 THIS ONE ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH

01:01 - 17.990 THAT CASE COUNCIL AND WHAT IS

01:01 - 19.050 YOUR RESPONSE.

01:01 - 21.600 POLITICIANS SAID IT WAS CITED

01:01 - 22.960 IN DISSENT BY JUDGE WILSON.

01:01 - 24.610 IT WAS EITHER IN THE DISSENT TO

01:01 - 25.940 THE MAJORITY BECAUSE I DIDN'T

01:01 - 27.940 STUMBLE ACROSS IT MYSELF I MUST

01:01 - 30.650 COME UP AND I MUST CONCEDE THAT

01:01 - 32.200 CASE OR PROGESTERONE OR SHOULD

01:01 - 33.340 READ IT AT SOME POINT BUT I'M

01:01 - 35.160 NOT PREPARED HERE TO ADDRESS.

01:01 - 36.870 >>I'M CERTAINLY IF YOU ARE LIKE

01:01 - 38.600 ME TO FILE SOME SORT OF MEMO

01:01 - 40.150 OR BRIEF AFTER ORAL ARGUMENTS

01:01 - 43.960 IN SUCH AN EXCELLENT WHAT YOU

01:01 - 45.260 KNOW WE NEED THAT BUT THAT

01:01 - 45.880 THANK YOU

01:01 - 47.810 YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING BACK TO

01:01 - 48.910 THE LAW OF THE CASE WHICH AGAIN

01:01 - 50.030 I BELIEVE THE ONLY ISSUE THE

01:01 - 51.760 SPORT REALLY KANSAS SITE HERE

01:01 - 54.540 TODAY. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON JUST

01:01 - 56.020 AS AN EN BANC PANEL SAID IN THE

01:01 - 57.680 CANDLES THAT THE LAST THE CASE

01:01 - 59.260 IS TO SUPPORT THE SETTLED

01:01 - 01.020 EXPECTATIONS OF THE PARTIES.

01:02 - 02.410 >>AND THAT'S THE MAIN ISSUE

01:02 - 03.450 THAT WE HAVE HERE.

01:02 - 06.270 I HAD THE EXPECTATION AFTER AN

01:02 - 09.120 AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMON OFF

01:02 - 11.420 WITH THE JUDGE WITH JUDGE EVANS

01:02 - 13.100 TO BUY FOR KEEP THESE HEARINGS

01:02 - 15.290 ALL KNOWING THAT JUDGE LEWIS

01:02 - 16.360 WOULD ULTIMATELY BECOME A

01:02 - 17.690 WITNESS AT THE SUBSTANTIVE

01:02 - 19.230 MERITS HEARING. LET ME ASK YOU

01:02 - 20.860 THIS BECAUSE A JUDGE EVANS

01:02 - 23.460 INITIALLY RULED ON. THAT ARE

01:02 - 25.660 SECTION OR CORRECT AND THEN HE

01:02 - 28.200 RECUSE AND THE ENTIRE BENCH,

01:02 - 30.180 RECUSE CORRECT. SO

01:02 - 31.580 HOW CAN.

01:02 - 33.270 >>HE WILL ON IN.

01:02 - 34.740 >>ON THE CASE AND HE

01:02 - 36.500 SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDES THAT HE

01:02 - 40.160 AND WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE

01:02 - 41.640 VITALITY.

01:02 - 45.670 >>HIS PRIOR. I BELIEVE IT'S

01:02 - 47.520 PERFECTLY STABLE. THERE'S NO

01:02 - 48.910 REASON TO ARGUE

01:02 - 51.320 THAT HIS THE DECISION TO RECUSE

01:02 - 52.850 HIMSELF MEANS HE COULDN'T MAKE

01:02 - 54.900 A DECISION ON IT WHAT HE

01:02 - 56.800 DECIDED WAS THAT HE SHOULDN'T

01:02 - 58.400 BE HEARING THE TESTIMONY

01:02 - 59.770 OF THE PRESIDENT JUDGE OF HIS

01:02 - 00.960 COUNTY AND NEITHER SHOULD ANY

01:03 - 01.950 OTHER JUROR SITTING ON

01:03 - 04.180 THAT BENCH. IF JUDGE PRESIDENT

01:03 - 05.970 JUDGE LEWIS WAS NOT A WITNESS

01:03 - 07.440 AT THEM FIRST IF YOU'RE A

01:03 - 09.240 CITIZEN OR ERUPTION OF QUESTION

01:03 - 09.830 HERE.

01:03 - 12.790 >>WAS FACT BASED AND SO

01:03 - 14.820 JUDGE EVANS, THE SIDES

01:03 - 16.540 JURISDICTION BASED UPON

01:03 - 18.930 FACTS AND THEN HE SAYS I SHOULD

01:03 - 20.370 BE HEARING THIS CASE

01:03 - 22.450 AND THEN YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT

01:03 - 23.960 RULING IN PLACE AFTER THE JUDGE

01:03 - 24.700 SAYS THAT HE SHOULD HAVE

01:03 - 26.720 DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF. SOMETHING

01:03 - 27.950 ABOUT THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE

01:03 - 29.750 COURT NATION. YOU KNOW

01:03 - 30.860 JURISDICTION WILL SHOULD NOT

01:03 - 32.500 EMPLOY A THAT REALLY SHOULD BE

01:03 - 34.050 DISQUALIFIED BASED UPON THE

01:03 - 35.830 JUDGE'S RECUSAL SHE DID NOT.

01:03 - 38.190 >>I DISAGREE. WE WANT TO LEAD

01:03 - 40.190 DISCUSS THIS PRIOR TO THE FIRST

01:03 - 41.330 HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR

01:03 - 42.580 AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS

01:03 - 43.540 SCHEDULED THERE WAS NO

01:03 - 45.480 AGREEMENT TO BUY FOR CASE RIGHT

01:03 - 46.600 BEFORE THE INTERSECTION WAS

01:03 - 48.610 HELD WE HAD A CONVERSATION

01:03 - 50.140 WITH THE COMMONWEALTH AND WITH

01:03 - 51.840 JUDGE EVANS ABOUT THE FACT THE

01:03 - 53.070 PRESIDENT JUDGE LEWIS WE NEED

01:03 - 53.360 TO BE

01:03 - 56.110 A WITNESS SPECIFICALLY TOLD THE

01:03 - 56.920 JUDGE EVANS THEY ARE NOT

01:03 - 58.530 REQUESTING RECUSAL THEY DON'T

01:03 - 59.880 WANT HIM TO RECUSE REGARDLESS

01:03 - 00.870 OF THE CONVERSATION

01:04 - 01.640 WITH COUNCIL.

01:04 - 03.260 >>RECUSAL IS A PERSONAL

01:04 - 04.700 DECISION TO THE JUDGE IN THE

01:04 - 06.410 FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE PREVIEW

01:04 - 07.700 FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

01:04 - 11.020 THE JUDGE A JUDGE EVANS, EVEN

01:04 - 12.360 AFTER THE HEARING SAID YOU KNOW

01:04 - 14.810 WHAT I HAVE TO RECUSE I SHOULD

01:04 - 15.440 NOT BE HEARING

01:04 - 16.260 THIS CASE.

01:04 - 18.140 >>SHOULD THERE NOT DISQUALIFY

01:04 - 20.130 HIS RULING THAT I DON'T HE SAID

01:04 - 22.330 THE STATE TO I THINK IT'S ONLY

01:04 - 23.600 GOES TO THE FACT THE PRESIDENT

01:04 - 24.680 JUDGE LEWIS WAS A WITNESS AT

01:04 - 24.750 THE

01:04 - 26.420 SECOND HEARING THAT HE BELIEVED

01:04 - 27.660 THAT AT THAT POINT THE

01:04 - 29.030 APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY WAS

01:04 - 30.390 TOO SHOCKING ENOUGH THAT HE HAD

01:04 - 32.220 ANY PERSONAL BIAS BUT THAT IT

01:04 - 33.600 COULD LEAD TO AN APPEARANCE

01:04 - 35.180 BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IS WHEN

01:04 - 36.690 ANOTHER JUDGE OF HIS BENCH

01:04 - 37.790 WOULD BE TESTIFYING WITH THE

01:04 - 39.810 BROTHERS STORY THAT KICKED THIS

01:04 - 41.550 ALL OFF AFTER SO MANY YEARS WAS

01:04 - 43.070 THAT HIS MEMORY WAS JOB.

01:04 - 44.310 >>AND YOU TALK TO SOME OF THE

01:04 - 46.850 WAS OVERHEARD TO SAY TO THEIR

01:04 - 48.260 BEING ANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS ON

01:04 - 48.740 THE JURY.

01:04 - 49.110 >>AT

01:04 - 50.090 THAT TIME.

01:04 - 52.020 >>BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING YOU

01:04 - 53.450 KNEW IT WAS DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

01:04 - 54.930 LOSE THAT WOULD BE THE FACT

01:04 - 57.170 WITNESS. HER EX. BUT.

01:04 - 58.540 >>HE WAS A CALL THAT THE FIRST

01:04 - 58.890 HEARING OF THE

01:04 - 00.600 JURISDICTIONAL HEARING WE'RE

01:05 - 01.770 ALL PROCEEDING UNDER THE DUE

01:05 - 03.340 DILIGENCE THE THEORY UNDER THE

01:05 - 04.670 FIRST HEARING WE MADE THE

01:05 - 05.650 ASSUMPTION, THIS FACT,

01:05 - 07.850 THE STATEMENT WAS TRUE ENOUGH

01:05 - 09.260 TO GET PAST THE JURISDICTIONAL

01:05 - 10.740 AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME JUDGE

01:05 - 11.940 EVANSTON NEED TO MAKE A

01:05 - 13.760 CREDIBILITY DECISION ON

01:05 - 16.420 PRESIDENT JUDGE LEWIS BY THE

01:05 - 17.830 FACT THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO

01:05 - 19.660 MEET JURISDICTION. YOU ARE WE

01:05 - 20.830 ARE PROHIBITED OF COURSE WE'RE

01:05 - 21.220 GOING TO BE.

01:05 - 22.670 >>FROM LOOKING AT THE MERITS

01:05 - 23.980 FIRST, YOU LOOK AT THE

01:05 - 26.410 PETITION. IT'S A DOZEN OF WERE

01:05 - 27.030 AND AFTER

01:05 - 28.030 DISCOVERED FACT

01:05 - 31.660 DOESN'T SO THAT IS SO YOUR

01:05 - 33.100 ARGUMENT IS WE SHOULD JUST WE

01:05 - 34.930 SHOULD DISREGARD JUDGE BRAXTON

01:05 - 35.450 SLAUGHTER.

01:05 - 36.370 >>AND THEN.

01:05 - 38.200 >>THEN WE SHOULD ONLY

01:05 - 40.590 JUDGE EVANS.

01:05 - 41.870 >>ORDER BUT I DON'T BELIEVE

01:05 - 43.340 WE'VE BEEN CAN REVIEW JUDGE

01:05 - 44.410 EVANS ORDER AT THIS POINT IN

01:05 - 45.410 TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T

01:05 - 47.350 HAVE HIS CREDIBILITY OR FACTUAL

01:05 - 48.870 DETERMINATIONS RETURN TITLE TO

01:05 - 50.460 DEFERENCE IN FRONT OF THIS MORE

01:05 - 52.100 DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW

01:05 - 53.610 THAT THERE'S A JURISDICTION.

01:05 - 56.120 I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING

01:05 - 57.670 YOU CAN DO WITHOUT GIVING THE

01:05 - 58.920 FACTUAL DEFERENCE THAT

01:05 - 00.430 EITHER JUDGE EVANS ARE JUST

01:06 - 01.610 FACTS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT

01:06 - 02.710 JUDGE BRAXTON DIDN'T HEAR

01:06 - 04.650 JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM. I DIDN'T

01:06 - 05.610 HEAR THE SAME EVIDENCE OR

01:06 - 08.200 TESTIMONY MIGHT WELL KATE SO

01:06 - 09.610 WHAT'S YOUR POSITION IS WEAK.

01:06 - 12.390 WE SHOULD DISREGARD JUDGE

01:06 - 12.830 CRACKS

01:06 - 13.520 AND ORDER.

01:06 - 16.150 >>KERMAN CAN'T WE REVIEW THEM

01:06 - 17.540 WHY CAN'T WE THEN NEED YOU

01:06 - 18.910 JUDGE EVANS LAWYER.

01:06 - 20.400 >>BECAUSE HE DID NOT GIVE HIS

01:06 - 21.480 CREDIBILITY OR FACTUAL

01:06 - 22.620 DETERMINATIONS. HE SIMPLY

01:06 - 23.570 ISSUED AN ORDER SAYING

01:06 - 24.850 JURISDICTIONS GRANT TO WRITE

01:06 - 26.310 HIS REASONING BEHIND IT YOU'RE

01:06 - 28.860 RIGHT. BUT IF WE FIND THAT THIS

01:06 - 31.100 ISSUE WAS PREVIOUSLY RAISED IN

01:06 - 33.140 EARLIER PETITIONS AND THIS IS

01:06 - 33.660 JUST A

01:06 - 34.740 NEW SOURCE.

01:06 - 37.670 >>SUMMER PREVIOUSLY KNOWN FACT.

01:06 - 40.060 THEN WE CAN REVIEW AND CORRECT

01:06 - 41.550 BECAUSE CREDIBILITY IS NOT AT

01:06 - 41.920 ISSUE.

01:06 - 44.330 >>I'M NOT SURE THAT'S TRUE.

01:06 - 46.280 I THINK CREDIBILITY SO MATTERS

01:06 - 47.400 BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE

01:06 - 49.020 STATEMENT AT THE TIME HE RAISED

01:06 - 51.300 WAS THAT YOUR MAIN ARGUMENT BUT

01:06 - 52.130 I'M GOING TO

01:06 - 55.090 BELIEVE HIM. OKAY I'M GOING TO

01:06 - 57.770 ASSUME FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT

01:06 - 59.800 WHAT HIS BROTHER SAID HE

01:06 - 00.880 LEARNED THAT THE TIME HIS

01:07 - 01.930 BROTHER SAID IT

01:07 - 03.660 AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME HE

01:07 - 05.300 HAD HEARD THAT FROM HIS BROTHER

01:07 - 07.240 BUT EVEN WITH THAT.

01:07 - 10.820 WHAT THE HURDLE I SEE IS HAVING

01:07 - 12.280 TO GET OVER THE FACT THAT IN

01:07 - 15.640 EARLIER PETITIONS HE RAISED THE

01:07 - 17.230 CHALLENGE THAT THERE WERE NO

01:07 - 18.130 AFRICAN AMERICAN

01:07 - 18.820 AND SO.

01:07 - 21.090 >>IT DOESN'T SO LET'S ASSUME

01:07 - 23.790 THAT THIS IS TO ME A NEW SOURCE

01:07 - 26.180 OF A PREVIOUSLY KNOWN PIECE

01:07 - 27.040 OF INFORMATION.

01:07 - 28.790 >>IF I WRECKED AND DID MAKE A

01:07 - 30.040 CREDIBILITY RULING BUT YOU'RE

01:07 - 30.670 SAYING THAT SHE

01:07 - 33.090 JUST FYI BECAUSE JOE JOHNSON

01:07 - 34.460 DIDN'T HEAR THE JURISDICTIONAL

01:07 - 36.010 ARGUMENTS I COMPLETELY CHANGE

01:07 - 37.490 THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED IN ALL

01:07 - 39.480 THAT. BUT I PLEDGE IF I COULD

01:07 - 40.740 REPLY BACK TO MISTER OLSON

01:07 - 41.650 AHEAD THANK YOU.

01:07 - 44.570 SO SPECIFICALLY I THINK

01:07 - 46.530 THAT THIS THAT IS WHAT MATTERS

01:07 - 48.110 NOT THE CLAIM UNDERLYING IT

01:07 - 50.060 IT'S A NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT

01:07 - 51.330 THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAIM

01:07 - 52.460 THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE

01:07 - 53.870 LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ON

01:07 - 55.540 JURISDICTION AND THIS IS A NEW

01:07 - 56.790 FACTOR. WELL IT MIGHT BE A

01:07 - 58.110 CLAIM THAT HAS BEEN RAISED

01:07 - 00.170 BEFORE THAT I BELIEVE GOES TO

01:08 - 02.360 THE SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS NOT TO

01:08 - 04.820 THE JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS AS WE

01:08 - 05.280 SEE IT.

01:08 - 07.000 >>WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE

01:08 - 10.130 ASKING US. DUE

01:08 - 10.940 IN COURT.

01:08 - 12.610 >>I'M ASKING YOU TO DO EXACTLY

01:08 - 14.170 AS THE PANEL HAD DECIDED TO

01:08 - 15.310 HOLD THAT THE LAW OF THE CASE

01:08 - 16.590 DOCTRINE PRECLUDED JUDGE

01:08 - 17.320 BRAXTON FROM

01:08 - 18.810 DECIDING JURISDICTION AND

01:08 - 20.320 DREAMY AND FOR SUBSTANTIVE

01:08 - 22.140 MERITS ANALYSIS UNDER THE PEACE

01:08 - 23.770 HERE HAD A SUBSTANTIVE HEARING

01:08 - 25.410 THEM. WE HAD A HEARING BUT NOT

01:08 - 27.080 AN ULTIMATE DECISION ON THAT'S

01:08 - 28.590 RIGHT. BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO

01:08 - 30.030 REDO THE TESTIMONY. THE JUDGE

01:08 - 30.930 HEARD THE SUBSTANTIVE

01:08 - 32.710 TESTIMONY. HE WOULD JUST HAVE

01:08 - 34.140 TO DECIDE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE

01:08 - 35.080 BASIS AS OPPOSED TO

01:08 - 35.800 JURISDICTION.

01:08 - 36.880 >>CORRECT. I DON'T THINK WE

01:08 - 38.220 NEED NEW HEARING I THINK WE

01:08 - 39.570 NEED A SUDDEN SOME MERITS

01:08 - 41.230 ANALYSIS. SO A DECISION ON

01:08 - 41.610 THAT.

01:08 - 43.020 >>OK THANK YOU COUNCIL. THANK

01:08 - 44.180 YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT.

01:08 - 50.350 >>MORNING HONORS MAY PLEASE

01:08 - 53.220 THE COURT. RYAN LISA ON BEHALF

01:08 - 54.820 OF THE PELLEY I'M AND I'M FROM

01:08 - 55.890 THE DAUPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT

01:08 - 57.840 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I

01:08 - 58.750 WOULD LIKE TO START AT THE

01:08 - 00.930 BEGINNING WITH THIS COMMENT UH.

01:09 - 02.850 BRIAN

01:09 - 06.070 BOTH HEARINGS AS TO WHAT

01:09 - 08.030 ALLEGED COMMENT WAS THAT

01:09 - 10.900 HE HEARD ERIC TESTIFIED TO IT

01:09 - 12.250 AS WELL, BUT THEN THAT'S.

01:09 - 14.790 WHATEVER ERIC TESTIFIED TO THE

01:09 - 16.660 DEFENDANT IS OBVIOUSLY LAIRD

01:09 - 18.360 THROUGH WHAT BRIAN TOLD HIM SO

01:09 - 19.470 WHAT BRIAN IS

01:09 - 21.770 SAYING HERE THAT HE ALLEGEDLY

01:09 - 23.300 OVERHEARD IS HE DOESN'T

01:09 - 25.140 THAT THE PROSECUTOR ALLEGEDLY

01:09 - 25.670 STATED I

01:09 - 28.180 DON'T THINK THERE'LL BE ANY UH

01:09 - 29.610 THE WORD USED BLACKS ON THIS

01:09 - 32.490 JURY. I DON'T KNOW HOW

01:09 - 34.120 THAT UH EVIDENCE

01:09 - 36.360 IS ANY SUBSTANTIVE AFFIRMATIVE

01:09 - 37.680 ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE

01:09 - 38.580 PROSECUTOR AT

01:09 - 41.480 THE TIME. HE COULD HAVE BEEN

01:09 - 43.480 RESPONDING TO THE WAY THE

01:09 - 44.810 DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS USING

01:09 - 47.000 CRABTREE STRIKES. HE COULD HAVE

01:09 - 47.190 BEEN

01:09 - 51.470 TO THE NUMBER OF ULTIMATELY IF

01:09 - 52.720 WHEREVER THEY WERE SITUATED

01:09 - 53.990 THEY MIGHT WISH FOR SAYING IS

01:09 - 55.220 THAT THE PURPOSES OF

01:09 - 56.570 JURISDICTION ON A NEWLY

01:09 - 57.690 DISCOVERED FACT.

01:09 - 59.810 >>IT HAS TO BE A MATERIAL FACT

01:10 - 01.310 I MEAN IF YOU CAME IN AND SAID

01:10 - 02.370 I OVERHEARD SOMEONE TALKING

01:10 - 03.840 ABOUT THE WEATHER THERE'S A NEW

01:10 - 05.830 FACT OBVIOUSLY HAS NO BEARING

01:10 - 06.730 ON THE CASE.

01:10 - 08.990 BUT WHERE LEWIS CAME IN AND

01:10 - 10.180 SAID I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING

01:10 - 11.880 TO BE ANY AFRICAN AMERICANS

01:10 - 13.410 IS THAT A MATERIAL FACT THE

01:10 - 14.920 PURPOSES OF HIS CLAIMS.

01:10 - 16.530 I DON'T THINK IT IS YOUR HONOR

01:10 - 17.750 I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION IS

01:10 - 18.980 NOT THE TYPE OF FACT YOU NEED

01:10 - 19.680 TO LET.

01:10 - 21.070 >>I THINK

01:10 - 25.700 AS IS CLAIMING A STATEMENT OR A

01:10 - 27.380 POET A IS CLAIMING WHAT THE

01:10 - 28.860 IMPORT OF THE STATEMENT AS I

01:10 - 31.800 THINK THEY WOULD HAVE IF THE

01:10 - 32.850 STATEMENT ITSELF WOULD HAVE

01:10 - 35.690 INTENT TO EXCLUDE

01:10 - 38.150 AN IMPROPER BASIS. I IT GOES TO

01:10 - 39.280 THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS YOU

01:10 - 40.100 KNOW YOU'RE SAYING.

01:10 - 41.570 >>YOU'RE SAYING THAT JUDGE

01:10 - 43.870 EVANS SCARED AND THERE ARE EVEN

01:10 - 45.520 IF IT JUDGED. IT JUDGE EVANS

01:10 - 46.900 WAS AN ERROR BECAUSE HE FOUND

01:10 - 47.850 THAT HE CAN RULE IN

01:10 - 49.650 CREDIBILITY. BUT HE DID SAY

01:10 - 51.500 THERE WAS ENOUGH THEY ARE TO GO

01:10 - 53.250 FURTHER TO THE MERITS. SO

01:10 - 55.190 YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING IN ESSENCE

01:10 - 57.780 THAT JUDGE EVANS LING WAS

01:10 - 59.050 ERRONEOUS IN THERE FOR THAT

01:10 - 00.460 THERE'S NO LAW THE CASE IS NO

01:11 - 02.640 CORDON JURISDICTION VIOLATION

01:11 - 03.830 BECAUSE JUDGE BRAXTON COULD GO

01:11 - 06.060 AHEAD. AND CORRECT THE ERROR.

01:11 - 08.030 >>RESPECTFULLY YOUR HONOR AND

01:11 - 10.370 I DID BEGIN TO ARGUE THAT AT

01:11 - 11.990 THE END OF THE FIRST PIECE

01:11 - 13.800 CHARIOT HEARING HAS TO WHAT

01:11 - 15.180 RYAN ACTUALLY SAID THIS

01:11 - 15.950 ALLEGED COMMENT.

01:11 - 17.700 >>I'M CONFUSED THEN BECAUSE TO

01:11 - 18.730 ME IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE

01:11 - 20.520 CONCEDING JURISDICTION IN

01:11 - 22.110 YOU'RE ARGUING THE SUBSTANCE OF

01:11 - 24.050 HIS CLAIM. I'M SAYING THERE IS

01:11 - 26.110 NO FACTS THERE IS NO NEW FACT.

01:11 - 38.660 >>I THINK THIS CAN BE A RULED

01:11 - 40.550 UPON AND ON SEVERAL BASES, YOUR

01:11 - 41.430 HONOR THAT IS ONE OF

01:11 - 44.890 RESEARCHING THIS, I WAS NOT

01:11 - 46.580 ABLE TO FIND CASE

01:11 - 48.050 ON POINT HAS

01:11 - 52.030 HOW RECUSAL A KIND OF FACTORS

01:11 - 53.710 INTO LAW THAT THE CASE.

01:11 - 56.250 I FOUND UNPUBLISHED CASE

01:11 - 58.050 FROM BEFORE THE TIME THAT WE'RE

01:11 - 59.770 NOW AT THE SITE THEM I WASN'T

01:11 - 00.890 ON POINT ANYWAYS.

01:12 - 02.800 I THINK AS A MATTER OF FIRST

01:12 - 04.150 IMPRESSION THAT THE JUDGE

01:12 - 06.750 RECUSE HIMSELF. THE LEGAL

01:12 - 08.360 DEFINITION OF RECUSAL IS NOT

01:12 - 10.720 BEING ABLE TO HEAR THE MATTER

01:12 - 12.330 AN IMPARTIAL MANNER EVEN IF

01:12 - 14.760 IT'S JUST A THIS MAY APPEAR TO

01:12 - 17.490 SOME BUT I'M NOT A IMPARTIAL IN

01:12 - 18.170 THIS MATTER.

01:12 - 21.320 >>I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT RULING

01:12 - 22.640 CONVINCED AND LET

01:12 - 23.250 ME OUT.

01:12 - 24.570 >>GO BACK TO APPOINT JUDGE

01:12 - 26.800 LAZARUS MADE EARLIER AND I

01:12 - 28.820 JUDGE ALL SINCE I DISSENT.

01:12 - 31.000 IS THERE A DIFFERENCE HERE

01:12 - 33.300 BETWEEN WHAT FACTS ARE BEING

01:12 - 35.150 TALKED ABOUT THE JUDGE ALSO

01:12 - 35.530 POINTED

01:12 - 38.740 OUT PREVIOUSLY HE KNEW ABOUT

01:12 - 40.160 HIS BATSON CHALLENGE THAT HE

01:12 - 41.330 WOULD HE KNOW ABOUT AT THE TIME

01:12 - 42.330 OF HIS TRIAL

01:12 - 44.160 AND TERMS OF THAT THE EXCLUSION

01:12 - 46.220 OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS BUT THE

01:12 - 48.750 STATEMENT LATER THIS COVER

01:12 - 50.800 WAS A STATEMENT BY THE DA WHICH

01:12 - 52.020 WHILE ON CLEAR

01:12 - 54.260 MIGHT SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION

01:12 - 56.660 THERE WAS YOU KNOW SOME

01:12 - 58.280 INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION ON

01:12 - 59.420 THE COMMONWEALTH COURT.

01:13 - 02.190 HOW'S THAT FACT RELATED BACK IN

01:13 - 04.130 TIME TO THE EARLIER PETITIONS.

01:13 - 06.260 >>AND I THINK I GOT INTO THIS A

01:13 - 06.550 LITTLE

01:13 - 08.500 ATTEMPTED TO DURING THE PEACE

01:13 - 09.560 SHERRY HEARING THAT THE

01:13 - 11.410 DEFENDANT DOES HIS BEST JOB

01:13 - 12.490 WHEN HE FILES A PIECE OR A

01:13 - 13.450 PETITION. IT TAKES A SHOT IN

01:13 - 15.700 THE DARK. HE THINKS OH THERE

01:13 - 16.970 WEREN'T ANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS

01:13 - 18.630 ON THE JURY LET'S SAY THAT MY

01:13 - 20.090 ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE RAISE THE

01:13 - 20.940 BATSON CHALLENGE.

01:13 - 23.010 HE'S AN APPOINTED ATTORNEYS THE

01:13 - 23.640 ATTORNEY'S DOES AN

01:13 - 26.100 INVESTIGATION. AND AS I SAID A

01:13 - 27.150 LITTLE BIT DURING THE HEARING

01:13 - 28.290 WHAT'S HE GOING TO START WITH

01:13 - 29.390 HOW DO WE FIND OUT

01:13 - 31.590 WHAT THE COMPOSITION WAS OF ALL

01:13 - 33.250 POTENTIAL JURORS.

01:13 - 34.390 HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHAT THE

01:13 - 35.670 COMPOSITION WAS AT THE SCENE

01:13 - 36.840 AND PANEL WE TALKED TO THE

01:13 - 37.310 PEOPLE THAT

01:13 - 39.610 WERE THERE BRYAN'S FAMILY

01:13 - 42.010 MEMBERS THERE OF A FAMILY OF.

01:13 - 44.080 >>WAS THERE EVER A SUGGESTION

01:13 - 45.830 PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS

01:13 - 47.630 PETITION. THAT

01:13 - 49.520 THEY KNEW WHAT DISTRICT

01:13 - 50.900 ATTORNEY'S LEWIS SAID.

01:13 - 51.800 >>NOW THEY ARE.

01:13 - 54.010 >>OK SO THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME

01:13 - 55.660 THAT THAT STATEMENT BY DA LOWS

01:13 - 56.860 THAT COME TO HIS ATTENTION.

01:13 - 58.780 AND WHILE IT'S NOT CLEAR

01:13 - 00.520 DOESN'T THE STATEMENT AT LEAST

01:14 - 02.010 SUBJECT ITSELF TO AT LEAST

01:14 - 04.020 INQUIRY AS TO WHAT WAS MEANT.

01:14 - 07.950 >>I CAN I CAN I CAN AGREE WITH

01:14 - 14.630 >>AND STARTED KEEP

01:14 - 17.250 GOING BUT THE EXCEPTIONS TO LOT

01:14 - 18.190 OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.

01:14 - 19.840 THE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS RULING WE

01:14 - 21.270 HAVE THAT BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE

01:14 - 22.880 MATERIAL CHANGE AND BACKS.

01:14 - 24.880 THE TRANSCRIPTS WILL SPEAK FOR

01:14 - 27.360 THEMSELVES. THEMSELVES BUT

01:14 - 29.610 BRIAN A MANY OF THE STATEMENTS

01:14 - 30.670 THAT HE MADE DURING THE FIRST

01:14 - 31.080 HEARING.

01:14 - 34.080 SAID THAT HE WAS EITHER WRONG

01:14 - 36.030 ABOUT OR EVEN REMEMBER ANYMORE

01:14 - 37.200 AND THEY WERE MATERIAL TO

01:14 - 40.220 IT WAS. THIS DURING FIRST

01:14 - 41.530 HEARING HE SAID THAT THE WHOLE

01:14 - 43.000 TRIAL HAPPENED IN THE BASEMENT.

01:14 - 45.110 ARE IN A BASEMENT LIKE ROOM

01:14 - 46.010 COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FIRST

01:14 - 47.540 4TH FLOOR, BUT THEN HE AGREES

01:14 - 49.470 THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND

01:14 - 51.660 THE COURTROOM AT A FORUM FOR

01:14 - 53.330 THE IN WHICH THE PIECE YOU'RE A

01:14 - 55.300 HEARING DURING THE SECOND HERE.

01:14 - 59.730 HE ALSO AND UM AGAIN THESE WILL

01:14 - 01.820 A BE A PAIR FROM THE TRANSCRIPT

01:15 - 04.970 HE BACKED OFF A AT THE

01:15 - 06.210 SECOND HEARING FROM THE

01:15 - 07.550 STATEMENT DURING FIRST HEARING

01:15 - 07.810 AS TO

01:15 - 11.030 HOW MANY AFRICAN AMERICAN

01:15 - 12.060 JURORS THERE WERE

01:15 - 15.510 SAID IT HAPPENED THE STATEMENT

01:15 - 16.490 ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED DURING A

01:15 - 17.780 RECESS NOW NOT DURING THE

01:15 - 18.260 ACTUAL

01:15 - 18.990 WHAT YEAR.

01:15 - 22.300 >>NOW AND HE AT THE FIRST

01:15 - 23.620 HEARING SET TO DURING LAST

01:15 - 24.650 YEAR, THERE'S NO ONE SITTING

01:15 - 25.940 BEHIND THE COWELL SITE.

01:15 - 26.900 >>THAT REALLY GOES TO

01:15 - 27.720 CREDIBILITY.

01:15 - 30.350 >>AND JUDGE EVANS DID NOT MAKE

01:15 - 30.760 ANY.

01:15 - 32.660 >>CREDIBILITY TERMINATION ROLE

01:15 - 33.880 HE JUST SAID THE STATEMENT.

01:15 - 35.740 I JUST WAS ENOUGH TO GET

01:15 - 37.640 PASTORS TO GENETIC LEFT IT

01:15 - 39.660 THERE. IT MAY JUST BRAXTON DID

01:15 - 41.550 MAKE CREDIBILITY MADE A

01:15 - 42.840 CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION.

01:15 - 44.640 >>WHAT I THINK OF CREDIBILITY I

01:15 - 46.060 THINK OF I DON'T

01:15 - 47.710 THINK OF THE PREVIOUSLY DON'T

01:15 - 49.630 HAVE THIS MUCH A CONTRADICTION

01:15 - 50.810 OF THE DIFFERENT STATEMENTS ITS

01:15 - 52.760 OUTRAGE, BACKING AWAY FROM

01:15 - 53.960 MATERIAL FACTS THAT HE

01:15 - 54.920 TESTIFIED TO AT THE

01:15 - 56.800 FIRST HEARING. I THINK IT GOES

01:15 - 58.120 BEYOND CREDIBILITY. I THINK IT

01:15 - 00.380 GOES TOO. WHAT THE FACTS ARE

01:16 - 01.270 WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THE

01:16 - 01.610 FACTS

01:16 - 02.160 OF SUMMIT.

01:16 - 03.500 >>THE CHANCE THAT WAS TO TEST

01:16 - 04.770 THE LIMITS OF NATO SAYS ONE IN

01:16 - 06.840 FRONT OF JUDGE EVANS.

01:16 - 09.890 NOT HEAT. HE TESTIFIED AT THE

01:16 - 10.220 FIRST

01:16 - 12.630 HE WASN'T IMPEACHED DURING

01:16 - 13.540 FIRST HEARING WITH

01:16 - 16.740 HOW HE REFUSED TO ADMIT THAT HE

01:16 - 18.010 HIMSELF HAD BEEN THROUGH A JURY

01:16 - 19.360 TRIAL BEFORE WHEN HE FEIGNED

01:16 - 21.160 IGNORANCE THAT'S 12 DURING THE

01:16 - 22.060 FIRST TIME SO

01:16 - 23.380 A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT

01:16 - 24.430 PRESENT DURING THE FIRST

01:16 - 25.320 HEARING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY

01:16 - 26.600 CORRECT. HE WASN'T IMPEACHED TO

01:16 - 27.350 THAT EXTENT.

01:16 - 30.670 I DID RESERVE BECAUSE THE

01:16 - 31.980 TOURNEY CHARTER WANT TO HANDLE

01:16 - 34.140 I GUESS BEST PRACTICE MIGHT

01:16 - 35.050 HAVE BEEN TO GET INTO SOME OF

01:16 - 36.510 THAT BEFORE JUDGE HEARING A

01:16 - 38.430 JUDGE EVANS. I'M LIKE YOU'RE

01:16 - 39.320 TALKING ABOUT BEFORE JUDGE

01:16 - 41.480 BRAXTON I'M SORRY IT ALL CAME

01:16 - 42.900 OUT WHICH IS JUST ABSOLUTELY

01:16 - 44.460 REST THAT'S ON THE TRANSCRIPTS.

01:16 - 46.240 >>THE JUDGE EVANS

01:16 - 47.860 ALSO HEARD THE BROTHER.

01:16 - 50.300 >>IF HE WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE

01:16 - 51.370 ABOUT THAT.

01:16 - 53.360 >>THERE IS NO EXPRESS RULING

01:16 - 54.920 AND THE ORDER HE TO HIS ORDER

01:16 - 56.220 SO LEE STATED AND THAT HE

01:16 - 58.230 DIDN'T MAKE FROM WHAT I RECALL

01:16 - 59.680 IN MY READING OF THE

01:16 - 01.040 TRANSCRIPTS HE DID NOT MAKE ANY

01:17 - 02.420 EXPRESS FINDINGS.

01:17 - 04.100 FOLLOWING THE HEARING AND

01:17 - 06.060 HIS ORDER DID NOT SPECIFICALLY

01:17 - 07.570 A STATE THAT HE FOUND ANYONE

01:17 - 08.760 CREDIBLE OR NOT CREDIBLE JUST

01:17 - 09.720 THE JURISDICTION HAVE BEEN

01:17 - 11.450 SATISFIED AND HIS EYES.

01:17 - 13.600 >>IF THIS CASE WERE TO BE RE

01:17 - 16.390 MANDATE. THE JUDGE ALREADY HAD

01:17 - 16.460 THE

01:17 - 18.340 MARRIAGE HEARING COULD ALSO

01:17 - 20.080 INITIALLY DECIDED

01:17 - 21.530 JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IF WE

01:17 - 23.480 DECIDE JUDGE EVANS SHOULD NOT.

01:17 - 25.050 >>HAVE DECIDED THAT QUESTION.

01:17 - 27.480 IT WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT'S IN

01:17 - 28.350 THE PETITION.

01:17 - 30.710 AND IF IT PASSES MUSTER THERE

01:17 - 31.500 AND THE JUDGE TO GIVE AN

01:17 - 32.700 OPINION ON THE MERITS.

01:17 - 33.430 YESTERDAY.

01:17 - 38.170 THANK YOU YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU

01:17 - 38.660 COUNTS.

01:17 - 47.530 >>I'D LIKE TO BE BRIEF AND

01:17 - 49.200 SPECIFICALLY RESPOND BACK TO

01:17 - 50.510 JUDGE THE BEALES QUESTION.

01:17 - 53.250 THE YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IF YOU

01:17 - 56.100 DO SAY THAT EVANS DECISION

01:17 - 57.790 INTERSECTION SHOULD NOT HOLD

01:17 - 59.450 WATER AND YOU'RE A MAN'S BACK

01:17 - 01.750 FOR JURISDICTIONAL MEMO SAYS I

01:18 - 03.040 NEED TO REQUEST A NEW HEARING.

01:18 - 03.470 THE

01:18 - 05.390 FOCUS IS THAT I CHANGED MY

01:18 - 07.250 STRATEGY I HAD A SETTLED

01:18 - 09.260 EXPECTATIONS BECAUSE WE ALREADY

01:18 - 10.520 HAD JURISDICTION BECAUSE

01:18 - 11.850 REMEMBER HOW TOUGH IT IS THAT

01:18 - 13.830 YOUR STICKS. NO QUESTION BASED

01:18 - 14.990 DETERMINED BASED UPON THE

01:18 - 16.140 GOVERNMENTS IN THE PETITION.

01:18 - 18.160 >>YOUR CLIENT FILES PETITION,

01:18 - 20.150 ITS LOOKED AT TO SEE IF HIS

01:18 - 22.240 JURISDICTION HAS THE ALLEGED

01:18 - 23.710 THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT

01:18 - 25.410 WITHOUT LOOKING IT CREDIBILITY

01:18 - 27.160 OR HEARING EVIDENCE IF HE DOES

01:18 - 27.750 THE PERCENT

01:18 - 28.410 OF AMERICANS.

01:18 - 30.000 >>IT'S POSSIBLE YOUR HONOR, BUT

01:18 - 31.530 I THINK WE NEED MORE TO IT THAN

01:18 - 32.780 THAT WHICH IS WHY HEARING WAS

01:18 - 34.430 ORDERED IN THIS I THINK THE

01:18 - 35.510 HEARING WE NEED TO BE ORDERED

01:18 - 37.120 AGAIN WHEN I CHANGED MY

01:18 - 38.310 QUESTIONING WHEN I CHANGE MY

01:18 - 39.410 STRATEGY ON THAT

01:18 - 41.530 I DIDN'T BUT AGAIN EVERYTHING I

01:18 - 42.980 LITIGATED AT THE FIRST HEARING

01:18 - 44.270 STRATEGY ON THE MERITS BE

01:18 - 45.770 DIFFERENT FROM HIS STRATEGY ON

01:18 - 46.710 JURISDICTION WHEN YOU'RE

01:18 - 48.120 TALKING ABOUT THE SAME FACT.

01:18 - 50.170 >>AS TO THE FACT SOME OF THAT

01:18 - 51.290 STAYED THE SAME A

01:18 - 52.750 LOT OF THE CHANGES TO GO TO THE

01:18 - 55.040 DUE DILIGENCE WHETHER OR NOT HE

01:18 - 56.890 EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE WHEN HE

01:18 - 58.090 DISCOVERED THE STATEMENT

01:18 - 59.640 WHETHER HE RAISED ABOUT SOME

01:18 - 01.260 CHALLENGE PREVIOUSLY IN WHAT

01:19 - 02.760 MANNER HERE IS A PASS AND TURNS

01:19 - 04.340 PREVIOUSLY THAT IF WE LOOK AT

01:19 - 06.100 THIS AND DECIDE THAT HE DID

01:19 - 07.050 RAISE THESE CHALLENGES

01:19 - 07.830 PREVIOUSLY.

01:19 - 10.120 >>WHAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY

01:19 - 12.050 ETA LEWIS WAS IN FACT A NEW

01:19 - 13.290 FACT THAT COULD HAVE AFFECTED A

01:19 - 14.240 BATSON CHALLENGE.

01:19 - 15.940 >>WHY WOULD ANY OF THAT THAT

01:19 - 16.450 YOU WANTED TO

01:19 - 17.410 BE RELEVANT.

01:19 - 18.820 >>THAT JUDGE BRAXTON DIDN'T GET

01:19 - 20.870 A CHANCE TO HEAR ABOUT THAT DUE

01:19 - 22.470 DILIGENCE ANALYSIS ON THAT SO

01:19 - 23.680 FANS OF DECIDING ON DUE

01:19 - 25.790 DILIGENCE I DON'T I DIDN'T

01:19 - 27.240 PRESENT THAT TO JUDGE BRAXTON

01:19 - 29.040 HE DIDN'T GET TO HEAR ANY OF

01:19 - 30.230 THE DUE DILIGENCE ANALYSIS

01:19 - 32.360 AT ALL WE GOT A WHOLE CAREER

01:19 - 33.610 SOLELY ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE

01:19 - 34.900 MERITS ANALYSIS UNDER THE PEACE

01:19 - 37.210 HERE THAT RIGHT IS NOT

01:19 - 38.770 CREDIBLE. CORRECT.

01:19 - 42.460 >>SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO BE WITH

01:19 - 42.840 YOU.

01:19 - 45.110 >>THERE.

01:19 - 47.160 >>THAT THE ORDINATION BETWEEN

01:19 - 48.890 JACK EVANS INJECT CRACKS IN THE

01:19 - 50.460 PROPER WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE

01:19 - 51.180 YOU WITH THAT

01:19 - 53.350 IT THEY'RE WITH STAR WITNESS IS

01:19 - 54.010 NOT CREDIBLE.

01:19 - 55.980 >>MOST LIKELY JUDGE BRAXTON

01:19 - 56.520 DOUBLE AND A

01:19 - 58.240 DENYING ON THE SUBSTANTIVE

01:19 - 00.160 MERITS ANALYSIS BUT THAT IS

01:20 - 02.090 WHAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO DECIDE

01:20 - 03.330 HE DID NOT DECIDE THAT HE

01:20 - 04.720 DECIDED YOUR SECTION WHICH IS

01:20 - 05.820 WHY THE LAW OF THE CASE

01:20 - 07.040 DOCTRINE HAS TO

01:20 - 08.690 APPLY HERE. THIS COURTHOUSE,

01:20 - 09.830 THE WHOLE JUDGE BRAXTON MADE

01:20 - 11.140 THE INCORRECT DECISION BY

01:20 - 12.340 OVERRULING TO JEVANS

01:20 - 14.210 INTERSECTION KATE THANK YOU

01:20 - 15.350 COUNCIL, THANK YOU AND WE

01:20 - 17.290 UNDERSTAND YOUR. THANK YOU VERY

01:20 - 17.450 MUCH.

01:20 - 19.700 >>THE NEXT CASE THE COURT IS

01:20 - 19.930 GOING

01:20 - 22.720 TO HEAR IS SBA TOWERS VERSE

01:20 - 24.840 WIRELESS HOLDINGS THIS IS A

01:20 - 27.430 CIVIL CASE THAT COMES FROM THE

01:20 - 28.390 A TRIAL COURT IN

01:20 - 30.930 BLAIR COUNTY. THE CASE RELATES

01:20 - 32.870 TO A LEASE INVOLVING A CELL

01:20 - 35.330 PHONE TOWER. AND IT INVOLVES

01:20 - 37.130 THE 2 SOPHISTICATED A

01:20 - 39.490 COMMERCIAL PARTIES, THE S P 8

01:20 - 40.140 HOURS IS

01:20 - 43.340 TENANT AND WHILE ITS HOLDINGS

01:20 - 44.640 IS THE LAND.

01:20 - 47.470 THE LEASE, A

01:20 - 50.590 PROVIDES SPECIFICALLY FOR 24

01:20 - 52.310 HOURS PER DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

01:20 - 55.190 ACCESS. AND

01:20 - 57.270 IT WAS GENERALLY PROVIDED FOR

01:20 - 58.990 BE A LOCK BOX.

01:20 - 00.790 SO THAT SBA CAN GET ACCESS TO

01:21 - 02.050 THE PROPERTY AT ANY POINT IN

01:21 - 04.970 TIME. ANY TIME DAY OR NIGHT BY

01:21 - 06.100 GETTING A KEY FROM THE LOCK

01:21 - 08.970 BOX. DURING THE COURSE OF THE A

01:21 - 10.470 LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

01:21 - 11.890 THE LANDLORD AND A TENANT.

01:21 - 14.190 WHILE AS MANY DETERMINATION

01:21 - 15.240 THAT THERE WAS SOME SECURITY

01:21 - 17.630 CONCERNS AND THEREFORE IMPOSE

01:21 - 19.480 SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

01:21 - 21.870 UPON SBA IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO

01:21 - 23.910 THE PROPERTY. SPECIFICALLY.

01:21 - 26.990 WIRELESS. INSTITUTE A CALL

01:21 - 27.770 AND SYSTEM.

01:21 - 30.460 THAT REPLACED LOCKBOX SO THAT

01:21 - 32.410 SBA WAS REQUIRED TO CALL THE

01:21 - 35.540 LANDLORD. TO PROVIDE A ACCESS

01:21 - 35.670 TO

01:21 - 39.190 THE FACILITY. ALSO. WHILE IT'S

01:21 - 40.780 REQUIRED THAT THERE BE SOME

01:21 - 42.680 IDENTIFICATION BADGES THAT

01:21 - 44.170 FALLS BACK THE CHECKS FOR ANY

01:21 - 45.580 SUBCONTRACTORS THAT MIGHT COME

01:21 - 45.790 IN.

01:21 - 50.430 SBA AS 10 AND DECIDED THAT

01:21 - 52.680 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WERE

01:21 - 53.960 UNNECESSARY AND BEYOND THE

01:21 - 55.240 SCOPE OF THAT LEASE

01:21 - 57.280 AND THEREFORE FILED A COMPLAINT

01:21 - 58.410 AND SOUGHT WHAT'S CALLED

01:21 - 00.280 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THAT'S A

01:22 - 00.980 CIVIL

01:22 - 02.740 PROCEEDING, WHEREBY THAT

01:22 - 04.410 PARTIES GET ACCESS TO A COURT

01:22 - 06.110 ON A VERY A DAILY BASIS.

01:22 - 07.880 AND THE COURT MAKE A

01:22 - 09.650 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AS TO

01:22 - 11.430 WHAT IF ANY PROTECTION SHOULD

01:22 - 13.260 BE GIVEN. IN THIS CASE THAT THE

01:22 - 15.210 TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE

01:22 - 18.360 SPA'S INJUNCTION. AND A FACT

01:22 - 20.610 THE ORDERED THAT WIRELESS COULD

01:22 - 22.260 NOT. PROVIDE

01:22 - 23.970 THESE ADDITIONAL. A

01:22 - 26.120 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ABOUT A

01:22 - 27.760 YEAR LATER THE COURT HAD A FULL

01:22 - 29.420 HEARING ON THE ISSUE HER

01:22 - 30.990 TESTIMONY AND MADE A

01:22 - 32.710 DETERMINATION THAT IN FACT

01:22 - 35.280 THERE WAS AN AMBIGUITY IN THE

01:22 - 36.740 LEASE THAT THERE WAS SOME

01:22 - 38.790 UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE LYING TO

01:22 - 41.140 POLICE AND SPECIFICALLY THAT

01:22 - 43.010 THE 24 HOUR SEVEN-DAY WEEK

01:22 - 43.700 REQUIREMENT.

01:22 - 47.420 WOULD PROVIDE THE LANDLORD

01:22 - 48.710 WHICH SOME ABILITY TO PUT SOME

01:22 - 50.090 ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON

01:22 - 53.020 ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. AGAIN

01:22 - 54.250 THOSE RESTRICTION BEING.

01:22 - 57.030 THE CALL AND SYSTEM AS WELL AS

01:22 - 59.630 SECURITY CLEARANCES AND OTHERS

01:22 - 00.770 THE SBA

01:23 - 02.950 WAS A DISSATISFIED WITH THAT

01:23 - 04.670 THE RULING BY THE COURT AND IS

01:23 - 06.320 SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE

01:23 - 07.290 SUPERIOR COURT.

01:23 - 12.020 THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT THE COURT

01:23 - 13.540 I THINK WILL BE LOOKING AT IS

01:23 - 15.220 CERTAINLY WHETHER OR NOT THERE

01:23 - 17.080 IS AN AMBIGUITY IN THE LEASE.

01:23 - 19.560 AND I THINK ON THOSE ISSUES.

01:23 - 20.950 I THINK THE COURT WILL QUESTION

01:23 - 22.360 COUNCIL A CLOSELY

01:23 - 24.650 BECAUSE THEY BOTH SKATED

01:23 - 26.550 COMMERCIAL CLIENTS AND IN THE

01:23 - 28.890 ON ONE HAND, A 24

01:23 - 30.830 7 DOESN'T QUITE SAY

01:23 - 33.180 ALL PERHAPS ON THE OTHER HAND

01:23 - 35.870 FOR WIRELESS THE LANDLORD WHY

01:23 - 37.460 IN FACT THAT THE LAND WOULD NOT

01:23 - 39.250 IN FACT SPECIFIED WHAT

01:23 - 40.100 ADDITIONAL SECURITY

01:23 - 41.770 REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE NEEDED.

01:23 - 44.270 SO I THINK THOSE WILL BE

01:23 - 46.360 BROUGHT BY THE COURT. I THINK

01:23 - 48.300 IN ADDITION THE COURT WILL LOOK

01:23 - 49.710 AT THE ISSUE OF COURSE A

01:23 - 50.980 PERFORMANCE AGAIN TO

01:23 - 52.400 SOPHISTICATED COMMERCIAL

01:23 - 54.890 LANDLORD AND TENANT AND THERE

01:23 - 56.420 HAD BEEN A A SEVERAL YEAR

01:23 - 57.990 COURSE OF PERFORMANCE. I THINK

01:23 - 58.910 THE COURT WILL WANT TO HEAR

01:23 - 00.050 ABOUT THAT FROM COUNCIL.

01:24 - 01.570 SO LET'S LISTEN TO THE

01:24 - 02.080 ARGUMENTS.

01:24 - 04.730 >>AT THE NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD

01:24 - 07.370 IS AS BE A TOWER VS WIRELESS

01:24 - 08.200 HOLDINGS.

01:24 - 26.470 MORNING HONORS MORNINGS AT FORT

01:24 - 27.930 SILL STROLL ON BEHALF OF THE

01:24 - 30.220 APPELLATE SBA TOWERS LLC.

01:24 - 34.240 >>THIS BEFORE THE COURT IS

01:24 - 36.840 THE AMENDED. EXCUSE ME

01:24 - 39.740 COUNCIL GETS. PS 2 MINUTES OR 3

01:24 - 40.950 MINUTES OR ABOUT A PLACE.

01:24 - 43.770 THE ISSUE THAT THAT WAS MY

01:24 - 46.400 HALLOWEEN 15. THE SHAPE

01:24 - 48.730 THAT I I WE'VE BEEN CANCELED AT

01:24 - 51.800 LAST. OR AT LEAST UNTIL

01:24 - 52.260 SATURDAY.

01:24 - 54.910 THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THE

01:24 - 57.780 COURT IS IN AMENDED INJUNCTION

01:24 - 58.320 THAT WAS

01:24 - 01.250 ISSUED BY. THE TRIAL COURT

01:25 - 03.490 FOLLOWING A FOR A HEARING ON

01:25 - 06.130 PERMANENT INJUNCTION. ASP 8

01:25 - 08.600 HOURS TOOK AN APPEAL THAT A AND

01:25 - 10.440 A DECISION WAS RENDERED BY THIS

01:25 - 12.340 COURT AND WE'RE SEEKING REDRESS

01:25 - 13.160 BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THE

01:25 - 15.150 PANEL CORRECTLY APPLIED THE

01:25 - 17.540 FACTS OF THIS CASE AS IT

01:25 - 18.620 RELATES TO EXISTING

01:25 - 20.840 ON CONTRACT INTERPRETATION THAT

01:25 - 23.940 CAN REALLY YES YOUR

01:25 - 27.930 THE END AND JUDGE

01:25 - 29.170 MARIA LETTING US USE THE

01:25 - 29.670 DESCENT

01:25 - 35.490 THAT IS IT IS NOT I WE DO AGREE

01:25 - 36.620 WITH JUDGE MURRAY.

01:25 - 38.880 >>SO YOU'RE BASICALLY ARGUING

01:25 - 40.370 COURSE OF CONDUCT BECAUSE THE

01:25 - 42.400 LEASE THAT SELL DOES NOT SAY

01:25 - 44.930 THAT THEY SHOT THIS 24 HOUR 7

01:25 - 47.450 DAY A WEEK ACCESS BY.

01:25 - 51.840 >>I THINK WITH THE CRISIS THAT

01:25 - 52.300 IT SAYS

01:25 - 56.400 24 7. ACCESS AND I THINK IF ANY

01:25 - 57.890 ON FOOT OR BY MOTOR VEHICLE,

01:25 - 59.980 NOTHING ABOUT THE METH THAT.

01:26 - 02.070 >>OF ACCESS THAT IS CORRECT AND

01:26 - 04.100 I THINK WHAT 9 FROM A LOCK BOX

01:26 - 05.990 TOO. SOMEBODY ELSE OPENING IT

01:26 - 06.580 WITH A KEY.

01:26 - 08.400 >>WELL TO US HAVING TO REACH

01:26 - 09.510 OUT TO SOMEBODY TO MAKE

01:26 - 10.770 ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEM TO COME

01:26 - 11.730 MEET US OUT THERE

01:26 - 13.640 TO GO AHEAD AND ENTER THE

01:26 - 15.300 FACILITY FOR FOR WHATEVER WORK

01:26 - 16.110 WAS NECESSARY.

01:26 - 18.210 THE 24 7 ACCESS. IF YOU THINK

01:26 - 19.110 ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF AN

01:26 - 21.630 APARTMENT COMPLEXES I GET A KEY

01:26 - 23.180 I HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET INTO

01:26 - 24.860 MY APARTMENT I HAVE THE

01:26 - 25.870 EQUIPMENT SPREAD ACROSS

01:26 - 27.420 SOMEBODY BUT THAT YOU'RE ON

01:26 - 29.010 START I'VE BEEN IN APARTMENTS

01:26 - 30.060 WHERE IT HAD TO CALL SOMEBODY

01:26 - 31.620 TO GET INTO THE STORAGE AREA OR

01:26 - 32.240 WHATEVER.

01:26 - 33.690 >>SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S

01:26 - 36.320 NECESSARILY TRUE, BUT IT IN THE

01:26 - 38.000 TRIAL COURT WHO DID A VIEW OF

01:26 - 41.270 THE AREA AND SAW WHERE ACCESS

01:26 - 42.200 INVOLVED.

01:26 - 45.810 YOUR CLIENT BEING A.

01:26 - 49.310 IN CONTACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S

01:26 - 50.710 EXPENSE OF EQUIPMENT.

01:26 - 52.860 >>THERE IS A FEW CONDUCTED

01:26 - 54.190 THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR AND

01:26 - 55.180 THE WAY THAT THERE WAS A

01:26 - 56.820 HISTORY OF SOME VANDALISM.

01:26 - 58.130 >>NOW THERE IS NO HISTORY OF

01:26 - 59.220 VANDALISM THERE IS AN

01:26 - 00.920 ALLEGATION THAT SOMEBODY WHO

01:27 - 02.450 HAD ENTERED THE PREMISES IT

01:27 - 03.710 WANDERED OUTSIDE OF

01:27 - 06.560 THE AREA, THE WHAT HAPPENS IS

01:27 - 07.980 YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT'S

01:27 - 09.260 EITHER BARRAGE OF THE GARAGES

01:27 - 10.980 OPEN OR THE DOOR YOU HAVE TO GO

01:27 - 12.580 UP A SET OF STAIRS AND

01:27 - 14.220 THEN ENTER A ROOM WHERE ALL THE

01:27 - 16.670 EQUIPMENT IS LOCATED TO OPERATE

01:27 - 18.060 THE CELLULAR TOWER.

01:27 - 19.760 >>SO REGARDLESS OF THAT OF THAT

01:27 - 22.780 RECORD. THIS IS IT SAYS

01:27 - 24.830 PROVISION DID NOT EXPRESSLY.

01:27 - 26.670 THE DRESS BUT ARE NOT

01:27 - 28.660 REASONABLE SECURITY PRECAUTIONS

01:27 - 30.300 COULD BE TAKEN. BUT THE

01:27 - 32.190 OTHER PARTS OF THE LEASE TO ONE

01:27 - 34.060 BEING THE HOLD HARMLESS CAUSE

01:27 - 35.090 WHERE.

01:27 - 39.900 WIRELESS HOLDINGS WOULD BE

01:27 - 42.200 RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE

01:27 - 44.330 TO NOT OPEN TO YOUR YOUR

01:27 - 45.560 CLIENTS EQUIPMENT.

01:27 - 48.070 ALL RIGHT IF SOMEBODY GOT IN

01:27 - 49.740 THERE AND IF SOMEBODY GOT IN

01:27 - 51.650 THERE THROUGH OUR ACCESS.

01:27 - 52.890 >>THEN I DON'T THINK YOU CAN

01:27 - 54.370 PURSUE A CLAIM AGAINST WIRELESS

01:27 - 55.800 HOLDINGS BECAUSE WE GAVE

01:27 - 57.560 SOMEBODY ACCESS SAY ITS

01:27 - 59.530 SUBCONTRACTOR TO THE PREMISES

01:27 - 01.310 AND THAT SUBCONTRACTOR GOES TO

01:28 - 02.650 THE LOCK BOX COMES IN AND

01:28 - 05.090 DAMAGES AT SKI ABLE QUIT SBA IS

01:28 - 05.940 GOING TO PURSUE A CLAIM

01:28 - 06.800 DIRECTLY AGAINST THAT

01:28 - 08.470 SUBCONTRACTOR THE SOMEBODY ELSE

01:28 - 10.590 100 IN I MEAN I DON'T

01:28 - 11.090 KNOW HOW.

01:28 - 12.700 >>NEAR THEY WOULD BREAK IN OR

01:28 - 14.110 WHATEVER NOT HAVING DONE THAT

01:28 - 14.900 YOU MUST GO.

01:28 - 16.470 >>WELL IF SOMEBODY BREAKS AND I

01:28 - 17.540 DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE'S GOING

01:28 - 18.740 TO BE RESPONSIBLE AS JUST GOING

01:28 - 19.400 TO BE SOMEBODY

01:28 - 21.330 COMMITTING SOME SORT OF CRIME

01:28 - 22.640 TO GET GAIN ACCESS TO THE

01:28 - 23.880 FACILITY AND THEY'RE GAINING

01:28 - 25.380 ACCESS STAR FACILITY IN MAY BE

01:28 - 26.590 GAINING ACCESS TO OTHER

01:28 - 27.290 TENANTS.

01:28 - 29.140 >>COUNCIL COULD FOLLOW UP ON A

01:28 - 29.440 JUDGE

01:28 - 33.490 COMMENT ABOUT COURSE OF CONDUCT

01:28 - 35.970 BECAUSE ARE YOU CONTRACT.

01:28 - 38.480 SAID 24

01:28 - 40.050 7 ACCESS AND THEN THERE WAS A

01:28 - 42.100 PERIOD OF TIME WHERE ALL WAS

01:28 - 42.720 WELL.

01:28 - 49.010 BECAUSE YOU YOU WERE YOU HAD

01:28 - 52.240 24 7 ACCESS. THROUGH THE LOCKED

01:28 - 54.260 BOX SO WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF

01:28 - 55.500 THE FACT THAT DURING THAT

01:28 - 57.220 PERIOD OF TIME THAT DID NOT

01:28 - 57.570 SEEM

01:28 - 58.000 TO BE.

01:28 - 00.020 >>ANY DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE

01:29 - 01.660 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTY'S

01:29 - 03.510 RELATIVE TO WHAT THAT TERM.

01:29 - 06.330 >>WELL I THINK THAT GETS TO THE

01:29 - 07.840 POINT OF THE COURSE OF CONDUCT

01:29 - 09.200 WHEN YOU HAVE 7 YEARS OF A

01:29 - 11.080 CERTAIN BEHAVIOR AS IT RELATES

01:29 - 13.280 TO SBA AND ITS CONTRACTORS AND

01:29 - 15.250 TENANTS GOING TO WALK POX

01:29 - 17.120 EVERYONE HAD ACCESS ON SPA'S

01:29 - 18.770 AND TO THE LOCK BOX THEY GET

01:29 - 19.990 THE KEY THEY WOULD ENTER THE

01:29 - 21.810 FACILITY, EVERYTHING'S RUNNING

01:29 - 23.900 SMOOTHLY AND THEN 7 YEARS LATER

01:29 - 24.600 ALL OF A SUDDEN.

01:29 - 26.840 WE HAVE THE LANDLORD COMING IN

01:29 - 27.740 AND SAYING NO NO WE'RE NOT

01:29 - 29.510 GOING TO DO THIS. WHAT'S

01:29 - 31.280 IMPORTANT HERE IS THE LANDLORD

01:29 - 32.510 CONSTRUCTED THIS HOUR

01:29 - 34.320 ORIGINALLY. HE OWNS THIS

01:29 - 36.350 BUILDING. HE ALSO THROUGH OTHER

01:29 - 37.640 BUSINESSES ARE THE OTHER

01:29 - 39.740 TENANTS SO THE LANDLORD THE

01:29 - 41.690 CERTAINLY CAPABLE OF SECURING

01:29 - 43.950 OFF THIS FACILITY AS HE SAW FIT

01:29 - 45.100 AS HE IS THE ONE WHO BUILT

01:29 - 47.320 THIS. SO IT THE IDEA

01:29 - 49.070 THAT SOMEHOW WHEN THEY ENTERED

01:29 - 51.180 INTO THIS LEASE IN 2009 THAT

01:29 - 52.440 THERE'S GOING TO BE AMBIGUITY

01:29 - 54.750 ABOUT 24 7 ACCESS. A SOMEWHAT.

01:29 - 56.830 >>THESE YEARS ARE USING THEIR

01:29 - 58.260 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT

01:29 - 59.760 OTHER TENANTS CAME AND YOU HAD

01:29 - 01.690 A 9.11 CALL CENTER THAT WAS PUT

01:30 - 02.100 IN THERE.

01:30 - 03.630 >>THESE ARE CORRECT KNOW THERE

01:30 - 04.700 IS ACTUALLY NO NEW 10

01:30 - 07.630 APPARENTLY THE NATURE OF THE

01:30 - 09.570 OWNER OF WIRELESS HOLDINGS

01:30 - 10.880 THE NATURE OF THIS COMPANY

01:30 - 12.580 CALLED COM PROSE IT'S DISCUSSED

01:30 - 12.900 THROUGHOUT

01:30 - 15.120 THE HEARING THAT BUSINESS

01:30 - 16.830 CHANGED AND AGAIN WE'RE TALKING

01:30 - 17.990 ABOUT THE SAME INDIVIDUALS,

01:30 - 19.350 JEFF MCILORY HE IS THE

01:30 - 20.320 PRINCIPAL OF ALL OF

01:30 - 22.050 THESE BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW HE

01:30 - 23.840 BUILT THE TOWERS ROAD AND I

01:30 - 25.230 MEAN IF YOU HAVE BEEN AND SEE

01:30 - 26.210 IF YOU CAN GIVE AND IF YOU

01:30 - 27.330 DON'T YOU NEED TO HAVE A

01:30 - 28.590 DETERMINATION FIRST.

01:30 - 29.990 >>THE POLICE PROVISION

01:30 - 31.790 IS AMBIGUOUS AND THEN YOU GET

01:30 - 33.480 INTO ALL THIS OTHER EVIDENCE IN

01:30 - 34.880 COURSE OF CONDUCT GREAT COURSE

01:30 - 35.490 CONDUCT.

01:30 - 37.790 >>THE LANGUAGE IS UNAMBIGUOUS

01:30 - 39.500 COURSE CONDUCT IS THE ROAD.

01:30 - 40.930 >>THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT OR

01:30 - 42.600 SUCCUMB THAT THESE USE TO VARY

01:30 - 44.010 THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT

01:30 - 45.790 BECAUSE IT'S NOW BEEN MODIFIED

01:30 - 46.990 BY THE COURSE BETWEEN THE

01:30 - 47.560 PARTIES.

01:30 - 50.210 IN OTHER WORDS IF YOU'RE GOING

01:30 - 51.400 TO ARGUE COURSE OF CONDUCT

01:30 - 53.770 ITS TOO. REVISE OR AMEND OR

01:30 - 55.210 CHANGE THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT

01:30 - 56.230 ARE ALREADY IN FORCE

01:30 - 57.420 THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THAT WOULD

01:30 - 58.740 THAT WOULD BE CORRECT AND WORK

01:30 - 00.340 OR TO SHOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL

01:31 - 01.270 MEANING OF

01:31 - 02.140 THE CONTRACT.

01:31 - 03.620 >>WAS TO BE USED FOR THAT AS

01:31 - 05.200 WELL BUT NOT TO AND ALSO TO

01:31 - 06.570 VARY THE TERMS OF THERE'S BEEN

01:31 - 08.680 A MODIFICATION BASED ON CONDUCT

01:31 - 10.610 AS OPPOSED TO A FORMAL RIGHT.

01:31 - 11.660 >>IS THIS.

01:31 - 13.940 >>THAT RECORDED FIND IT IN BIG

01:31 - 16.130 US IN TERMS OF WHAT ACCESS WAS.

01:31 - 17.760 >>THOSE ACCESS UNRESTRICTED

01:31 - 18.520 ACCESS.

01:31 - 21.080 >>LET'S ADDRESS TREATED VERSUS

01:31 - 23.300 OR REASONABLE ACCESS FREE TIER

01:31 - 24.810 AND STICK VERSUS REASON THESE

01:31 - 27.110 50 BASED ON SECURITY CONCERNS.

01:31 - 28.450 >>THAT IS WHAT THE BET IS

01:31 - 29.480 CORRECT THAT'S WHAT THE TRIAL

01:31 - 31.000 COURT FOUND BUT THEY WERE AT

01:31 - 32.070 THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF

01:31 - 32.140 THE

01:31 - 33.820 CONTRACT HIM. WELL IF YOU LOOK

01:31 - 34.810 AT OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE

01:31 - 35.820 CONTRACT YOU COULD LOOK AT

01:31 - 38.140 PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE CONTRACT OR

01:31 - 40.250 THE LESSEE OR LESS OR HAS THE

01:31 - 42.150 ABILITY TO RELOCATE US WITH

01:31 - 44.500 60 DAYS NOTICE. SO THE LESS OR

01:31 - 46.290 WAS GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT

01:31 - 48.800 THE THE IMPACT OF OF THE

01:31 - 51.190 LOCATION OF IT THEY COULD HAVE

01:31 - 52.570 ASKED US TO MOVE YOU HAVE TO

01:31 - 54.430 PAY FOR IT AND THAT WOULD HAVE

01:31 - 55.760 TAKEN CARE OF THIS ALLEGED

01:31 - 56.390 SECURITY.

01:31 - 58.540 >>HAVING TROUBLE FINDING AN

01:31 - 00.620 AMBIGUITY HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE

01:32 - 02.840 THE LANDLORD DID NOT YOU KNOW

01:32 - 04.420 CUT A BETTER DEAL AT THE OUTSET

01:32 - 06.350 ON THIS PROVISION SAYING

01:32 - 07.790 SECURITY IS REASONABLY

01:32 - 09.540 NECESSARY FROM TIME TO TIME

01:32 - 11.230 OR IT CAN CHANGE UP ON YOU KNOW

01:32 - 12.480 THE RENEWAL OF THE LEAST THAT

01:32 - 13.510 THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

01:32 - 14.020 YOUR HONOR.

01:32 - 15.450 >>THIS WAS A SOPHISTICATED

01:32 - 17.300 INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS IN THE CELL

01:32 - 19.500 TOWER INDUSTRY AS A SPORTED BY

01:32 - 20.880 THE TESTIMONY THAT HE GAVE AT

01:32 - 22.380 THE HEARING HE BUILT THIS

01:32 - 24.260 TOWER, HE OWNS OTHER TOWERS.

01:32 - 27.290 HE IS AWARE OF WHAT STA AND

01:32 - 29.110 RISING THE TENANT WAS GOING

01:32 - 30.770 TO REQUIRE AND HE COULD HAVE

01:32 - 31.670 IMPOSED ALL OF

01:32 - 33.220 THOSE TERMS IS PART OF THE

01:32 - 35.450 NEGOTIATION PROCESS WITH S P A

01:32 - 38.020 IN 2009 TRIAL COURT ESSENTIALLY

01:32 - 39.550 REFORM THIS CONTRACT THAT'S

01:32 - 41.480 CORRECT WITHOUT AND TO HAVE IT.

01:32 - 43.050 >>THE FORMAT THOUGH WHEN IT THE

01:32 - 44.410 CONTRACT AND ADDRESS IT.

01:32 - 45.700 HE HAS

01:32 - 48.520 24 HOURS 7 DAYS A WEEK ACCESS

01:32 - 50.610 WITH WE DON'T HAVE 24 7 ACCESS

01:32 - 51.590 THAT WE NEEDED TO GO TO THE

01:32 - 53.210 TOWERS WE NEED IF WE ARE ARE

01:32 - 54.400 RESPECTFULLY WE NEEDED TOGETHER

01:32 - 55.720 TOWER AND ALL WE NEED TO BE

01:32 - 57.490 THERE. WE WOULD HAVE TO CALL

01:32 - 59.360 MAKE ARRANGEMENTS AND HOPEFULLY

01:32 - 00.470 THEY'RE AVAILABLE AND I KNOW

01:33 - 01.600 THERE'S BEEN THE REPRESENTATION

01:33 - 02.950 OH YES, WE'LL BE THERE WITHIN

01:33 - 05.800 20 MINUTES, 23, 7 NOT ACCESS.

01:33 - 08.640 >>WE'RE ALSO

01:33 - 10.350 BACKGROUND CHECKS. YEAH THAT

01:33 - 11.450 THAT WAS AN INTERESTING ISSUE

01:33 - 12.230 THE COURT WAS.

01:33 - 14.050 >>ALLOWING THE

01:33 - 16.380 HAPPILY TO IMPOSE THESE

01:33 - 17.920 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON

01:33 - 19.400 VARIOUS TYPES OF CONTRACTORS

01:33 - 19.970 AND EVEN HAVE

01:33 - 21.250 STANDING TO.

01:33 - 22.810 >>CHALLENGE THAT THAT DOES FOR

01:33 - 24.530 3RD PARTIES WHO ARE NOT PARTIES

01:33 - 26.320 TO THE CONTRACT. AND IT'S ONLY

01:33 - 28.520 WHEN THEY GO THEY ACCESS THE

01:33 - 30.940 FACILITY UNACCOMPANIED BY I.

01:33 - 33.480 SBA IMPORTANT

01:33 - 35.430 RIGHT SO IF THEY'RE IF THEY

01:33 - 37.200 HAVE AN SBA UP AND PLAY WITH

01:33 - 39.030 THEM WHO DOES HAVE THE ACCESS

01:33 - 41.160 UNDER THE CONTRACT, THEN THEY

01:33 - 42.050 DON'T HAVE TO GET THE

01:33 - 42.860 BACKGROUND CHECK.

01:33 - 43.650 >>THEY WERE THAT'S NOT

01:33 - 45.070 CONTAINED THAT'S NOT CONTAIN

01:33 - 47.120 ANYWHERE IN THE LEASE ITSELF

01:33 - 48.170 AND IS ADMITTED BY MISTER

01:33 - 50.260 MCINERNEY THESE TERMS BUT

01:33 - 51.790 THAT'S ALL THAT THAT THE TRIAL

01:33 - 53.590 COURT ORDER. RIGHT BUT THAT AS

01:33 - 55.220 MISTER MACK WARNING ADMITTED IN

01:33 - 56.940 HIS TESTIMONY. THESE ARE NEW

01:33 - 58.550 TERMS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE

01:33 - 00.120 EARLY AS THE 3RD PARTIES WHERE

01:34 - 02.010 THE CURRENT WORK WEREN'T PARTY

01:34 - 03.840 TO POLICE ARE YOU SAYING.

01:34 - 05.640 >>THAT SOMEHOW THEY ENJOY THE

01:34 - 07.570 SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS AS S P

01:34 - 09.540 A YES UNDER THE LEASE, THE

01:34 - 11.500 SUBCONTRACTORS SAY DO BECAUSE

01:34 - 13.040 WE'RE GIVING THEM ACCESS TO OUR

01:34 - 14.790 SPACE IT'S NO DIFFERENT IN MIND

01:34 - 17.220 YOU CAN ON YOUR OWN MAKES A

01:34 - 19.730 BLOOD IN ENTER INTO A SUBLEASE.

01:34 - 21.570 >>WHAT YOUR HONOR IF I IF I'M

01:34 - 23.040 ALLOWING SOMEONE TO DEFINE

01:34 - 24.900 ALLOWING SUBCONTRACTOR ON MY

01:34 - 26.380 PREMISES AND I'M THEY ARE

01:34 - 27.360 LEGALLY LIKE

01:34 - 29.200 SBA IS THERE ARE ALLOWED TO

01:34 - 30.920 GIVE GUESTS ACCESS TO THEIR

01:34 - 32.810 PROMISE TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM

01:34 - 34.740 WORK. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING

01:34 - 37.780 SAID IN A CONTRACT. THE SBA IS

01:34 - 38.970 ALLOWED TO SEND ITS

01:34 - 40.090 CONTRACTORS AND THAT'S

01:34 - 42.040 PART OF THE CONTRACT OUT WAYS

01:34 - 43.310 THEY DON'T WORK FOR SBA THEY'RE

01:34 - 44.530 JUST PEOPLE THEY HIRED TO DO

01:34 - 44.930 WORK.

01:34 - 46.690 >>THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR BUT

01:34 - 49.340 AGAIN AS PART OF THE LEASE IT

01:34 - 50.760 THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE

01:34 - 51.190 SPACE.

01:34 - 54.890 IT'S NOT LIMITED TO SBA ONLY OR

01:34 - 58.160 SPA'S TENANTS ONLY. BUT THAT'S

01:34 - 59.590 NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CONTRACT.

01:35 - 03.500 SUBCONTRACTORS I THINK THERE'S

01:35 - 05.000 A NEXT AND RESTRICTED ACCESS

01:35 - 07.040 FIGHT AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S AN

01:35 - 09.630 EXPECTATIONS AND IN READING THE

01:35 - 10.620 CONTRACT THAT IT

01:35 - 12.220 IS PERMITTED AND I THINK THAT

01:35 - 13.450 BASED ON AGAIN IF WE WANT TO

01:35 - 14.450 GET IF YOU WANT TO SAY THERE'S

01:35 - 16.070 AMBIGUITY WE HAVE 7 YEARS

01:35 - 18.270 OF COURSES CONDUCT WHERE WERE

01:35 - 19.250 THE RECORD THAT THE

01:35 - 21.730 SUBCONTRACTORS BY THEMSELVES.

01:35 - 23.570 >>WOULD BE GIVEN THE KEY GIVEN

01:35 - 23.910 THE.

01:35 - 25.720 >>THE COMBINATION TO THE LOCK

01:35 - 27.120 BOX. YES, IT IS YOUR OWN.

01:35 - 28.620 YEAH, THAT IS GOING TO BE

01:35 - 30.010 VIGILANT AND BE SUBJECT TO THE

01:35 - 31.140 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK.

01:35 - 32.440 IT'S THE OTHER IS STORIES,

01:35 - 35.510 CORRECT. WHAT WHAT WHAT ALLOWS

01:35 - 36.800 MISTER MACK A WARNING AS THE

01:35 - 38.320 OWNER WIRELESS HOLDINGS TO

01:35 - 40.070 PERFORM FOR AN ABOUT BACKGROUND

01:35 - 41.360 CHECKS OF THOSE COMING ON.

01:35 - 43.340 >>THE PROPERTY. HOW IS HE GOING

01:35 - 44.080 ABOUT THAT

01:35 - 45.240 WHAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG

01:35 - 47.280 WITH THE THAT THEY'RE NOT ALL

01:35 - 48.310 OF THE STATE OF THE TALKING

01:35 - 49.680 ABOUT DOING A BACKGROUND CHECK

01:35 - 50.750 OR DOING OTHER THINGS.

01:35 - 52.210 >>THE LANDLORD COULD DO THAT HE

01:35 - 53.710 CAN TO A HOST OF OTHER THINGS

01:35 - 55.150 THE QUESTION HERE THOUGH IS

01:35 - 57.020 WHETHER WHAT HE'S DOING IS IN

01:35 - 58.310 BREACH OF THE CONTRACT.

01:35 - 00.040 HE CAN RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS ON

01:36 - 01.130 PEOPLE THAT WOULD NOT BREACH

01:36 - 03.010 THE CONTRACT. BUT IF THEY MAKE

01:36 - 03.890 BACKGROUND CHECKS, A

01:36 - 06.410 PREREQUISITE TO USING A LOCK

01:36 - 08.480 BOX THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE

01:36 - 10.190 CORRECT. YES IF THE CONTRACT

01:36 - 11.120 COVERED SOME CURRENT

01:36 - 12.280 SUBCONTRACTORS.

01:36 - 15.090 RAPTORS AND THE CONTRACT DOES

01:36 - 16.880 COVER SOME SUBCONTRACTORS IN

01:36 - 17.970 OUR INTERPRETATION, YOUR

01:36 - 18.760 INTERPRETATION.

01:36 - 26.980 OK THANK YOU. THE TIMING TO 21

01:36 - 27.480 SECONDS.

01:36 - 31.290 >>GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR MY

01:36 - 32.690 NAME IS LAURIE OCEANS, HE AND

01:36 - 33.170 COUNSEL OF

01:36 - 36.180 RECORD FOR THE HAPPILY WIRELESS

01:36 - 38.870 HOLDINGS LLC IT IS A SUBSIDIARY

01:36 - 40.240 OF THE COMPANY OF HER UP

01:36 - 40.900 ALREADY CALLED

01:36 - 43.430 COMP ROSE. IN MAY IT PLEASE THE

01:36 - 44.490 COURT I WOULD GET BACK TO AN

01:36 - 45.900 INITIAL ISSUE THAT ARE

01:36 - 47.830 ARGUMENT LAST HOW WE SO WE'RE

01:36 - 49.270 MAKING THIS A HOWLING TRADITION

01:36 - 52.500 A ROW. NOT BEEN A TREAT.

01:36 - 55.420 HOPEFULLY NO TRICKS TODAY.

01:36 - 58.600 THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT

01:36 - 00.110 THEY APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT THIS

01:37 - 02.250 ISSUE TO THE DESPAIR CRY THINK

01:37 - 03.760 IS ONE IT'S NOT REALLY BEEN

01:37 - 03.980 GIVEN

01:37 - 05.960 APPROPRIATE CREDIT THERE WAS AN

01:37 - 07.060 ARGUMENT MADE FROM THE

01:37 - 08.760 BEGINNING WHEN THEY FILED THE

01:37 - 10.420 APPEAL THAT THEY WENT DIRECTLY.

01:37 - 11.800 >>ARGUING THAT WAS IN THE INNER

01:37 - 13.630 OFF A TORY APPEAL AND THEREFORE

01:37 - 14.600 THEY DID NOT HAVE TO FILE

01:37 - 16.530 POST-TRIAL MOTIONS I WOULD JUST

01:37 - 18.120 LIKE TO STATE AT THE BEGINNING

01:37 - 19.730 OF THIS PROCESS THAT THERE IT

01:37 - 21.280 IS OUR POSITION THAT THIS

01:37 - 23.530 FILING WITH SHOULD HAVE GONE

01:37 - 24.690 FIRST TO PRESSURE FROM THE

01:37 - 26.210 OCEANS TO ALLOW THE TRIAL COURT

01:37 - 27.740 TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS THAT.

01:37 - 29.200 >>MAY HE MAY HAVE SEEN THAT HE

01:37 - 29.600 MADE.

01:37 - 31.890 >>IT WAS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

01:37 - 33.840 THAT WAS ENTERED SO WHEN WE

01:37 - 36.190 GOT TO HEARING IN THE MATTER

01:37 - 36.670 THAT CASE

01:37 - 38.390 WAS DECIDED THE COURT ENTERED

01:37 - 40.080 THIS PERMANENT JOB INJUNCTION

01:37 - 41.020 ALLOWING THE REASONABLE

01:37 - 42.590 SECURITY THE PROVISIONS TO BE

01:37 - 43.960 PUT INTO PLACE BY WHILE ITS

01:37 - 46.360 HOLDINGS IF YOU READ THE

01:37 - 48.960 THE BEYOND THE DECISION AND THE

01:37 - 50.600 WHOLE SPIRIT OF BE ON THE IS IS

01:37 - 52.040 THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A

01:37 - 53.720 A CHANGE AN INJUNCTION ON AN

01:37 - 55.490 AIRLOCK A TORY BASIS

01:37 - 57.390 THAT PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO GO

01:37 - 58.860 DIRECTLY TO COURT TO CHALLENGE

01:37 - 00.210 THAT WHILE THE REST OF THE

01:38 - 01.500 ISSUES ARE BEING LITIGATED

01:38 - 03.100 IN THIS SNAKE BECOME AFFECTIVE

01:38 - 04.890 BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS

01:38 - 06.510 ENTERED THE JUDGMENT AND THE

01:38 - 07.510 DECISION WERE ENTERED ON THE

01:38 - 08.460 SAME DAY ARE ON.

01:38 - 11.330 SO THE COURT'S DECISION WAS AN

01:38 - 12.390 ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE PERTH

01:38 - 13.670 ON IT AIRS OFFICE IN BLAIR

01:38 - 15.330 COUNTY AND AT THAT DATE THE

01:38 - 17.020 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED CONFIRMING

01:38 - 19.040 THE THE DECISION SO IT'S MY

01:38 - 20.160 POSITION THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN

01:38 - 21.730 INTERLOCK A TORY APPEAL.

01:38 - 23.760 WE HAD A AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL

01:38 - 24.920 JUDGMENT IN A CASE THAT HAD

01:38 - 26.120 BEEN FULLY LITIGATED

01:38 - 28.630 WE DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE

01:38 - 30.260 AT EASE IN ARGUMENT BEFORE THE

01:38 - 31.510 3 JUDGE PANEL.

01:38 - 33.250 IT HAS BEEN PRESERVED AND I

01:38 - 34.550 JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING

01:38 - 35.650 THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THE

01:38 - 36.370 POSITION

01:38 - 40.640 THAT THE MOTION TO THAT THEY

01:38 - 41.860 SHOULD HAVE BEEN A QUASHING OF

01:38 - 44.130 THIS APPEAL. SO I'LL LEAVE IT

01:38 - 45.410 AT THAT NOW HE'S

01:38 - 47.390 HIT YET. THE SECOND THING ONE

01:38 - 49.010 MERITS I DON'T WANT TO

01:38 - 51.070 GET INTO AND I THINK THE MOST

01:38 - 52.520 ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT JUDGE TO

01:38 - 54.550 BEALE PUT HIS FINGER ONE IS

01:38 - 56.350 THERE ANY AMBIGUITY I

01:38 - 57.730 RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH

01:38 - 59.540 JUDGE REPEATED SABIEL A P

01:38 - 00.870 FROM HIS QUESTION IS SAYING

01:39 - 02.350 THAT THERE ISN'T ANY AMBIGUITY

01:39 - 03.470 AND RESPECTFULLY WITH JUDGE

01:39 - 05.590 MURRAY SHE WELL THE DISSENT IN

01:39 - 06.380 THIS CASE.

01:39 - 10.190 ACCESS 24 7 AND WHAT THAT

01:39 - 11.030 MEANS THAT YOU HAVE AN

01:39 - 12.780 ENTITLEMENT TO GET INTO THE

01:39 - 15.640 BUILDING. THERE IS A LOCK BOX

01:39 - 16.140 AS WELL.

01:39 - 17.950 >>NO IT DOESN'T SAY THE A LA

01:39 - 20.890 >>IT COULD BE THAT WAS THE

01:39 - 22.550 ISSUE THAT WAS NOT THERE IS NO

01:39 - 24.550 DEFINITION OF WHAT DO YOU MEAN

01:39 - 27.240 BY ACCESS 24 7. THEIR POSITION

01:39 - 28.660 IS IT'S UNFETTERED. I

01:39 - 29.970 THINK THAT IS A

01:39 - 31.810 RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT BECAUSE

01:39 - 32.800 IT'S NOT DEFINED BY THE

01:39 - 34.430 CONTRACT, YOU CAN SIMPLY WALTZ

01:39 - 36.230 IN ANY WAY ANYHOW INTO THIS

01:39 - 38.440 BUILDING ABOUT 7 YEARS WHERE IT

01:39 - 40.390 WAS UNFETTERED THROUGH THE

01:39 - 42.330 LOCKED BOX. AND I WOULD

01:39 - 43.420 DISAGREE THAT THERE WEREN'T

01:39 - 44.850 THERE WEREN'T. I THINK THERE

01:39 - 46.470 WERE CHANGES SO CHANGES FROM

01:39 - 48.100 THE TIME THAT THIS CONTRACT

01:39 - 49.280 WENT INTO EFFECT AT LEAST ONE

01:39 - 50.540 IN EFFECT IN OH 9.

01:39 - 52.750 I DID A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

01:39 - 54.150 THE BUILDING WAS BUILDING NO 1

01:39 - 55.940 ONE COM PROS OWNED THE BUILDING

01:39 - 57.160 IN THE TOWER RIGHT BEHIND THE

01:39 - 58.690 BUILDING. THIS IS IN THE CITY

01:39 - 00.090 OF L 2 NIGHTS NOT IN VERY

01:40 - 01.760 GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH PLAYS

01:40 - 02.770 INTO SOME OF THE REASON FOR

01:40 - 04.950 THE CHANGES AND THEN OH 9.

01:40 - 07.970 SBA BOUGHT THE TOWER AND BACK

01:40 - 09.310 TO THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE

01:40 - 10.800 NERVE CENTER FOR THE TOWER IS

01:40 - 11.680 IN A LITTLE ROOM ON THE

01:40 - 13.790 SECOND FLOOR. IRONICALLY

01:40 - 15.090 PLANTED IN THE VERY MIDDLE OF

01:40 - 16.130 THE BUILDING WHERE YOU CAN'T

01:40 - 19.210 EASILY GET TO IT FOR THE PEOPLE

01:40 - 20.660 THAT HAD EQUIPMENT ON THAT

01:40 - 22.220 TOWER OUTSIDE WOULD HAVE TO GO

01:40 - 23.730 IN AND DO OCCASIONAL WORK IN

01:40 - 24.910 THAT LITTLE ROOM ON THE SECOND

01:40 - 26.630 FLOOR, THE LEFT SIDE IF YOU

01:40 - 27.250 LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE

01:40 - 28.640 BUILDING IS THE GARAGE AREA IN

01:40 - 29.240 THE BACK

01:40 - 31.000 WHERE MY CLIENT STORES,

01:40 - 32.130 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF

01:40 - 33.760 ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT THAT IT'S

01:40 - 35.150 GIVING TO ITS CUSTOMERS.

01:40 - 36.710 ONE THAT WE UNDERSTAND YOUR

01:40 - 38.330 CLIENTS NEED BUT UNDERSTAND

01:40 - 39.460 YOUR ARGUMENT THAT IT IS.

01:40 - 41.420 >>WHEN THE PARAGRAPH 18 THE

01:40 - 44.970 FIRST 2 ACCESS ON A 24 HOUR 7

01:40 - 47.780 DAY PER DAY WE BASES THE

01:40 - 49.550 AMBIGUITY THERE IS ON

01:40 - 52.170 WHAT TERMS CAN YOU ACCESS IT 24

01:40 - 55.080 7 SO I CAN CALL 24 7 A WEEK.

01:40 - 57.020 AND IT MAY TAKE 20 MINUTES FOR

01:40 - 58.840 HIM TO ARRIVE, BUT THAT DOESN'T

01:40 - 59.570 IN YOUR OPINION

01:40 - 01.150 VIOLATE THIS PROVISION OR AT

01:41 - 02.870 LEAST IT MAKES AN AMBIGUOUS THE

01:41 - 04.360 PEOPLE FROM SBA ARE FURTHER

01:41 - 06.040 AWAY SO WITH A CALL.

01:41 - 08.440 >>MIKE THE 4 PEOPLE ON TAP TO

01:41 - 09.560 GET THE CALL TO COME

01:41 - 11.730 TO THE TO COMPRESS BUILDING CAN

01:41 - 13.020 GET THERE MUCH FASTER THAN ANY

01:41 - 15.160 ONE OF US THE A AND B Q SINCE

01:41 - 16.810 IT ONLY FAR AS TO THE FACT YOU

01:41 - 18.610 CAN HAVE ACCESS 24 7.

01:41 - 21.010 >>THAT ALONE DOES NOT TO

01:41 - 22.620 ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS UNDER

01:41 - 24.140 WHICH ACCESS WILL BE GRANTED.

01:41 - 24.560 >>THAT IS

01:41 - 25.980 CORRECT SO THAT'S WHAT THE

01:41 - 27.460 COURT WAS TRYING TO RECTIFY

01:41 - 29.280 FACT IT DOESN'T PUT CONDITIONS

01:41 - 30.460 IN THEIR MEAN THE SNOW

01:41 - 32.330 CONDITIONS. I DISAGREE WITH

01:41 - 34.670 THAT I THINK THAT THE PARTIES

01:41 - 36.020 DIDN'T THINK AHEAD THIS

01:41 - 37.660 SPECIFICALLY TO FIND HOW ARE WE

01:41 - 38.770 GOING TO GET GET INTO THE

01:41 - 40.130 LITTLE CUBICLE ON THE SECOND

01:41 - 42.640 FLOOR AND WHEN MY CLIENT HAS

01:41 - 43.330 OPERATIONS

01:41 - 45.760 THAT RUNS 911 SERVICES FOR A

01:41 - 47.180 FIVE-COUNTY AREA IN CENTRAL

01:41 - 48.630 PENNSYLVANIA, OPERATING IN A

01:41 - 50.680 CERTAIN MANNER FOR 7 YEARS.

01:41 - 53.240 AND BECAUSE OF ISSUES OF CRIME

01:41 - 55.200 IN THE AREA. DRUG ARREST RIGHT

01:41 - 56.840 ACROSS THE STREET, THE FACT

01:41 - 57.980 THAT THERE HAD BEEN A GUY

01:41 - 59.470 CHASING ONE OF THE COMP ROSE

01:41 - 01.890 EMPLOYEES BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE

01:42 - 03.580 GOING FROM SBA

01:42 - 05.810 AND THERE THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS

01:42 - 07.110 WERE GOING THROUGH THE GARAGE

01:42 - 07.220 AND

01:42 - 08.690 THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE LEASE

01:42 - 10.850 THE EVEN GET THAT ATTITUDE,

01:42 - 12.170 IT'S A GIVEN ALL OF THAT COULD

01:42 - 13.840 YOU'VE AMENDED THE CONTRACT IF

01:42 - 14.740 YOU KNOW YOU KIND OF AN A.

01:42 - 16.080 >>SHADY NEIGHBORHOOD OR

01:42 - 17.880 WHATEVER IT IS IN THE MOTEL 6

01:42 - 19.820 ACROSS THE STREET IN ALL THE

01:42 - 21.890 OTHER STUFF. YOU KNOW YOU HAVE

01:42 - 24.470 A KIND OF DISSES 24 7 ACCESS.

01:42 - 25.000 AND IF

01:42 - 26.530 YOU HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF

01:42 - 28.010 EQUIPMENT CAN YOU EASILY HAVE

01:42 - 29.890 ADDRESSED THAT BY BY DEALING

01:42 - 30.740 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE

01:42 - 33.280 CONTRACT SPECIFYING WHAT

01:42 - 35.920 SECURITY NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE

01:42 - 37.640 TO DEAL WITH THIS REALLY JUST

01:42 - 39.730 LETTING IT IS COLD IT. IT TAKES

01:42 - 40.720 2 PARTIES TO AMEND THE

01:42 - 43.180 CONTRACT. WE HAD WE'VE TRIED

01:42 - 44.580 DEFINITELY FOR A PERIOD OF A

01:42 - 45.580 YEAR AND A HALF TO.

01:42 - 46.990 >>TO PUT IN RECENT PROTESTS

01:42 - 48.330 PROVISIONS, THE ONES THAT WE

01:42 - 49.720 SUGGESTED ARE THE ONES THAT THE

01:42 - 51.600 COURT ADOPTED AND I'VE USED

01:42 - 53.230 THIS ABUSE IN FRONT OF TRUMP

01:42 - 54.870 FOR USING PREDATOR SHOULD KNOW

01:42 - 56.250 THAT THE TRIAL COURT REWROTE

01:42 - 58.020 THIS CONTRACT ABSOLUTELY WROTE

01:42 - 59.910 IN A WAY THE PARTIES DIDN'T

01:42 - 00.680 AGREE TO

01:43 - 02.690 ABSOLUTELY NOT AND I WOULD

01:43 - 04.160 POINT OUT THAT THE ONLY TENANT

01:43 - 06.030 ON THE TOWER IS

01:43 - 07.900 FOR RISING. RESIDENTS NOT

01:43 - 09.680 COMPLAINING ABOUT ITS ACCESS TO

01:43 - 11.590 THE TOWER, THE RISE IN HAS

01:43 - 13.450 AGAIN RENEWED FOR 5 MORE YEARS

01:43 - 15.390 BEGINNING IN THIS MONTH OCTOBER

01:43 - 16.930 29 2 SUBJECT TO THESE

01:43 - 18.830 CONDITIONS SAID YES AND THE

01:43 - 20.440 RISE, IT'S NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.

01:43 - 21.980 IF YOU IF YOU COME INTO

01:43 - 23.610 THE CONFERENCE BUILDING GO TO

01:43 - 25.420 TO TAMMY THE RECEPTIONIST IF

01:43 - 26.620 YOU HAVE A BADGE IT SAYS THE

01:43 - 28.600 RISING YOU GO IN IF YOU HAVE

01:43 - 31.300 ABOUT IT SAYS SBA YOU GOING IF

01:43 - 31.960 YOU HAVE

01:43 - 33.750 SOMEONE WITH YOU WITH THE SBA

01:43 - 35.230 REPRESENTED THE COMES IN WITH

01:43 - 37.330 WOMEN WHAT TO MAKE OF ONE OF

01:43 - 37.470 THE.

01:43 - 39.960 >>HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THIS NEW

01:43 - 41.930 TERM, THE ONLY TENANT.

01:43 - 46.960 IS THERE.

01:43 - 49.250 >>SBA ALLOWS THEN

01:43 - 51.470 THE RISE AND TO USE THE TOWER

01:43 - 53.160 THERE THE ONLY ENTITY USING THE

01:43 - 54.420 TOWER SAID THE ONLY ONE THAT

01:43 - 55.390 REALLY NEEDS ACCESS TO

01:43 - 57.060 THE EQUIPMENT IS FOR RISING

01:43 - 58.260 GOING IN AND THE REASON THIS

01:43 - 59.960 ALL OCCURRED WAS THAT THEY WERE

01:43 - 01.240 UPGRADING THE EQUIPMENT IN THE

01:44 - 02.890 LITTLE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR

01:44 - 03.520 THERE WAS A

01:44 - 05.610 3RD PARTY THAT IT COMING IN WHO

01:44 - 07.940 BASICALLY HAD NO IDENTIFICATION

01:44 - 10.980 SO WOULD OUR STAFF IT COMPRESS

01:44 - 12.700 THE STOP DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS

01:44 - 14.450 PERSON WAS EVEN ASSOCIATED WITH

01:44 - 16.120 THE RISE AND AND OR S

01:44 - 18.450 P A THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON IN

01:44 - 19.870 THAT IN THE 10 PLUS YEARS OF

01:44 - 20.960 THIS LEAST IT'S EVER BEEN

01:44 - 23.310 DENIED ACCESS WHY DOESN'T THE.

01:44 - 25.820 >>WHY DOESN'T THE BURDEN OF THE

01:44 - 28.020 AND ENHANCING SECURITY FALL

01:44 - 29.360 FROM THE LANDLORD.

01:44 - 32.730 AND SO MAYBE THE LANDLORD NEWS,

01:44 - 33.630 I ARE ROUND THE

01:44 - 36.310 CLOCK SECURITY 24 7 SECURITY I

01:44 - 37.780 THINK LOOKING AT IN LEGALISTIC

01:44 - 40.310 TERMS LIKE IS USING THE PHRASE.

01:44 - 41.690 >>THE BURDEN OF MAKING THE

01:44 - 43.490 CHANGE IS NOT QUITE RIGHT.

01:44 - 44.830 I WOULD ARGUE MORE THAT.

01:44 - 47.010 >>EVEN IN THESE 18 PAGE.

01:44 - 50.410 >>25 PARAGRAPH DOCUMENTS OF

01:44 - 52.000 LISA'S THINGS ARE MISS

01:44 - 53.640 AND AT THE TIME THAT LEAST WAS

01:44 - 55.850 DONE IN IT WHEN IT WAS THE

01:44 - 57.200 ISSUES OF SECURITY

01:44 - 59.270 HAD NOT SHOWN THEMSELVES SO

01:44 - 00.900 THAT THERE CAN BE GRAY AREAS

01:45 - 02.780 EVEN IN DETAIL DOCUMENTS WE ALL

01:45 - 04.660 CONSIDER THAT WERE WORD MISSING

01:45 - 05.750 THAT WE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING

01:45 - 07.410 PERFECT AND DARREN WE DON'T

01:45 - 08.850 HAVE AN ISSUE THAT ARISES I

01:45 - 10.120 KNOW THAT I THINK THIS IS WHY

01:45 - 11.760 THESE ARE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER

01:45 - 13.380 TO SERVE SOPHISTICATED.

01:45 - 17.670 AND TO TEASE TO THE CONTRACT.

01:45 - 18.840 SO I

01:45 - 20.970 >>I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING YOUR

01:45 - 22.620 ARGUMENT THAT A THEY NEED TO

01:45 - 23.830 THROW THEMSELVES ON THE MERCY

01:45 - 23.890 OF

01:45 - 24.360 THE COURT

01:45 - 26.350 WITHOUT ABOUT SITUATION HERE.

01:45 - 27.720 WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR

01:45 - 29.860 CANNON CAN YOU HELP US OUT BY

01:45 - 31.410 CLEANING UP OUR CONTRACT.

01:45 - 33.630 >>I LIKE TO THINK THAT I WAS

01:45 - 34.870 SOPHISTICATED THAN WHEN I

01:45 - 36.310 DROPPED A DOCUMENTARY AND IT

01:45 - 37.640 INTO A COMMERCIAL LEASE TO PUT

01:45 - 39.340 MY LAW PRACTICE IN THAT I'M

01:45 - 40.520 SMART ENOUGH TO SEE ALL THE

01:45 - 41.750 ISSUES. I

01:45 - 43.040 FEEL THAT SOMETIMES THAT THAT

01:45 - 44.530 THAT ISN'T THE CASE THIS IS ONE

01:45 - 45.800 OF THOSE SITUATIONS.

01:45 - 47.350 >>AND YOU'RE NOT ASKED FOR AND

01:45 - 48.800 SOMETIMES THINGS GET MISSED

01:45 - 51.280 THAT WAS THEIR TESTIMONY AS TO

01:45 - 53.420 WHAT THE INTENT WAS AT THE TIME

01:45 - 54.770 THIS LEASE WAS EXECUTED.

01:45 - 56.580 AND WAS THERE EVIDENCE AS TO

01:45 - 57.450 DRESS AND SHIPPED.

01:45 - 59.470 >>THERE WAS NOT EVIDENCE AS TO

01:45 - 01.240 DRESS UP AND SHIP IT WASN'T

01:46 - 03.090 THERE WAS NOT THAT I RECALL IT

01:46 - 03.680 WAS NOT

01:46 - 04.830 AND THE FIRST PART YOU ARE AND

01:46 - 06.300 THE FIRST POINT WAS THERE ANY

01:46 - 08.200 TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT THE INTENT

01:46 - 09.590 WAS AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT

01:46 - 11.490 WAS EXECUTED AS TO WHAT ACCESS

01:46 - 12.960 MEANT THERE WAS NOT IT WAS KIND

01:46 - 13.970 OF LIKE THE CART BEFORE THE

01:46 - 15.500 HORSE FOR THE ARGUMENT WAS IS

01:46 - 16.720 THAT THE STANDARD OF PRACTICE

01:46 - 16.860 HAD

01:46 - 18.630 BEEN MISSED THE LOCKBOX HAD

01:46 - 19.630 PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE GETTING

01:46 - 21.220 THE KEY THAT IT HAD HAD DAMAGE

01:46 - 22.960 DONE TO IT SO IT.

01:46 - 24.840 >>RESPONSIBILITY.

01:46 - 27.190 >>TO RENEGOTIATE BELIEVES AND

01:46 - 29.250 IF NECESSARY AND JUST THE TERMS

01:46 - 30.450 OF THE LEASE TO EVERYBODY'S

01:46 - 33.910 SATISFACTION. COST YOU. BUT

01:46 - 35.440 THEY WERE WILLING TO DO THAT.

01:46 - 38.500 >>THE BECAUSE WE BASICALLY

01:46 - 40.800 DISAGREED WITH THE CONCEPT THAT

01:46 - 42.260 IT WAS UNAMBIGUOUSLY

01:46 - 43.410 CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS

01:46 - 44.560 REQUIRED IN THE LEAST WE

01:46 - 45.550 BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY

01:46 - 47.160 AMBIGUITY THAT HAD TO BE JUST

01:46 - 47.570 CORRECT.

01:46 - 49.800 >>THE IF IT'S YOUR POSITION

01:46 - 52.020 THAT THE LEASE WAS AMBIGUOUS

01:46 - 54.180 WHY SHOULD WE NOT REMEMBERS

01:46 - 55.520 BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT IN

01:46 - 57.000 ORDER TO TAKE TESTIMONY

01:46 - 58.770 AS TO WHAT THE INTENT WAS AT

01:46 - 59.150 THE TIME

01:46 - 01.060 WAS EXECUTED, WOULDN'T THAT BE

01:47 - 02.830 THE CRITICAL INQUIRY IN TERMS

01:47 - 04.240 OF RESOLVING AMBIGUITY.

01:47 - 08.110 >>I WOULD THINK MY POSITION

01:47 - 08.940 WOULD BE THAT THE RECORD

01:47 - 10.820 IS CLEAR. THE JURY IS IN

01:47 - 11.900 AND GET YOUR BEAUTY IN

01:47 - 13.560 THAT THE COURTS ADJUSTMENTS IN

01:47 - 15.760 THIS LEASE, WE'RE 3 OR 4

01:47 - 18.560 SECURITY PROVISIONS THAT REALLY

01:47 - 20.670 ADDRESS THE ISSUE WERE FAIR AND

01:47 - 22.470 APPROPRIATE DATING GO TOO FAR

01:47 - 24.470 IF THE COURT FEELS THAT IT HAS

01:47 - 26.370 TO HAVE MORE TESTIMONY IN

01:47 - 27.010 REGARD TO THAT

01:47 - 28.570 ISSUE I RESPECT THAT I JUST

01:47 - 30.050 WOULD DISAGREE AS TO THE

01:47 - 31.890 TOUCHSTONE AN AMBIGUITY IS WITH

01:47 - 33.210 THE PARTIES INTEND TO WORK.

01:47 - 34.560 >>THAT'S WHAT THE COURT HAS TO

01:47 - 36.180 RESOLVE I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE

01:47 - 37.910 INTENDED FOR FROM BOTH SIDES IS

01:47 - 39.110 THAT THERE BE FAIR AND

01:47 - 40.560 REASONABLE SECURITY PROVISIONS

01:47 - 40.860 THESE

01:47 - 42.410 FOLKS HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

01:47 - 44.170 WORTH OF EQUIPMENT IN THERE SO

01:47 - 45.750 IT'S NOT AS IF THEY WANT

01:47 - 46.700 COMPLETE

01:47 - 48.490 LACK OF SECURITY I THINK BOTH

01:47 - 50.020 PARTIES WANT THE SAME THING AND

01:47 - 51.400 I THINK THAT THE TRIAL COURT

01:47 - 52.830 SENSE THAT HE VIEWED THE

01:47 - 55.110 PROPERTY. HE GOT A FEEL FOR

01:47 - 57.140 WHAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE, AND

01:47 - 58.740 FELT THAT THE CHANGES HE MADE

01:47 - 59.910 FOR MINIMAL AND I

01:47 - 01.740 WOULD ARGUE WHAT IS IT IN THE

01:48 - 03.470 RECORD THAT SUCH SO LEGALLY

01:48 - 05.270 FLAWED THAT THE DECISION OF THE

01:48 - 06.580 TRIAL COURT CAN'T

01:48 - 08.300 BE RESPECTED WITH ALL DUE

01:48 - 09.910 RESPECT FOR MY AND HE'S HAD

01:48 - 11.540 MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE

01:48 - 13.210 THIS CASE AND TO SEE THOSE

01:48 - 14.960 TERMS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

01:48 - 16.450 AS OPPOSED TO YOU WHO ARE

01:48 - 18.000 LOOKING AT THE LEGAL ISSUES.

01:48 - 19.780 ALL RIGHT THANK YOU THANK YOU

01:48 - 20.020 ALL.

01:48 - 26.530 >>BRIEFLY JUST TO ADDRESS THE

01:48 - 28.290 WHETHER THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR

01:48 - 29.390 THE FOR THIS COURT TO BE

01:48 - 31.570 HEARING THE PANEL WAS UNANIMOUS

01:48 - 33.530 IN ITS DECISION THAT THE BE ON

01:48 - 35.200 E A CASE FROM

01:48 - 38.200 2017 APPLIED AND THAT THE CASE

01:48 - 39.850 IS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT

01:48 - 42.150 WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER WE WENT

01:48 - 42.630 BACK TO THE

01:48 - 44.200 TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER

01:48 - 45.930 HEARINGS. I THINK THE RECORD IS

01:48 - 47.210 RELATIVELY CLEAR THAT

01:48 - 49.460 SPA'S EXPECTATIONS IS THAT

01:48 - 50.820 THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE 24 7

01:48 - 52.110 ACCESS TO THE SITE.

01:48 - 52.960 >>THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THEIR

01:48 - 55.030 EXPECTATION. WHAT WAS THE

01:48 - 56.680 INTENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT

01:48 - 57.720 THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS

01:48 - 00.060 EXECUTED. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS

01:49 - 01.310 IN PART OF THAT PART OF WHAT

01:49 - 02.730 YOU'LL SEE IN THE RECORD IS

01:49 - 04.720 THAT. MR. MACCOLL WARNING OWNS

01:49 - 05.710 OTHER COMPANIES AND HE

01:49 - 07.750 PROVIDE SERVICE TO CELL PHONE

01:49 - 09.200 TOWERS AND WE WAS THE RECORD

01:49 - 10.670 SUFFICIENT FOR THE COURT TO BE

01:49 - 11.650 ABLE TO ASCERTAIN

01:49 - 13.250 THE INTENT OF BOTH PARTIES I

01:49 - 14.520 THINK THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT

01:49 - 15.970 FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO ASK THE

01:49 - 17.500 COURT MAKE FINDINGS ON WHAT

01:49 - 18.810 THAT INTENT WAS SO IT CAN

01:49 - 20.530 RESOLVE AMBIGUITY I DON'T

01:49 - 21.690 BELIEVE THAT THE COURT DID IN

01:49 - 24.620 ITS OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO

01:49 - 26.880 THE RENEWAL ISSUE, IT'S CORRECT

01:49 - 28.140 WE'RE GOING THROUGH A RENEWAL

01:49 - 29.450 PERIOD PER THE TERMS OF THE

01:49 - 30.800 LEASE. IF THERE IS SUCH AN

01:49 - 32.180 ISSUE, SOMEBODY COULD

01:49 - 33.810 RAISE THAT PARTICULARLY MISTER

01:49 - 35.180 MACK A WARNING IF HE DOES NOT

01:49 - 36.920 WANT POLICE TO RENEW AS IT'S

01:49 - 38.320 WRITTEN AND I DON'T BELIEVE

01:49 - 39.200 THAT HE'S DONE THAT THE

01:49 - 40.520 SITUATION AND SO WE'RE IN THE

01:49 - 41.890 END OF THE TERM OF THIS LEASE

01:49 - 42.170 ART.

01:49 - 44.250 >>THE AREA. IT JUST QUICKLY HOW

01:49 - 46.040 WHEN DESIST LEASE EXPIRES

01:49 - 47.190 ORIGINALLY IT WAS STARTED IN

01:49 - 49.380 DECEMBER 9 IT RENEWS EVERY 5

01:49 - 52.040 YEARS AND SO HE PUTTING US THE

01:49 - 53.610 FIRST RENEWAL OF IN DECEMBER 4

01:49 - 55.020 TEAMS ARE LOOKING AT DECEMBER

01:49 - 55.810 OF 19.

01:49 - 57.430 >>SO THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO BE

01:49 - 58.620 DEALING WITH THIS IS ACTUALLY

01:49 - 59.920 RIGHT NOW IF THEY DON'T INTEND

01:49 - 00.760 TO RENEW AND ANOTHER

01:50 - 01.540 5 YEARS.

01:50 - 02.790 >>THEY WEREN'T INVITED ALL THE

01:50 - 04.510 NEW IF YOU DON'T RENEW THE

01:50 - 06.170 CONTRACT. IF MISTER MACK

01:50 - 07.010 ALREADY DOES NOT THAT'S

01:50 - 07.300 CORRECT.

01:50 - 09.660 >>THOSE ARE 23 RENEWAL PERIOD

01:50 - 10.960 TODAY THIS EVER COME UP.

01:50 - 13.640 IT NEVER IS NOT NOW IS NOT.

01:50 - 17.380 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU

01:50 - 18.550 VERY MUCH. THANK COUNCIL.

01:50 - 22.500 >>NEXT WE THE COMMONWEALTH

01:50 - 24.790 VERSUS CARLOS JEANNE MOOS.

01:50 - 27.030 THIS CAME OUT OF YOUR COUNTY IT

01:50 - 30.950 INVOLVES THE A THE SEXUALLY

01:50 - 32.220 THEN THE REGISTRATION AND

01:50 - 34.240 NOTIFICATION ACT WHICH IS WHY

01:50 - 35.280 YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR IS

01:50 - 36.910 REFERRED TO US OR NOT

01:50 - 39.170 DURING THE ARGUMENT AND THIS IS

01:50 - 41.560 MEGAN'S LAW MEGAN'S LAW WAS

01:50 - 43.480 ENACTED IN 2012.

01:50 - 46.380 AND THAT REQUIRES LIFETIME

01:50 - 48.210 REGISTRATION FOR SEXUALLY.

01:50 - 50.870 TIER 1, 3, OFFENDERS AND WHAT

01:50 - 53.780 HAPPENED THIS GOES BACK TO RAPE

01:50 - 56.310 AND MURDER IN 1987. AND THEN IN

01:50 - 00.100 1995. MISTER MOOSE OF ENTERS A

01:51 - 02.620 PLEA AGREEMENT FOR 15 TO 30

01:51 - 04.660 YEARS SENTENCING FOR THE RAPE

01:51 - 06.570 AND MURDER BACK IN

01:51 - 09.650 1987. THEN SUBSEQUENTLY

01:51 - 12.550 OBVIOUSLY INTO IN 1995 MEGAN'S

01:51 - 12.700 LAW

01:51 - 14.980 WAS ENACTED MEGAN'S LAW GETS

01:51 - 19.010 ENACTED IN 2012. IN AUGUST OF

01:51 - 22.350 2014. MISTER MOVES FILES A

01:51 - 24.780 MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PLEA

01:51 - 27.410 AGREEMENT BASICALLY ARGUING

01:51 - 28.750 THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO

01:51 - 30.680 REGISTER AS A SEXUALLY FENDER

01:51 - 32.640 BECAUSE WHEN HE NEGOTIATED THE

01:51 - 36.100 PLEA BACK IN 1995 MEGAN'S LAW

01:51 - 38.390 WAS NOT IN EFFECT THE LOWER

01:51 - 39.930 COURT DENIED THE MOTION

01:51 - 42.470 AND HE APPEALED THAT TO THE A

01:51 - 44.770 SUPERIOR COURT 3 JUDGE PANEL

01:51 - 47.080 WHICH UPHELD THE TRIAL COURT'S

01:51 - 49.250 DENIAL, MANY APPEALED TO THE

01:51 - 51.790 STATE SUPREME COURT. DURING

01:51 - 53.470 THIS TIME IN

01:51 - 56.000 2018 STATES SUPREME COURT

01:51 - 58.100 DECIDED A CASE COM WOLF VERSUS

01:51 - 00.400 MUNIZ AND WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY

01:52 - 02.710 HEAR ABOUT KUMBLE PURSES NUNEZ

01:52 - 05.110 AND WHAT THE CASE HELD THAT IS

01:52 - 07.730 THAT THE MEGAN'S LAW COULD NOT

01:52 - 07.850 BE

01:52 - 10.040 APPLIED RETROACTIVELY MEANING

01:52 - 12.500 IT COULD BE APPLIED PRIOR TO

01:52 - 16.000 CONVICTIONS OF 2012 BECAUSE IT

01:52 - 19.110 WAS ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT, BUT

01:52 - 20.620 IT WOULD BE APPLIED TO ANYTHING

01:52 - 24.790 POST. 2012. SO THE SUPREME

01:52 - 27.170 COURT. REEM AND THAT

01:52 - 30.520 THE CASE BACK TO THE SUPERIOR

01:52 - 31.960 COURT TO BE HEARD WHICH WOULD

01:52 - 34.250 BE THIS COURT IN LIGHT OF NEW

01:52 - 37.090 NEWS AND THERE'S A 3 ISSUES

01:52 - 38.940 THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO

01:52 - 41.130 HEAR TALKED ABOUT ONE. WHEN

01:52 - 43.100 THEY COME WILL VERSUS NUNEZ.

01:52 - 45.970 APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO A

01:52 - 47.640 MOTION TO ENFORCE A PLEA

01:52 - 49.420 AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE IT WAS A

01:52 - 54.080 PLEA AGREEMENT IN 1995. 2

01:52 - 56.360 WHETHER THE MOTION

01:52 - 58.390 TO ENFORCE THE PLEA AGREEMENT

01:52 - 00.670 IS REALLY WHAT'S KNOWN AS A

01:53 - 03.400 POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT.

01:53 - 05.500 THE POST CONVICTION RELIEF ACT

01:53 - 07.900 IS WHY INCARCERATED CRIMINALS.

01:53 - 09.280 IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF

01:53 - 11.240 PENNSYLVANIA CAN CAN FILE

01:53 - 12.730 IF THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE BEING

01:53 - 14.800 UNFAIRLY IMPRISONED OR UNFAIRLY

01:53 - 16.890 TREATED AND RELEASED UNFAIR

01:53 - 20.670 SENS AND 3RD. WEATHER.

01:53 - 24.590 WHAT COME OVER SAYS FERNANDEZ A

01:53 - 26.180 COUPLE FOR SAYS JOHNSON WHICH

01:53 - 26.260 ARE

01:53 - 28.160 2 OTHER SUPERIOR COURT

01:53 - 31.080 OPINIONS APPLY. IN THE CASE AND

01:53 - 33.640 THAT DEALS WITH A NEGOTIATED

01:53 - 35.830 PLEASE, THE MAIN 2 ARGUMENTS I

01:53 - 38.550 THINK YOU'LL HEAR IS A FIRST.

01:53 - 42.480 REALLY THE POST CONVICTION

01:53 - 43.640 RELIEF ACT

01:53 - 46.220 WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH MEANING

01:53 - 47.190 THAT MR.

01:53 - 50.190 LOSE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED A

01:53 - 51.740 MOTION TO ENFORCE A PLEA

01:53 - 54.620 AGREEMENT BECAUSE HE REALLY

01:53 - 56.010 NEEDED TO FILE A POST

01:53 - 58.070 CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION.

01:53 - 00.430 AND BY NOT DOING THAT HE'S

01:54 - 03.540 BASICALLY WAIVED. HIS RIGHT TO

01:54 - 07.430 FILE FOR THAT AND 2. WHETHER

01:54 - 09.230 THIS A MOTION TO ENFORCE THE

01:54 - 11.420 PLEA AGREEMENT CAN BE APPLIED

01:54 - 14.600 RETROACTIVELY. BECAUSE IT WAS

01:54 - 17.590 IN 1995 CONVICTION. THE

01:54 - 19.760 COME WOLF WOULD PROBABLY BE

01:54 - 20.530 ARGUING.

01:54 - 22.600 IF THEY SHOULD HE SHOULD HAVE

01:54 - 23.620 FILED THAT AS OPPOSED

01:54 - 25.500 CONVICTION RELIEF ACT PETITION.

01:54 - 28.160 AND MISTER MOOSE IS A COUNCIL

01:54 - 30.760 WILL MOST LIKELY TRY TO ARGUE

01:54 - 32.370 THAT WELL IT SHOULD

01:54 - 35.050 BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AND HE

01:54 - 36.340 SHOULD NOT HAVE TO REGISTER

01:54 - 38.470 BECAUSE WHY WOULD PEOPLE IN THE

01:54 - 41.240 FUTURE THEN WANT TO NEGOTIATE

01:54 - 42.410 PLEA AGREEMENTS

01:54 - 43.670 IF THEY'RE NOT SURE HOW THAT

01:54 - 45.440 WAS GOING TO CHANGE MOVING DOWN

01:54 - 47.760 THE ROAD. SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK

01:54 - 48.710 AT THE ARGUMENTS.

01:54 - 51.610 >>OF THE NEXT CASE REHEARD HAS

01:54 - 53.650 COME HOME VERSUS MOVES.

01:55 - 19.960 >>I'M THINKING THESE ARE 2

01:55 - 22.000 MINUTES OR ABOUT IT TAKING YOU

01:55 - 23.950 ON THE MAKE-UP YES SIR, IT'S

01:55 - 25.190 BETTER. RATES.

01:55 - 39.280 THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE IS

01:55 - 41.150 COUNTY INNING THE DECK.

01:55 - 42.640 YOUR NAME PLEASE OH, I'M SORRY,

01:55 - 44.420 BUT IT'S BRIAN BILL AND WITH

01:55 - 45.100 THE YORK COUNTY PUBLIC

01:55 - 46.660 DEFENDER'S OFFICE TO REPRESENT

01:55 - 48.570 CARLOS JEANNE MOOS JEN THANK

01:55 - 49.230 YOU SO MUCH.

01:55 - 51.750 THE POSTURE. THIS CASE IS

01:55 - 53.560 UNUSUAL TO PUT A PRETTY MILD.

01:55 - 55.460 THAT'S BECAUSE AN AWFUL LOT HAS

01:55 - 57.970 HAPPENED SINCE 2014. MISTER

01:55 - 59.140 MOVES FILED THE MOTION AN

01:55 - 59.590 ISSUE.

01:56 - 02.110 THIS MAY RAISE SOME QUESTIONS

01:56 - 03.380 OF WHAT ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED

01:56 - 04.330 AND WITH THE PROPER ORDER TO

01:56 - 05.610 ADDRESS THE MAN IS

01:56 - 06.970 I WOULD ULTIMATELY WHETHER IT'S

01:56 - 07.760 BECAUSE THE CURRENT

01:56 - 08.850 REGISTRATION SCHEMES DON'T

01:56 - 10.190 APPLY TO MISTER MOVES.

01:56 - 11.970 OR BECAUSE THE NATURE OF HIS

01:56 - 13.360 PLEA PRECLUDES REGISTRATION

01:56 - 14.720 THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT HE

01:56 - 16.020 HAS NO DUTY TO REGISTER AS A

01:56 - 16.590 SEX-OFFENDER.

01:56 - 18.900 INITIALLY I THINK IT'S

01:56 - 19.840 IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHAT IT

01:56 - 21.030 IS THE MYSTERY WAS FILED IN

01:56 - 23.400 THIS CASE. HE FILED A MOTION TO

01:56 - 24.630 ENFORCE A NEGOTIATED PLEA

01:56 - 25.260 AGREEMENT.

01:56 - 26.590 >>THAT WOULD NOT COME UP AS A

01:56 - 28.630 PCR 8 THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR

01:56 - 30.190 AND WHEN HE FILED IT.

01:56 - 32.700 ACTUALLY IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN

01:56 - 34.750 A FEW SHARIA PETITION BECAUSE

01:56 - 37.270 IN 2014 AND THE BAILING LAW

01:56 - 39.280 REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS WERE

01:56 - 40.120 CONSIDERED COLLATERAL

01:56 - 41.650 CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA.

01:56 - 43.850 I WILL WORK OF ANY SUMS FOR

01:56 - 46.540 THAT MATTER. UNDER SECTION 9542

01:56 - 47.520 THE PCR A.

01:56 - 50.170 THE SERIES NOT INTENDED TO

01:56 - 52.010 PROVIDE REALLY FROM COLLATERAL

01:56 - 53.140 CONSEQUENCES OF A CRIMINAL

01:56 - 55.090 CONVICTION. THAT'S RIGHT DOES

01:56 - 55.970 NOT WANT THERE'S

01:56 - 57.560 NOT PROVIDE RELIEF FOR

01:56 - 58.800 COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A

01:56 - 59.880 CRIMINAL CONVICTION THAT IS

01:56 - 00.970 EXACTLY WHAT REGISTRATION

01:57 - 02.210 MARKETS WERE AT THAT TIME.

01:57 - 04.310 THAT MEANS THAT WE FILE THIS

01:57 - 05.970 MOTION. IT WAS THE NIGHT LATER

01:57 - 07.970 IN 2014. IT COULD NOT

01:57 - 09.340 HAVE BEEN THE PIECE AREA

01:57 - 10.810 PETITION. EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO

01:57 - 11.000 BE.

01:57 - 12.800 >>WELL WHEN HE FILED IT WAS

01:57 - 15.020 SORT AND IT SYSTEMS. IT WAS

01:57 - 16.650 YOUR HONOR. AND HE SOUGHT

01:57 - 17.520 RELIEF FROM SOARING AS

01:57 - 19.340 REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT.

01:57 - 20.750 >>AND NOT A FILED THAT PIECE

01:57 - 22.430 VERY ANYWAY UNTIL THEN CRACKS

01:57 - 23.580 BECAUSE HE HAD A PENDING PEACE

01:57 - 24.380 HERE IT.

01:57 - 26.380 AN APPEAL. UP

01:57 - 28.590 ACTUALLY ABOUT THAT TIME DON'T

01:57 - 30.200 RECALL HE HE DID HAVE ONE AT

01:57 - 31.500 ONE POINT THAT WAS ULTIMATELY

01:57 - 32.870 WITHDRAWN I BELIEVE THAT THAT

01:57 - 33.690 RECORD LOW.

01:57 - 35.780 >>AS FAR AS WHETHER THAT

01:57 - 36.960 PRECEDED THE FILING THIS.

01:57 - 39.060 I'M SORRY I SHOULD REMEMBER

01:57 - 40.310 THAT, BUT I DON'T UP THE TOP

01:57 - 41.560 TEAMS LIKE WE ARE PUTTING.

01:57 - 44.250 >>THESE DEFENDANTS IN A CATCH

01:57 - 45.610 22 SITUATION.

01:57 - 49.260 >>AND THAT SORT OF COMING UP IN

01:57 - 50.550 THIS CASE TO AS FAR AS YOU KNOW

01:57 - 50.870 WHICH

01:57 - 53.210 >>HOUSE MISSED MOST DIFFERENT

01:57 - 55.170 FROM MISTER MURPHY. IN THE

01:57 - 56.430 COMMONWEALTH VERSUS MURPHY

01:57 - 57.110 CASE.

01:57 - 59.300 >>THEY JUDGE BENDER WELL.

01:58 - 01.620 >>I THINK WHAT'S

01:58 - 02.550 IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER IS THAT

01:58 - 03.690 EVERYONE JUST KIND OF PROCEEDED

01:58 - 04.640 UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE