00:09 - >>GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

00:09 - >>WELCOME TO THE FIRST DAY OF

00:13 - OUR FALL 2025 ORAL ARGUMENT

00:16 - SESSION HERE

00:17 - IN PHILADELPHIA. AS YOU MAY

00:18 - KNOW, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME

00:19 - COURT IS THE OLDEST APPELLATE

00:22 - COURT IN

00:23 - NORTH AMERICA. OUR ROOTS TAKE

00:24 - BACK TO WILLIAM PENN'S

00:27 - PROVINCIAL COURT OF

00:28 - 16. 84 AND THE SUPREME COURT

00:30 - WAS FORMALLY ESTABLISHED

00:31 - PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA

00:35 - JUDICIARY ACT OF 17. 22.

00:39 - >>IN MAY 2022, WE CELEBRATED

00:41 - THE COURT'S 3 100TH ANNIVERSARY

00:44 - HERE IN PHILADELPHIA.

00:44 - >>WE ON THE COURT ARE VERY

00:47 - PROUD OF OUR RICH HISTORY.

00:51 - ITS EARLIEST YEARS, OUR COURT

00:53 - ACTUALLY CONVENED IN PRIVATE

00:56 - RESIDENCES. WELL, THE LOWER

00:57 - COURTS.

00:59 - >>CONVENED AN ALE HOUSES.

01:03 - IN 17. 0, 7. THE CITY OF

01:04 - PHILADELPHIA CONSTRUCTED THE

01:05 - TOWNHOUSE, A 2 STORY, HOUSE

01:06 - AND MARKET.

01:07 - >>THAT FUNCTIONED AS AN EARLY

01:11 - CITY HALL. THE COURT CONDUCTED

01:13 - ITS BUSINESS AT THE TOWNHOUSE

01:15 - UNTIL 17. 43 WHEN IT MOVED TO

01:16 - ITS OWN COURTROOM IN THE STATE

01:17 - HOUSE. NOW INDEPENDENCE HALL.

01:24 - BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION IN 18,

01:24 - 71. IT TOOK 30 YEARS TO

01:28 - CONSTRUCT THIS CITY HALL.

01:29 - IT WAS DESIGNED IN THE FRENCH

01:32 - SECOND EMPIRE STYLE BY JOHN

01:33 - MACARTHUR JUNIOR AND THOMAS WHO

01:37 - STICK WALTER SITTING ATOP THE

01:38 - BUILDING IS A BRONZE STATUE

01:41 - OF WILLIAM

01:42 - PENN STANDING. 37 FEET TALL AND

01:45 - WEIGHING

01:47 - 27 TIMES MR. PENCE STATUE FACES

01:49 - NORTHEAST AND POINTS TO A SPOT

01:51 - WHERE HE SIGNED A TREATY OF

01:53 - FRIENDSHIP WITH THE LOCAL

01:54 - NATIVE AMERICANS AND 16.

01:57 - 82.

02:00 - CITY HALL HAS 700 ROOMS WHICH

02:01 - AISLES FUNCTIONING OFFICES FOR

02:03 - ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

02:06 - THIS COURT BECAME THE FIRST

02:08 - TENANT IN THIS BUILDING ON

02:11 - JANUARY. FIRST 18, 77.

02:15 - AFTER THE OFFICIAL OPENING

02:16 - REPORTERS TEAM THIS TO BE THE

02:18 - MOST HANDSOME COURTROOM IN THE

02:20 - COUNTRY AND CONCLUDED THAT SOME

02:23 - OF THE MORE FASTIDIOUS LAWYERS

02:24 - WILL HE RUN AFTER TAKE ONLY

02:27 - SUPREME COURT CASES IN ORDER

02:28 - THAT THEY MAY PRACTICE IN THIS

02:32 - COURT PALACE? I HOPE THAT THIS

02:33 - COURT ROOMS, HISTORY IS

02:34 - INSPIRATIONAL TO ALL OF YOU.

02:37 - I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE SOME

02:39 - STUDENTS WHO ARE HERE WITH US

02:42 - TODAY. THEY ARE FROM TEMPLE

02:44 - UNIVERSITY BEASLEY SCHOOL OF

02:47 - LAW AND THEY'RE HERE WITH

02:48 - THEIR PROFESSOR. MARION BROUGHT

02:51 - UP A PROFESSOR BROUGHT YOU AND

02:52 - YOUR STUDENTS, WOULD YOU STAND

02:52 - SO THAT WE CAN WELCOME YOU.

02:56 - THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

03:04 - WE HOPE THAT YOU LEARNED

03:05 - SOMETHING TODAY, STUDENTS AND A

03:08 - CAUTIONARY WORD OF ADVICE TO

03:10 - THE LAWYERS TRY NOT TO DISSUADE

03:10 - THE STUDENTS ARE PURSUING A

03:14 - CAREER IN LAW TODAY.

03:14 - APPELLANT'S COUNSEL, PLEASE.

03:19 - APPROACH THE PODIUM WHEN YOUR

03:19 - CASE IS CALLED, I WILL THEN

03:22 - GIVE A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE

03:24 - CASE. POLICE BEGAN BY

03:25 - INTRODUCING YOURSELF AND YOUR

03:27 - CO-COUNSEL TO THE COURT.

03:30 - AND DANA, FIND THE PARTY

03:31 - REPRESENT. THE JUSTICES ARE

03:33 - FAMILIAR WITH YOUR CASES.

03:35 - SO WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD AVOID

03:37 - ANY UNNECESSARY RECITATION OF

03:39 - THE FACTS ARE PROCEDURAL

03:41 - HISTORY AND INSTEAD TRY TO

03:42 - FOCUS ON THE MAIN ISSUES ON

03:46 - WHICH WE GRANTED HER A FEW

03:47 - COUNCIL IS WELCOME TO RELY ON

03:48 - THEIR BRIEFS FOR ANY PARTICULAR

03:51 - ISSUES IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE

03:54 - MULTIPLE PARTIES REPRESENTED BY

03:55 - SEPARATE COUNSEL COUNSEL SHOULD

03:56 - AVOID REPEATING THE SAME

03:57 - ARGUMENTS AS PRIOR COUNSEL.

04:00 - PLEASE TRY NOT TO INTERRUPT THE

04:01 - JUSTICES WHEN WE ARE ASKING YOU

04:04 - A QUESTION, ALTHOUGH WE MAY

04:08 - INTERRUPT YOU. JUSTICE'S

04:09 - QUESTION IS NOT MEANT TO TRICK

04:11 - PEOPLE OUT RATHER. IT INDICATES

04:12 - THAT THERE ARE PARTICULAR

04:14 - ISSUES WE WISH TO EXPLORE

04:15 - FURTHER. I REMIND YOU THAT IN

04:16 - THIS COURT WE DO NOT PERMIT

04:19 - FOR A BATTLE.

04:21 - FINALLY, WHILE WE HAVE NO SET

04:24 - TIME LIMIT FOR ARGUMENT, I WILL

04:25 - ADVISE COUNCIL WHEN THE COURT

04:26 - IS SATISFIED THAT ALL OF ITS

04:28 - QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

04:30 - AND AT THAT TIME I WOULD LAST

04:32 - THAT YOU CONCLUDE YOUR

04:34 - ARGUMENT, MR. MEN ARE PLEASE

04:35 - CALL. THE FIRST CASE SAYS PRIOR

04:37 - COUNSEL.

04:39 - PLEASE TRY NOT TO INTERRUPT THE

04:40 - JUSTICES. WHEN WE ARE ASKING

04:43 - YOU A QUESTION, ALTHOUGH WE

04:47 - MAY INTERRUPT YOU. JUSTICE'S

04:48 - QUESTION IS NOT MEANT TO TRICK

04:50 - PEOPLE OUT RATHER. IT INDICATES

04:51 - THAT THERE ARE PARTICULAR

04:53 - ISSUES WE WISH TO EXPLORE

04:54 - FURTHER. I REMIND YOU THAT IN

04:55 - THIS COURT WE DO NOT PERMIT

04:59 - FOR A BATTLE.

05:00 - FINALLY, WHILE WE HAVE NO SET

05:03 - TIME LIMIT FOR ARGUMENT, I WILL

05:04 - ADVISE COUNCIL WHEN THE COURT

05:05 - IS SATISFIED THAT ALL OF ITS

05:07 - QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

05:09 - AND AT THAT TIME I WOULD LAST

05:11 - THAT YOU CONCLUDE YOUR

05:12 - ARGUMENT, MR. MEN ARE PLEASE

05:15 - CALL THE

05:16 - FIRST CASE.

05:16 - >>HELLO AND WELCOME TO CITY

05:17 - HALL HERE WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA

05:20 - SUPREME COURT.

05:21 - >>WE'RE GETTING READY FOR ORAL

05:23 - ARGUMENT. EXCUSE ME.

05:25 - >>COMING AT YOU IN SEPTEMBER

05:28 - 2025.

05:30 - I'M BEN BEAR. I'M A LAWYER AT

05:31 - INJURY LAW PARTNERS HERE IN

05:32 - PHILADELPHIA AND I HAVE OFFICES

05:35 - IN PITTSBURGH.

05:36 - I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO

05:36 - DISCUSSING SOME OF THE CASES ON

05:39 - TODAY'S LIST WITH YOU.

05:41 - HI, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ADAM

05:42 - BONIN. I'M A SOLO PRACTITIONER

05:46 - HERE IN PHILADELPHIA.

05:46 - >>SPECIALIZING IN POLITICAL

05:47 - LAW. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE

05:49 - WITH BEN TO BE DISCUSSING

05:50 - WHAT'S GOING TO BE EXCITING

05:51 - WEEK OF ARGUMENT BEFORE THE

05:53 - COURT. AND WHICH LIKE TO

05:56 - PREVIEW THE

05:56 - FIRST CASE.

05:56 - >>THE FIRST CASE IS CHALOUH

06:00 - TV. UBER IN THE MAIN ISSUE

06:00 - THAT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE THE

06:04 - COURT IN THIS CASE IS THE

06:05 - VALIDITY OF ONLINE ARBITRATION

06:07 - AGREEMENTS. A FASCINATING

06:09 - SUBJECT. A QUICK BACKGROUND

06:11 - ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, AN

06:13 - INDIVIDUAL IS RIDING IN AN UBER

06:16 - IN SUFFERS AN INJURY BRINGS A

06:17 - PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT AGAINST

06:18 - THE COMPANY. UBER. THE

06:21 - RIDESHARE COMPANY.

06:25 - THE DEFENSE OF

06:26 - UBER INVOLVES.

06:26 - >>IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THAT

06:28 - THE PLAINTIFF CLICKED ON WHEN

06:31 - THEY SIGNED UP TO USE THE APP.

06:33 - NOW, WHAT'S UNIQUE HERE IN THIS

06:34 - PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT THE

06:37 - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WAS IN

06:38 - THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR

06:40 - THE APP. SO WHEN A PERSON SIGNS

06:42 - UP THE USE, UBER, THEY'RE

06:45 - MAKING THIS AGREEMENT. IT IS

06:46 - NOT, HOWEVER, EXPLICITLY STATED

06:50 - IT'S NOT IN BOLD. IT'S NOT

06:51 - HIGHLIGHTED AN OBVIOUS TO THE

06:52 - PERSON SIGNING UP TO USE THE

06:53 - APP THAT THEY'RE WAIVING THEIR

06:55 - RIGHT TO THE JURY.

06:56 - SO THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT IS

06:57 - GOING TO LOOK AT AND WE'RE

06:58 - GOING TO HAVE ARGUMENTS FROM

06:59 - BOTH SIDES ON THIS MATTER.

07:02 - IT IS.

07:04 - CAN A PERSON WAIVE THE

07:05 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY?

07:09 - WITHOUT IT BEING OBVIOUSLY AND

07:11 - APPARENTLY THIS CLOSE TO THEM

07:12 - IN THE MANNER IN WHICH UBER DID

07:16 - IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN

07:16 - WHILE THE FACTS OF THE CASE

07:17 - MATTER WHAT THE COURT'S GOING

07:19 - TO BE LOOKING AT HAS GREATER

07:20 - IMPLICATIONS ESSENTIALLY HAS

07:22 - IMPLICATIONS FOR.

07:24 - ANYONE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF

07:27 - PENNSYLVANIA. HE USES UBER

07:27 - ANYONE WHO USES ANY TYPE OF

07:31 - QUICK. FOR ANY APP THAT HAS

07:32 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THAT

07:34 - INCLUDES AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE

07:35 - AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE IMPACTS

07:39 - ON CORPORATIONS ALL ACROSS THE

07:40 - COUNTRY THAT HAVE BUSINESSES IN

07:40 - PENNSYLVANIA. THIS COULD AFFECT

07:43 - ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

07:44 - SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO

07:44 - HEARING ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES

07:47 - OF THIS ISSUE.

07:48 - >>GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU,

07:48 - MADAM. CHIEF JUSTICE, MAY IT

07:51 - PLEASE? THE COURT MICHAEL KICK

07:53 - LINE ON BEHALF OF THE UBER

07:54 - PELLETS. AND I'M HERE WITH MY

07:55 - COLLEAGUE THIS MORNING. MATTHEW

07:57 - CLAIMANT.

07:59 - >>THE SUPERIOR COURT'S DECISION

08:01 - AND THE CHILL LOUISE POSITION

08:03 - ON APPEAL RESTS ON. DID YOU

08:04 - MISS THE MICROPHONE? CLOSER?

08:06 - THANK YOU. ALWAYS. THANK YOU.

08:07 - THE SUPERIOR COURT'S DECISION

08:10 - AND THE CHILL LOUISE POSITION

08:11 - ON APPEAL RESTS ON SEVERAL

08:12 - ERRONEOUS DEPARTURES FROM

08:15 - SETTLED LAW. THIS APPEAL SHOULD

08:16 - HAVE NEVER PROCEEDED BECAUSE

08:18 - THE SUPERIOR COURT LACKED

08:19 - JURISDICTION. THE TRIAL COURT

08:21 - ORDER IS NEITHER A FINAL ORDER.

08:24 - NORRIE COLLATERAL WATER.

08:24 - AND EVEN IF THIS SUPERIOR COURT

08:28 - HAD JURISDICTION, THE COURT,

08:31 - THE SUPERIOR COURT'S NEWLY

08:31 - INVENTED STRICTER BURDEN OF

08:32 - PROOF FOR DEMONSTRATING A SENT

08:35 - TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

08:35 - VIOLATES THE FEDERAL

08:36 - ARBITRATION ACT. AND SUPREME

08:38 - COURT PRECEDENT BY SINGLING

08:40 - OUT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS FOR

08:43 - DISFAVORED TREATMENT BASED ON

08:44 - RULES THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE

08:46 - TO CONTRACTS, GENERAL? WELL, NO

08:47 - ONE'S CLAIMING IT'S A FINAL

08:48 - ORDER, RIGHT? THE QUESTION IS,

08:51 - IS IT A COLLATERAL OR THAT'S?

08:52 - THAT'S CORRECT. YOUR HONOR AT

08:53 - THAT DEBATE. THE PRINCIPAL

08:54 - ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT AS A

08:54 - COLLATERAL WATER UNDER THE

08:58 - RULE, 3.13. AND FINALLY.

08:59 - APPLYING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS TO

09:01 - THE QUESTION OF CONTRACT

09:03 - FORMATION. THE CHILI'S WERE

09:04 - PROVIDED REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS

09:06 - NOTICE OF THE TERMS OF THEIR

09:08 - AGREEMENTS AND THEY OBJECTIVELY

09:08 - MANIFESTED THERE ARE SENT BY

09:10 - TAKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND

09:12 - THEY'RE BOUND BY THOSE ARE

09:14 - GREAT FOR THOSE REASONS.

09:15 - WE BELIEVE THE SUPERIOR COURT'S

09:16 - DECISION SHOULD BE VACATED OR

09:18 - REVERSED.

09:19 - THE SUPERIOR COURT LACKED

09:20 - JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS

09:22 - APPEAL BECAUSE I SAID ORDER

09:24 - STAYING LITIGATION PENDING

09:26 - ARBITRATION. IT'S NOT FINAL.

09:27 - AND THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE

09:28 - UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT, WHICH

09:31 - DOES NOT PERMIT AN IMMEDIATE

09:32 - APPEAL OF AN ORDER, STAYING

09:33 - LITIGATION AND ORDERING THE

09:36 - PARTIES TO PROCEED IN

09:37 - ARBITRATION. AND THAT WAS THAT

09:37 - WAS THE CRUX OF THE MALESKY

09:40 - HOLDING MORE THAN 40 MORE THAN

09:42 - 30 YEARS AGO WHERE THIS COURT

09:43 - FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EXPRESS

09:47 - STATUTORY AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING

09:49 - APPEAL OF A COURT ORDER.

09:51 - STAYING LITIGATION PENDING

09:52 - ARBITRATION. BUT AS YOU'RE AS

09:53 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE POINTED OUT,

09:56 - THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER

09:58 - WILL 3.13 APPLIES AND WHETHER

10:01 - THE TRIAL COURT ORDER SATISFIES

10:03 - THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 3.13,

10:06 - AS THIS COURT WELL KNOWS WILL

10:08 - 3.13, IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE

10:09 - FINAL WORD. A RULE THAT MUST

10:11 - BE STRINGENTLY AND NARROWLY

10:13 - APPLIED IN ORDER TO AVOID WHAT

10:14 - THE COURT HAS REFERRED TO AS

10:17 - CORROSION OF THE FINAL ORDER

10:17 - RULE AND TO PREVENT THAT DELAY

10:20 - OCCASION BY PIECEMEAL APPEALS

10:23 - OF TRIAL COURT ORDERS.

10:25 - THE TUILERIES CANNOT ESTABLISH

10:27 - THE IRREPARABLE LOSS

10:27 - REQUIREMENT UNDER THE RULE.

10:28 - 3.13. AND THAT'S REALLY THE

10:32 - KEY ISSUE HERE. THEY CANNOT

10:33 - DEMONSTRATE THAT THE QUESTION

10:36 - PRESENTED, NAMELY WHETHER THEY

10:38 - ENTERED INTO AN ARBITRATION

10:39 - AGREEMENT WITH UBER WILL BE AN

10:40 - REVIEWABLE IF THEY HAVE TO

10:43 - AWAIT

10:44 - FINAL JUDGMENT REVIEW, THEY

10:46 - WILL NOT SUFFER ANY IRREPARABLE

10:48 - LOSS AS THIS COURT HAS THE

10:51 - FIGHT. NOW, THE 2 LOUISE.

10:52 - WILL NOT LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO

10:53 - FINAL REVIEW. THEY MAY APPEAL

10:56 - THE TRIAL COURT TO ORDER.

10:58 - AFTER ARBITRATION AND UPON

11:01 - RETURN TO THE TRIAL COURT WHERE

11:02 - THERE WILL BE CONFIRMATION

11:03 - PROCEEDINGS AND POST

11:04 - ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AND

11:05 - FINAL JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED.

11:09 - WHICH LADIES DID NOT CITE ANY

11:10 - AUTHORITY HOLDING THAT ONCE

11:12 - THEY PROCEED TO ARBITRATION

11:14 - THEIR RIGHT TO APPELLATE REVIEW

11:15 - OF THE QUESTION I JUST

11:16 - ARTICULATED. THAT IS WHETHER AN

11:20 - AGREEMENT WAS FOR WE'LL BE

11:21 - IRREVOCABLY EXTINGUISHED TO BE.

11:22 - TO BE CLEAR, THOUGH, IT'S A

11:25 - VERY

11:25 - STANDARD SCOPE OF REVIEW.

11:28 - IF THEY SEE.

11:29 - >>APPELLATE REVIEW AFTER AN

11:30 - ARBITRATION.

11:33 - >>WELL,

11:34 - YOUR HONOR.

11:35 - >>THEY BEAT THE STANDARD OF

11:37 - REVIEW. I THINK YOU'RE

11:38 - REFERRING TO IS THE STANDARD OF

11:39 - THAT COMES FROM SECTION 73.

11:40 - 41 OF THE UNIFORM ARBITRATION.

11:45 - >>THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE

11:47 - SUPERIOR COURT'S RULING SOLE

11:50 - BASIS THAT IRREPARABLE LOSS

11:53 - REQUIREMENT WAS MET HERE.

11:57 - SUCH AN 73. 41 PROVIDES THAT

11:59 - AND A WARD OF AN ARBITRATOR MAY

12:01 - NOT BE VACATED OR MODIFIED

12:01 - UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT

12:06 - A PARTY WAS DENIED A HEARING OR

12:06 - THAT FRAUD, MISCONDUCT,

12:07 - CORRUPTION OR OTHER

12:11 - IRREGULARITIES RENDERED CAUSE

12:12 - THE RENDITION OF AN UNJUST AND

12:12 - EQUITABLE OR UNCONSCIONABLE

12:17 - HAVING CONCLUDED THAT 73 41

12:18 - APPLIES THE SUPERIOR COURT AND

12:21 - REASON THAT THE QUESTION

12:22 - PRESENTED HERE WOULD NOT BE

12:24 - THAT WOULD NOT SATISFY THE

12:25 - REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE SOME

12:28 - MALFEASANCE AS DEFINED IN 73.

12:29 - 41 AND THE SUPERIOR COURT WENT

12:31 - ON TO FIND THAT EVEN IF THE

12:34 - PARTIES DID AGREE TO

12:34 - ARBITRATION, THERE'S ALWAYS

12:38 - THE POSSIBILITY THAT A COURT

12:41 - MAY FIND A SUBSEQUENT

12:41 - ARBITRATION FAIRING THAT'S

12:42 - REMAINED BINDING ON THE

12:43 - PARTIES. AND THAT WAS THE CRUX

12:47 - OF THE RULING FOR WHY THE COURT

12:49 - CONCLUDED THERE WAS AN

12:50 - IRREPARABLE LOSS OF THE RIGHT

12:51 - HERE OR THAT THE MATTER WOULD

12:51 - BE EFFECTIVELY AND REVIEWABLE.

12:57 - THAT SECTION. 73. 41 WOULD NOT

12:59 - GOVERN A POST APPEAL POST

13:00 - ARBITRATION APPEAL BY THE

13:01 - CHALOUH. HE'S ON THE QUESTION.

13:02 - THEY'RE THEY'RE PRESENTING HERE

13:05 - ON ITS FACE. 73 41 APPLIES FOR

13:08 - A PARTY SEEKS TO VACATE AN

13:11 - ARBITRATION AWARD.

13:14 - BASED ON ARBITRARY OR

13:14 - MALFEASANCE OR IRREGULARITY IN

13:15 - THE ARBITRATION PROCESS ITSELF.

13:21 - IT DOES NOT APPLY

13:22 - TO APPEAL CHALLENGING THE TRIAL

13:24 - COURT'S ORDER DIRECTING THE

13:26 - PARTIES TO ARBITRATION IN THE

13:30 - FIRST 73 41 GOES TO THE

13:30 - ARBITRATOR CONDUCT THE

13:31 - ARBITRATION PROCESS AND THE

13:32 - BASIS UPON WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE.

13:35 - 2, THEY CAME TO WAR. THAT DOES

13:40 - NOT APPLY HERE WHERE?

13:43 - THE DATE THE PARTIES WILL.

13:44 - THE CHILI'S WOULD SEEK TO

13:45 - APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT'S

13:46 - QUARTER DIRECTING THEM TO

13:47 - ARBITRATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

13:58 - CORRECT THAT THAT STANDARD.

13:59 - JUST THE 73. 41 JUST DOES NOT

14:00 - APPLY. AND THE APPEAL THE TRIAL

14:03 - COURT'S ORIGINAL ORDER WOULD BE

14:05 - OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF 73.

14:06 - 41 THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE

14:06 - STANDARD OF REVIEW. THE SPIRIT

14:08 - COURT APPLY BELOW HERE.

14:10 - THEY DIDN'T APPLY THE

14:11 - DIFFERENTIAL ARBITRATION

14:12 - STANDARD. WHATEVER STANDARD

14:13 - THEY APPLY BELOW WOULD BE THE

14:14 - SAME STANDARD. THEY WOULD APPLY

14:16 - EVENTUALLY WHEN IT CAME UP.

14:16 - >>AT THE END OF THE

14:19 - ARBITRATION.

14:20 - >>WELL, THEY WON'T APPLY THIS

14:23 - ANY STANDARDS AND ARE 73 FOR

14:27 - THAT WILL WRAP IT BE THE SAME

14:29 - PROCEDURAL POSTURE AS THEY

14:29 - EXERCISE. HERE WOULD BE THE

14:30 - SAME STANDARD OF REVIEW WOULD

14:31 - BE DEFERENTIAL ARBITRATION TO

14:33 - BE THAT'S CORRECT. YOUR HONOR,

14:36 - THAT THAT THAT THAT IS CORRECT.

14:39 - >>SO IN A IN A POST ARBITRATION

14:40 - POST, FINAL JUDGMENT POSTURE,

14:41 - THE SUPERIOR COURT MAY REVIEW

14:43 - THE TRIAL COURT ORDER IF IT

14:44 - DETERMINES THAT THE PARTIES

14:46 - DID NOT ENTER INTO A VALID

14:49 - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.

14:50 - A COURT CAN ON REVIEW REMAND

14:54 - THE MATTER FOR A TRIAL.

14:55 - >>AND THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S

14:57 - EXACTLY WHAT HAS AND HAPPENING

14:58 - IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. IF YOU

15:01 - LOOK AT

15:01 - CASES LIKE SAVANT AND DO AND

15:02 - MOST RECENTLY, THE CARD

15:05 - DECISION.

15:08 - IN ALL OF THOSE CASES, PARTIES

15:08 - LIKE CHILES WHO ARE OBJECTING

15:10 - TO ARBITRATION ON THE GROUNDS

15:12 - OF LACK OF AN AGREEMENT TO GO

15:15 - THERE. THEY OBTAIN.

15:16 - APPELLATE REVIEW ON THAT

15:17 - PRECISE QUESTION IN EACH OF

15:18 - THOSE 3 CASES. SO THE WATER HAS

15:21 - BEEN PERMITTING THIS TYPE OF AN

15:22 - APPEAL POST ARBITRATION FOR

15:26 - SOME TIME.

15:51 - WELL, WHAT WHAT MAKES WHAT

15:55 - MAKES

15:56 - AN ORDER DENYING A PETITION TO

15:59 - COMPEL ARBITRATION

16:00 - IMMEDIATELY APPEAL IS THAT THE

16:00 - LEGISLATURE IN THE UNIFORM

16:01 - ARBITRATION ACT AS

16:04 - SPECIFICALLY.

16:06 - DEFINED THAT AS A BASIS UPON

16:06 - WHICH AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN

16:10 - IMMEDIATELY. SO THE ANSWER IS

16:11 - THAT IT'S NOT IT DOESN'T COME

16:12 - FROM COMMON LAW WERE DECISIONS

16:13 - OF THIS COURT. IT COMES FROM

16:16 - THE DELIBERATE POLICY CHOICE BY

16:18 - THE LEGISLATURE, THE GENERAL

16:21 - ASSEMBLY TO MAKE CERTAIN ORDERS

16:22 - APPEALABLE AND CERTAIN ORDERS

16:22 - NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPEALED.

16:32 - CORRECT? IT'S IF THERE'S AN

16:34 - ORDER DENYING THE PETITION TO

16:35 - COMPEL ARBITRATION FOR

16:36 - MEDICALLY APPEALABLE AS OF

16:37 - RIGHT, PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM

16:39 - ARBITRATION ACT.

16:42 - I DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE

16:43 - ARGUMENT AND IT APPEARS TO BE

16:44 - THE MAIN ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT

16:46 - THE 2 LADIES ARE MAKING FOR

16:49 - WHY 3.13 IS MET. THEY ARGUE

16:51 - THAT IRREPARABLE LAW SHOULD BE

16:52 - FOUND BASED ON THE COST AND

16:56 - THE BURDEN OF HAVING TO

16:57 - LITIGATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT

17:00 - AFTER ARBITRATION. THEY THEIR

17:04 - ARGUMENT IS THAT'S A

17:04 - SUFFICIENT LOSS TO TRIGGER A

17:05 - FINDING OF IRREPARABLE LOSS

17:07 - UNDER 3 13TH. BUT AS THIS COURT

17:11 - WELL KNOWS, HISTORICALLY

17:12 - IRREPARABLE LOSS HAS BEEN FOUND

17:14 - IN THOSE SETTINGS WHERE YOU

17:16 - CAN'T AND RING THE BELL, RIGHT?

17:18 - SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS COURT HAS

17:19 - HAS FOUND THAT THE IRREPARABLE

17:23 - LOSS REQUIREMENT IS MET IN

17:24 - CASES INVOLVING PRIVILEGE WHERE

17:25 - THE RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY

17:28 - OF INFORMATION WATCH DISCLOSED.

17:29 - WHAT YOU MOVE PAST THAT YOU

17:31 - CAN'T ON RING THE BELL MATTERS

17:33 - INVOLVING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY,

17:34 - RIGHT? WE'RE FORCING THE

17:35 - DEFENDANT TO PROCEED TO FINAL

17:38 - JUDGMENT WOULD NEGATE THE VERY

17:39 - PURPOSE OF THE DEFENSE TO BE

17:41 - ABSOLUTELY FREE FROM SUIT.

17:42 - AND THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER

17:44 - INSTANCES. BUT BUT WHAT THEY

17:46 - ALL INDICATE IS THAT THERE MUST

17:48 - BE IT CLEAR AND A REP FOR THE

17:48 - LAST COUPLE OF THE RIGHT TO

17:51 - CLAIM

17:52 - OR DEFENSE. BUT THE LOSS OF

17:54 - KIND OF MONEY DOES NOT.

17:56 - SUFFICE. AND IN MAKING THE THIS

17:58 - ARGUMENT, I THINK THAT REALLY

17:59 - IS IGNORE THIS COURT'S

18:01 - LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT HOLDING

18:03 - THAT COST BURDEN INCONVENIENCE

18:04 - OF LIVING IN THE FINAL

18:05 - JUDGMENT. IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT.

18:08 - IN FACT, IN THAT JCB DECISION

18:11 - THIS COURT HELD THAT AN ORDER

18:14 - GRANTING

18:15 - PAIR GRANDPARENTS STANDING TO

18:16 - SEEK PRETRIAL CUSTODY OF THEIR

18:17 - CHILDREN WAS NOT A COLLATERAL.

18:18 - WERE THE COURT FOUND THAT THE

18:22 - PARENTS COULD APPEAL THAT IF

18:24 - THERE WAS AN AWARD OF CUSTODY,

18:25 - EVENTUALLY, EVEN THOUGH AS THE

18:29 - COURT RECOGNIZED THE PARENTS

18:29 - WOULD BE FORCED TO LITIGATE

18:31 - TO CONCLUSION AND INDOOR.

18:35 - THE HEAVY COST BURDENS AND

18:35 - EMOTIONAL ENERGY ATTENDANT TO

18:39 - CUSTODY LITIGATION. BUT BUT

18:40 - THAT BURDEN THAT COST IT WAS

18:42 - NOT ENOUGH. AND AS JUSTICE

18:42 - WECHT OBSERVER IN CONCURRENCE

18:45 - IN THE J C D DECISION

18:46 - EXPENDITURE OF TIME. MONEY AND

18:49 - ENERGY IS IS PRESENT. IN EVERY

18:50 - CASE YOU CAN FIND THAT IN JUST

18:51 - ABOUT ANY SITUATION. AND AS THE

18:54 - JUSTICE NOTED, IF THE

18:57 - EXPENDITURE ALONE WERE

18:58 - SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY WILL

18:59 - 3.13, THEN EVERY INTERLOCKING

19:01 - TORY ORDER PRESUMABLY WOULD

19:03 - SATISFY THE IRREPARABLE LOSS

19:04 - CRAW AND THE EXCEPTION WOULD

19:09 - DEVOUR THE RULE. THE 2 CHILIS

19:10 - BASE. THIS ARGUMENT PRIMARILY

19:13 - ON THAT PRIDGEN VERSUS PARKER

19:16 - HANIF IN CASE.

19:18 - PRIDGEN INVOLVE THE STATUTE OF

19:20 - REPOSE IN THE FEDERAL GENERAL

19:21 - AVIATION REVITALIZATION ACT IN

19:25 - 1994. WHICH SOUGHT IMMUNIZED

19:26 - AVIATION MANUFACTURERS FROM THE

19:27 - COST OF LITIGATION. AND THERE

19:31 - THE FEDERAL COURTS HAD

19:32 - INTERPRETED THE STATUTE AS

19:33 - CREATING AN EXPLICIT STATUTORY

19:35 - RIGHT NOT TO STAND TRIAL AFTER

19:39 - THE STATUTE OF REPOSE. SO

19:40 - PRIDGEN IS IT CAN DO UNITY

19:41 - CASE. AND WHILE THIS COURT DID

19:44 - IN THAT CASE, FIND THAT

19:46 - SUBSTANTIAL LITIGATION COST

19:47 - WITH SUFFICE FOR PURPOSES.

19:50 - IN THAT CASE OF RULE 3.13.

19:52 - AS JUSTICE WECHT NOTED IN JCB.

19:55 - THAT DECISION WAS UNIQUELY

19:57 - GROUNDED IN A STRONG AND CLEAR

19:58 - FEDERAL POLICY OF CONTAINING

20:00 - COSTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

20:02 - SIMILAR TO THE IMMUNITIES

20:04 - SITUATION WHERE THAT, YOU KNOW,

20:05 - YOU PROTECTION FROM COST IS

20:07 - PART OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

20:08 - FISK. BUT THERE'S NO SUCH

20:11 - POLICY IMPLICATED HERE AND

20:12 - PRIDGEN CERTAINLY DOESN'T STAND

20:16 - FOR A GENERAL RULE THAT

20:17 - SUBSTANTIAL COST OF LITIGATING

20:18 - TO FINAL JUDGMENT IS SUFFICIENT

20:22 - FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 3.13.

20:22 - AND FINALLY, I'D THIS POINT I

20:26 - WOULD NOTE.

20:27 - THE POLICY STAKES HERE WEIGH

20:29 - HEAVILY AGAINST ALLOWING AN

20:31 - IMMEDIATE APPEAL OF EVERY TRIAL

20:32 - COURT ORDER STAYING LITIGATION

20:34 - PENDING ARBITRATION.

20:35 - ARBITRATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE

20:37 - EFFICIENT. AND THAT'S WHY BOTH

20:38 - PENNSYLVANIA AND FEDERAL POLICY

20:41 - STRONGLY FAVOR ARBITRATION AND

20:42 - ALLOWING IMMEDIATE APPEALS.

20:44 - EVERY TIME THERE'S AN ORDER,

20:45 - COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND STAY

20:49 - IN LITIGATION WOULD BE CONTRARY

20:50 - REALLY TO THAT THAT POLICY AND

20:54 - THERE IS A POLICY CHOICE

20:54 - REFLECTED HERE. AS I SAID

20:55 - EARLIER IN THE IN THE UNIFORM

20:57 - ARBITRATION ACT.

21:02 - SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS APPEAL OF

21:03 - AN ORDER DENYING A PETITION TO

21:04 - COMPEL ARBITRATION BUT MAKES

21:06 - NO PROVISION FORT APPEALING

21:09 - ORDER SUCH AS THE ONE AT ISSUE

21:12 - HERE. SO I THINK ON THE

21:13 - JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, IT'S

21:13 - PLAIN THAT THE CHILI'S WILL

21:15 - SUFFER NO REPUTABLE IRREPARABLE

21:17 - LOSS IS DEFINED BY THIS COURT

21:18 - AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER

21:20 - THEY ENTERED INTO AN

21:21 - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WILL NOT

21:23 - BE RENDERED AND REVIEWABLE.

21:25 - AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TEST

21:25 - THAT WE BELIEVE. IT'S NOT THAT

21:29 - BAD HERE. AND THEREFORE.

21:30 - SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT

21:32 - THE SUPERIOR COURT, ERIN,

21:33 - FINDING THAT THERE WAS

21:33 - COLLATERAL OR JURISDICTION.

21:36 - >>ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM

21:39 - THE JUSTICES?

21:39 - THANK MARK. JUST ONE WILL HEAR

21:42 - FROM MR. MESSAGE. I WAS OH, I'M

21:45 - SORRY. ARE I WAS GOING TO

21:47 - ADDRESS THE PREEMPTION ARGUMENT

21:49 - AS WELL AS THAT SOUNDED LIKE

21:51 - A CONCLUSION TO A CONCLUSION ON

21:53 - THE FIRST ARGUMENT ON

21:54 - JURISDICTION. I THOUGHT YOU

21:55 - WERE SO CONFIDENT THAT YOU WERE

21:58 - GOING TO WATCH THE WE'RE MOVING

21:59 - ON.

22:01 - >>WELL, I I AM I AM CONFIDENT,

22:02 - BUT A -10. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD

22:03 - WITH THIS SHIP.

22:06 - >>SURE.

22:09 - BECAUSE THE COURT LACKED

22:10 - JURISDICTION THIS COURTNEY NOT

22:11 - REACH THE MERITS QUESTION, BUT

22:14 - IF IT DOES, THE COURT SHOULD

22:15 - REVERSE THE SUPERIOR COURT'S

22:18 - DECISION BECAUSE ITS NEWLY

22:19 - INVENTED RULE IMPOSING A

22:23 - STRICTER BURDEN OF PROOF.

22:24 - FIRST STAB WISHING IS SENT TO

22:26 - AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS

22:26 - PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL

22:29 - ARBITRATION ACT.

22:31 - SECTION 2 OF THE FAA. I'LL

22:34 - REFER TO THAT AS THE FAA

22:34 - PROVIDES THAT ARBITRATION

22:36 - AGREEMENTS MUST BE ENFORCED,

22:37 - QUOTE, SAVE UP ON SUCH GROUNDS

22:40 - AS EXIST. THAT LAW WE'RE IN

22:42 - EQUITY FOR THE REVOCATION OF

22:43 - ANY CONTRACT. AND THAT'S REALLY

22:47 - THE CRITICAL LANGUAGE OF ANY

22:48 - CONTRACT. AND WHAT THAT MEANS

22:49 - IS A COURT MAY NOT SINGLE OUT

22:51 - ARBITRATION PROVISIONS FOR

22:53 - SUSPECT STATUS AND DISFAVORED

22:55 - TREATMENT AND MUST PLACE THEM

22:57 - ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH ALL OTHER

23:00 - CONTRACTS.

23:03 - THE SUPERIOR COURT'S DECISION

23:06 - DOES JUST THE OPPOSITE.

23:08 - BY BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, THE

23:08 - SUPERIOR COURT CREATED THE

23:12 - STRICTER BURDEN OF PROOF TO

23:13 - APPLY THE ARBITRATION

23:13 - AGREEMENTS AND ONLY ARBITRATION

23:17 - AGREEMENTS. AND IT DID SHOW

23:19 - OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE RIGHT OF

23:21 - PROTECTING THE JURY TRIAL.

23:22 - RIGHT? BUT THE STRICTER BURDEN

23:25 - OF PROOF. THAT HAS BEEN

23:29 - ARTICULATED REQUIRES THAT THESE

23:30 - REGISTRATION WEB SITES AND

23:31 - APPLICATIONS SCREENS MUST

23:34 - EXPLICITLY

23:35 - EXPLICITLY NOTIFY A CONSUMER

23:36 - THAT THEY'RE WAIVING THE JURY

23:37 - TRIAL, RIGHT? IF THEY AGREE TO

23:40 - REVERSE TERMS. THE COURT ALSO

23:43 - OR IS NOW REQUIRING THAT THE

23:44 - REGISTRATION PROCESS CANNOT

23:47 - BE COMPLETED.

23:47 - UNTIL THE CONSUMER IS FULLY

23:48 - INFORMED OF THAT WAIVER

23:51 - COUNCIL. WHAT'S THE HARM?

23:52 - WHAT'S THE HAR THE HARM?

23:54 - AND THAT IS THAT IT VIOLATES

23:57 - THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION

23:58 - ACT BECAUSE IT SINGLES OUT

24:00 - ARBITRATION FOR SPECIAL NOTICE

24:02 - REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT

24:05 - APPLICABLE. 2 OTHER COP, OTHER

24:08 - BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF

24:08 - SECTION 2 OF THE FAA AND THE

24:10 - LONGSTANDING SUPREME COURT

24:13 - AUTHORITY INTERPRETING IT THAT

24:13 - THE THE HARM AND THAT IS THAT

24:16 - IT WOULD VIOLATE TO

24:18 - THE FANS. WATCH. HOW IS THAT

24:19 - POSSIBLE IF OTHER BUSINESSES

24:20 - CAN USE THESE HYPERLINKS AS

24:21 - WELL?

24:24 - >>THE ISSUE IS NOT ISOLATING

24:25 - IN ARBITRATION. THE ISSUE IS IF

24:28 - WE GET TO IT PROPER NOTICE THAT

24:29 - YOU'RE WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO A

24:32 - JURY TRIAL FOR A TRIAL. WELL,

24:39 - >>AND WHAT'S THE HARM IN

24:39 - REQUIRING THE SPECIAL NOTICE IS

24:40 - GOING TO GET IT GOING DOWN.

24:42 - 6 PAGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS

24:44 - AND SAY, YEP, CHECK IT ALL FOR.

24:45 - >>SOMEHOW ADDING WILL KIND OF A

24:48 - RESTRICTIONS. WHAT IS THE HARM

24:50 - BY SAYING? WELL, AT SOME POINT

24:55 - YOU HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE READING

24:56 - IN RECEIPT OF THAT NUMBER WILL

24:57 - JUSTICE DAUGHERTY? I DON'T KNOW

24:58 - THAT THERE'S HARM AND NOT IN IN

25:00 - DOING THAT.

25:02 - >>ARGUMENT IS THAT A

25:03 - REQUIREMENT THAT WE DO THAT

25:06 - VIOLATES?

25:09 - THE FAA. I MEAN, IF YOU SHARE

25:10 - WITH US IN PARTICULAR, WHAT

25:10 - PART OF THE FAA DOESN'T

25:13 - VIOLATE? WELL, IT VIOLATES

25:15 - SECTION 2, RIGHT, WHICH SAYS

25:17 - THAT THE ONLY GROUNDS UPON

25:19 - WHICH YOU CAN REFUSE TO ENFORCE

25:20 - AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR

25:21 - INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION

25:23 - AGREEMENT MUST BE BASIS.

25:26 - THAT'S UP LIKE A BULL TO ANY

25:28 - CONTRACT. ALL CONTRACTS CAN'T

25:31 - JUST BE A LIKABLE SPECIFICALLY

25:31 - TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS THAT

25:33 - HAVE TO BE IT RULE THAT APPLIES

25:36 - TO ALL CONTRACTS. PURCHASE AND

25:39 - SALE AGREEMENTS. LEASES YOU

25:44 - >>RIGHT. THE LAW TO BE ANY USE

25:47 - OF A HYPERLINK.

25:48 - THAT AFFECTS NOT JUST OUR

25:50 - ATTRACTION, ANY BUSINESS THAT

25:53 - WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN A

25:56 - CONTRACT THROUGH.

26:00 - >>WELL, I THINK I THINK THE

26:02 - THE USE OF HYPERLINKS IS

26:03 - OBVIOUSLY QUITE PREVALENT AND

26:03 - THERE'S NOTHING IN PERMISSIBLE

26:05 - ABOUT THEM AND ONE CAN USE

26:07 - THEM. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S

26:08 - WHAT WAS WAS DONE HERE. THEY

26:10 - WERE GIVEN RECENTLY CONSPICUOUS

26:12 - NOTICE OF THOSE HYPERLINKS.

26:13 - THE HYPERLINKS TAKE YOU TO THE

26:16 - TERMS. THE TERMS

26:17 - ARE ALL THEY'RE TO BE READ TO

26:21 - BE UNDERSTOOD TO DO WHATEVER

26:23 - YOU WANT WITH THEM. THE PEOPLE

26:23 - THAT'S THAT'S GENEROUS TO A I.

26:27 - >>I GUESS I'M TRYING. I'M

26:28 - TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS THIS

26:29 - ASSUMING WE GET TO THE MERITS.

26:35 - IN AN INFLECTION OF THE

26:36 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY

26:38 - TRIAL.

26:40 - >>WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS MORE OF

26:41 - A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

26:43 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

26:44 - >>THE GOVERNMENT NOT BE ABLE TO

26:44 - DEPRIVE YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO

26:46 - A JURY TRIAL.

26:48 - >>WHY ISN'T THIS? WHY? WHY IS

26:49 - THAT? THE FOCUS ON WAS JUST A

26:51 - MATTER OF A MEETING OF THE

26:52 - MINDS, CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.

26:55 - TO YOUR POINT, IF THE SUPERIOR

26:56 - COURT JUST APPLIED A BASIC

26:59 - MEETING OF THE MINDS.

27:01 - STANDARD 4 CORNERS OF THE

27:02 - DOCUMENT WAS THEIR MUTUAL IS

27:05 - SET TO ARBITRATION.

27:07 - ISN'T THAT THE PROPER PARADIGM

27:08 - THAT THERE SHOULD BE LOOKING

27:10 - THROUGH THIS AND THEN YOU CAN

27:11 - SAY OR MAKE AN ARGUMENT WITHOUT

27:13 - VIOLATING THE FEDERAL

27:15 - ARBITRATION ACT THAT THERE WAS

27:16 - NO THAT THAT GIVEN THE NATURE

27:20 - OF THIS HYPERLINK AND THE

27:21 - ABSENCE OF SOME SORT OF A

27:21 - PRIVATE INSURANCE THAT THERE

27:24 - WAS A READING OF IT, THAT THERE

27:24 - WAS NO MEETING OF THE MINDS.

27:25 - THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO

27:28 - CONTRACT.

27:28 - WHY ISN'T THAT THE BETTER

27:29 - PARADIGM THAT TALKING ABOUT

27:32 - SOME HYPER?

27:33 - RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL UNDER THE

27:34 - PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION WHEN

27:35 - THERE'S NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY

27:36 - OF ALTAR.

27:39 - >>WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE THE

27:41 - TEST AND THE TEST THAT WE URGE

27:42 - THIS A COURT TO ADOPT. IF YOU

27:45 - WERE TO GET TO THE MERITS IS IS

27:46 - A TEST THAT'S BASED ON

27:48 - OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF OF

27:49 - CONTRACT.

27:49 - >>SO THAT IS THE TEST ON

27:51 - SUGGEST YES IS WHICH IS IT?

27:53 - WHAT'S YOUR BEST ARGUMENT THAT

27:54 - THERE WAS AN ACTUAL MEETING

27:57 - OF THE MINDS IN THIS CASE TO

28:00 - ARBITRATE?

28:02 - >>THE MEETING OF THE MINDS IS

28:04 - AN INTERESTING TERM BECAUSE IT

28:05 - THE WAY IT'S BEEN USED IN THIS

28:06 - CASE, IT COULD SORT OF IMPLY

28:09 - THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME

28:10 - KNOWING VOLUNTARY CONSCIOUS

28:11 - UNDERSTANDING, BUT THAT'S NOT

28:12 - WHAT OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

28:15 - CONTRACT LAW REQUIRED UNDER

28:16 - UNDER THE OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES

28:18 - WHICH THIS COURT HAS ESPOUSED

28:21 - AND HELD IN IN

28:22 - NUMEROUS CASES. YOU LOOK TO

28:23 - THE PARTY'S PROTECTIVE

28:25 - MANIFESTATIONS OF A CENT SO

28:27 - THAT EVEN IF EVEN IF THERE'S A

28:28 - LACK OF ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF

28:29 - WHAT THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT

28:32 - CALLED FOR UNDER THE UNDER THE

28:33 - OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLES LOOKING

28:37 - AT THE THE OBJECTIVE INDICATORS

28:39 - AS MANY COURTS HAVE DONE AND WE

28:40 - CITED THOSE CASES. YOU LOOK

28:44 - TO WEATHER. THE PARTIES WERE ON

28:47 - NOTICE. THE TERMS WERE BEING

28:47 - OFFERED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED

28:50 - AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE

28:54 - TERMS AND THAT THEY OBJECTIVELY

28:55 - MANIFESTED THEIR ASCENT TO

28:57 - THOSE TERMS BY IN THIS CASE

28:59 - CLICKING A BUTTON THAT SAYS BY

29:01 - CLICKING THE BUTTON, YOU AGREE

29:02 - TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

29:05 - WERE BY CLICKING

29:06 - A NARROW. SO THE THE OBJECTIVE

29:08 - STANDARD WE THINK IS THE RIGHT

29:11 - IF THE RIGHT STANDARD THAT THE

29:11 - COURT SHOULD APPLY IF THE COURT

29:12 - WERE TO REACH THE MERITS OF

29:15 - THE QUESTION.

29:16 - >>I HAVE A FACTUAL QUESTION ON

29:18 - THAT PROMISE. DO YOU OR WAS ARE

29:21 - UNCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF

29:21 - WHATEVER DISCOVERY WAS DONE.

29:26 - THE CASE? ABLE TO TELL THE

29:29 - COURT OF THE NUMBER OF BURGER

29:30 - SUBSCRIBERS, HOW MANY ACTUALLY

29:32 - CLICK THE HYPERLINK?

29:33 - >>YOUR HONOR. THAT TO MY

29:35 - KNOWLEDGE IS NOT.

29:36 - >>IN IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE IN

29:40 - THIS CASE

29:41 - I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT IN A

29:41 - POSITION TO GIVE THE COURT AN

29:45 - ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

29:46 - BUT I SUSPECT THERE UP QUITE A

29:47 - NUMBER THAT THAT BUT DO NOT

29:50 - REVIEW THE TERMS. I THINK

29:53 - THAT'S, YOU KNOW.

29:56 - SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL

29:56 - RECOGNIZE. I MEAN, MAYBE PEOPLE

29:57 - DON'T DO IT.

29:58 - >>BUT UNDER YOUR ARGUMENT, IT

30:00 - DOESN'T MATTER. AND THE

30:02 - ARGUMENT IT DOESN'T MATTER

30:03 - BECAUSE

30:05 - >>THE TESTS SHOULD BE.

30:06 - WERE THEY AWARE THAT TERMS ARE

30:09 - BEING PRESENTED? WERE THOSE

30:12 - TEARS AVAILABLE TO THEM?

30:14 - DID THEY MANIFEST THE SET?

30:16 - IT'S IT'S IT'S REALLY

30:19 - COMPLETELY ALIGNED WITH THE

30:20 - LONGSTANDING CONTRACT WHILE THE

30:22 - COMMONWEALTH WHERE THE COURT

30:24 - HAS NEVER ASKED WHETHER A PARTY

30:28 - TO A CONTRACT READ IT.

30:30 - UNDERSTOOD IT. NOT NOTHING OF

30:31 - THE SORT. IN FACT, THE CASES

30:31 - GO THE OTHER WAY TO SAY IF YOU

30:35 - DON'T READ THE CONTRACT.

30:38 - THEN THEN THAT'S YOUR

30:39 - PREROGATIVE. BUT USE THAT'S

30:39 - STILL OVERSEES. THE ONLY

30:40 - DIFFERENCE, I THINK.

30:41 - >>THERE'S THAT THAT WAS NOT

30:44 - ABOUT.

30:50 - >>THAT WAS LOWER ON

31:11 - >>WHAT A DIFFERENCE CASES WAS

31:14 - THAT THAT WAS.

31:14 - >>IS THIS ONLINE? AND THAT WAS

31:18 - IN TRADITIONAL PERSON TO

31:20 - PERSON.

31:20 - >>THAT THAT'S CORRECT. YOUR

31:21 - HONOR, THAT THAT IS JUST A

31:22 - DISTINCTION. BUT I THINK THE

31:23 - PRINCIPLES REMAIN THE SAME.

31:25 - AND I THINK YOU BRING UP, YOU

31:27 - KNOW, TAYLOR BE EXTENDED CARE.

31:29 - >>IN THAT, THAT THAT

31:32 - >>DECISION

31:33 - VERY NICELY ARTICULATE. A LOT

31:33 - OF PREEMPTION UNDER UNDER FAA

31:38 - SECTION 2, WHICH WE THINK LEADS

31:39 - TO THE CONCLUSION I WAS I WAS

31:41 - DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY, WHICH IS

31:41 - WHAT THE SUPERIOR COURT DATE

31:46 - HERE. IS TO CREATE SPECIAL

31:46 - RULES. SPECIAL NOTICE RULES

31:48 - AND APPLY ONLY TO ARBITRATION.

31:53 - IF THERE ARE NO GENERAL

31:56 - CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.

31:58 - ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE

31:59 - SUIT PERIOD COURT DID. SO, FOR

32:01 - EXAMPLE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

32:03 - SAYS IF YOU HAVE TO TELL THE

32:04 - PERSON UP FRONT ON THE

32:06 - REGISTRATION WEBSITE THAT BY

32:07 - AGREEING TO THE TERMS YOU'RE

32:10 - WAIVING A JURY TRIAL. THERE IS

32:12 - NO GENERALLY APPLICABLE

32:14 - CONTRACT PRINCIPLE THAT

32:14 - REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF THE OF

32:15 - THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING

32:16 - INTO AN AGREEMENT. THAT'S NOT 8

32:18 - PRINCIPAL BROADLY APPLICABLE TO

32:20 - ALL CONTRACTS OR WHEN THE

32:24 - SUPERIOR COURT SAYS, WELL, THIS

32:25 - PROVISION HAS TO BE AT THE TOP

32:27 - OF THE PAGE AND PROVIDED IN

32:29 - ALL BOLD, ITALICIZED WORDS.

32:31 - THERE IS NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE

32:32 - THAT APPLY SUCH A REQUIREMENT

32:35 - TO ALL CONTRACTS. AND THAT'S

32:37 - THAT'S WHERE THIS RUNS AFOUL

32:38 - OF THE FAA IS ARBITRATION

32:41 - SPECIFIC. AND IT'S NOT

32:44 - CONSISTENT WITH.

32:45 - GENERALLY APPLICABLE CONTRACT

32:47 - RULES, WORK OR DEFENSES.

32:49 - SO FOR THAT REASON, I MEAN,

32:52 - IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASTLE

32:53 - RADO CASE, THAT'S A SUPREME

32:55 - COURT CASE FROM 1996, THEIR

32:58 - MONTANA HAD ADOPTED A LAW THAT

32:59 - SAID IN THE ARBITRATION

33:01 - SETTING, YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT

33:02 - AT THE TOP OF THE OF THE

33:05 - CONTRACT THAT THE CONTRACT

33:08 - SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION

33:09 - 8 TO ONE DECISION. JUSTICE

33:11 - CONVERT GINSBURG STRUCK THAT

33:16 - DOWN. YOU CANNOT REQUIRE

33:16 - SPECIAL NOTICE FOR AN AGREEMENT

33:18 - BECAUSE IT'S ARBITRATION

33:18 - AGREEMENT OR THAT IT WAIVES THE

33:20 - JURY TRIAL LIKE SIMILARLY IN

33:22 - THE KINDRED CASE, SAME ARGUMENT

33:25 - RIGHT THERE. THEY'RE THE

33:27 - KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT HAD

33:29 - ADOPTED WHAT IT CALLED A CLEAR

33:29 - STATEMENT RULE THAT BEFORE AN

33:32 - ATTORNEY, IN FACT.

33:35 - HE'S OR POOR KIDS ARE HER

33:37 - PRINCIPAL TO AN ARBITRATION

33:38 - AGREEMENT. THAT TO BE A CLEAR

33:39 - STATEMENT. THEY HAD AN

33:41 - EXPRESSION AUTHORIZED THAT

33:43 - ACTION AND THE COURT STRUCK

33:44 - THAT DOWN AGAIN IN THE 8 TO ONE

33:46 - DECISIONS ON THE BASIS THAT

33:48 - WHEN YOU ADOPT A RULE THAT AS

33:52 - JUSTICE KAGAN SAID HINGES.

33:54 - HENTGES. THE RULE IS HINGED ON

33:55 - THE VERY FACT THAT THE THAT

33:58 - THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.

34:02 - IN WAVES, A JURY TRIAL THAT

34:03 - VIOLATES THAT VIOLATES THE LAW.

34:04 - AND THE FAA SECTION 2 AND I

34:06 - KNOW THE SUPERIOR COURT WAS

34:10 - ACTING OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE

34:10 - JURY TRIAL LIKE THE

34:12 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR A

34:13 - JURY. BUT THE SUPREME COURT

34:15 - HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT THERE

34:19 - THAT YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY THESE

34:20 - RULES TO TRY TO PROTECT THE

34:22 - JURY TRIAL. RIGHT? I MEAN THAT

34:27 - IN THE KINDRED CASE THE SUPREME

34:28 - KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ACTED

34:30 - OUT OF ITS DESIRE TO PROTECT

34:31 - THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A

34:32 - JURY TRIAL IN THE IN THE

34:35 - KENTUCKY.

34:35 - CONSTITUTION. THE COURT SAID

34:39 - NO, WE ARE. YOU CAN'T HAVE

34:41 - SPECIAL RULES IN THE NAME OF

34:42 - PROTECTING THE JURY TRIAL.

34:46 - RIGHT? THAT VIOLATES THE FAA.

34:48 - SO WE WE THINK THAT UNDER FAA

34:51 - SECTION 2 AND ALL OF THE

34:52 - SUPREME COURT CASES THAT WE

34:55 - CITED THE TYPES OF RULES AND

34:56 - THE STRICTER BURDEN THAT WAS

34:58 - ADOPTED HERE RUNS AFOUL OF THE

35:03 - FAA MEAN. I'LL STOP THERE.

35:05 - JUST QUICKLY MOVING ON TO THAT.

35:11 - THE MERITS QUESTION ABOUT THESE

35:14 - CONTRACTS, IT IT IS CLEAR.

35:17 - FROM THE RECORD THAT WHEN THE

35:18 - 2 LOUISE REGISTER FOR AN

35:21 - CREATED

35:22 - TROOPER RECOUNTS. THE INTERFACE

35:23 - IS WHERE THE FLOWS AS WE AS

35:25 - WE CALL THEM IN THIS AREA.

35:25 - THE ONES THAT THEY ENCOUNTERED

35:27 - WOULD HAVE ALERTED A REASONABLY

35:31 - PRUDENT. INTERNET USER. THAT

35:34 - TERMS ARE BEING OFFERED.

35:35 - THE TERMS WERE AVAILABLE FOR

35:37 - REVIEW.

35:39 - VIA THE HYPERLINKS AND THAT BY

35:40 - CREATING THEIR COUNT, THEY WERE

35:43 - AGREEING TO

35:43 - THOSE TERMS. AND IF YOU IF YOU

35:46 - LOOK AT THAT, THE FLOWS THAT

35:47 - ARE IN THE RECORD, YOU CAN SEE

35:49 - THAT IN EACH OF THEM, ALL OF

35:50 - THEM. THEY ALL EXPLAINED THAT

35:53 - BY CLICKING ACCOUNT. LIKE

35:54 - LICKING CREATE A COUNTER

35:55 - TAPPING A NARROW YOU AGREE TO

35:58 - THE TERMS. SO IT EXPRESSLY AND

36:01 - EXPRESSLY EXPLAIN THE

36:02 - CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT OF

36:05 - CLICKING THE BUTTON AND THEN IN

36:07 - THE LINE WHERE IT SAYS BY

36:08 - CLICKING THE BUTTON IN CREATING

36:09 - AN ACCOUNT, YOU'RE AGREEING TO

36:11 - BE BOUND. THE HYPER LAKE IS

36:13 - IN THAT VERY SENTENCE ITSELF.

36:15 - SO IT'S NOT LIKE THESE THINGS

36:17 - ARE FOUND IN DISTRICT PARTS

36:20 - OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

36:22 - IT'S IT'S ALL BROUGHT TO ONE

36:25 - DISCREET EITHER SECTION OF THE

36:26 - REGISTRATION WEBSITE THAT

36:26 - MISSUS TO LOONEY WOULD HAVE

36:28 - SEEN OR ON THE UBER APP SCREEN

36:29 - THAT MISTER CHILL THAT HE SAW.

36:34 - THAT THE USER HAS TO GO TO THAT

36:37 - PARTICULAR LOCATION OF THE

36:39 - WEBSITE OR THE OR THE APP.

36:40 - YOU CAN'T AVOID IT BECAUSE TO

36:43 - CREATE THE CAP YOU MUST YOU

36:44 - MUST CLICK THOSE BUTTONS AND

36:45 - YOU CANNOT CREATE AN ACCOUNT

36:48 - UNLESS YOU CLICK THOSE BUTTONS.

36:50 - >>COUNSEL, YOU USE THE PHRASE A

36:51 - REASONABLE INTERNET USERS.

36:54 - WHAT IS THAT?

36:59 - WHO IS THAT? WELL, THAT'S I

37:00 - GUESS. THAT'S ALL OF US.

37:03 - YOUR

37:05 - >>I TRY MASK. WELL, I'M GLAD

37:07 - YOU COULD MAKE YOU SOON THAT

37:08 - EVERYONE IS A REASONABLE

37:09 - INTERNET USERS. I I THINK I

37:10 - THINK WHAT WHAT? AND THAT'S A

37:12 - TERM THAT'S EMPLOYED BY THE

37:16 - COURTS THAT HAVE

37:16 - >>ADOPTED THE STANDARD WE URGE

37:19 - WHICH IS CONSPICUOUS NOTICE

37:22 - AND OBJECTIVE MANIFESTATION OF

37:22 - INVESTED DEFINED IN WITH THE

37:23 - REASONABLE AND GAVE IT UP OR IS

37:25 - IT THE NAME THE TERM?

37:26 - >>THEY'VE THEY'VE THEY'VE NOT

37:27 - SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IT, BUT

37:29 - THEY HAVE THEY HAVE. I THINK

37:29 - WHAT WHAT WHAT IT'S INDICATING

37:33 - IS THAT

37:36 - SOMEONE USING THE WEB WEBSITE

37:39 - OR SOMEONE USING THE

37:43 - >>THE APP SCREEN WHICH SEE THAT

37:44 - THERE'S NO TERMS BEING OFFERED,

37:47 - ET CETERA. AND I THINK WHAT

37:47 - THAT IS DESIGNED TO TAKE

37:51 - ACCOUNT OF IS YOU CAN'T HAVE

37:53 - A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR THIS

37:54 - TYPE OF THING BECAUSE YOU'LL

37:57 - HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS

37:58 - SOPHISTICATED, YOUR PEOPLE WHO

38:02 - ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED AND

38:04 - >>YOU CAN THIS IS THIS IS SORT

38:06 - OF A DANGEROUS PLACE TO GO.

38:07 - WHEN YOU LOOK OUT FOR THE IDEA

38:22 - >>NOT LIKE IT MIGHT OFFER AISD.

38:27 - STRAY SHUN. WELL, SITUATION

38:29 - WHERE I MEAN, I'M I'M I THINK

38:30 - IT HAPPENS MORE FREQUENTLY THAN

38:31 - YOU'RE WILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

38:33 - AND FOR THAT.

38:34 - >>YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES CHILDREN

38:37 - HELP THEIR PARENTS FILL OUT

38:40 - ONLINE ACCOUNTS OF THE RIVER

38:41 - APPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

38:41 - AND THAT INSTANCE, THAT'S NOT

38:44 - THE FACTS HERE. BUT WE DO.

38:45 - BUT

38:46 - >>YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT PLAY

38:48 - INTO REASONABLE INTERNET USER?

38:50 - WE JUST ASSUMING THE ASSUMING

38:51 - THAT EVERYONE SETS UP THEIR

38:52 - OPPONENT ON THE SETTING UP

38:53 - THEIR OWN ACCOUNT.

38:53 - >>WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK

38:56 - YOU'RE RIGHT. THESE THIS CASE

38:57 - DOESN'T PRESENT THOSE FACTS.

39:02 - BUT IN A IN A SETTING LIKE

39:03 - THAT, I MEAN, THERE THERE THERE

39:04 - ARE CASES BELIEVE IT OR NOT,

39:08 - THAT THE TALK ABOUT SORT.

39:09 - AGENCY PRINCIPLES AND THE LIKE

39:12 - IN TERMS OF WHEN WHEN PEOPLE

39:13 - SET UP ACCOUNTS FOR OTHER

39:14 - PEOPLE AND AND THE COURTS HAVE

39:15 - FOUND THAT THERE'S AN AGENCY

39:17 - PRINCIPAL, THEIR THEORY THERE

39:20 - THAT UNDER THE LAW CAN BE

39:22 - RELIED UPON TO TO FIND THE

39:25 - PARTY

39:28 - >>THE COUNCIL'S THE NOTION OF A

39:29 - REASONABLE INTERNET YOU SHARE

39:30 - GOES TO THE MEETING OF THE

39:32 - MINDS PRINCIPLE.

39:34 - THAT YOU'RE RELYING LINE, WHICH

39:36 - IS WHY I AM REALLY PROBING THE

39:38 - QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW.

39:39 - I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS.

39:42 - I MEAN, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO

39:43 - MAY JUST NEED AN UBER ACCOUNT

39:44 - BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET TO THEIR

39:48 - MEDICAL, YOU KNOW, PROVIDERS

39:50 - ANY OTHER WAY. AND SO THEY DO

39:53 - WHAT THEY CAN TO SET UP AN

39:55 - ACCOUNT AND QUICKLY AGREE.

39:56 - AND THEN THEY MOVE ON NOT

39:56 - REALIZING THAT WHAT THEY'RE

39:59 - ACTUALLY DOING IS ENTERING

40:00 - INTO A.

40:02 - >>I READ THE DETAILED CONTRACT

40:03 - FOR SERVICES. I MEAN, IT

40:04 - REASONABLE INTERNET USERS TO

40:06 - THAT.

40:06 - >>WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK.

40:10 - >>YOU NEED YOU NEED TO HAVE US

40:13 - US A STANDARD. WRITING AND

40:16 - REASONABLY.

40:18 - PRUDENT USER IS ONE WHO LOOKS

40:21 - AT THE

40:23 - LOOKS AT THE CLICKABLE SCREENS

40:23 - AND IS BEING AND TAKES NOTE OF

40:26 - BEING PROVIDED AND AUTHOR OF

40:30 - TERMS IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN

40:32 - OBJECTIVE STANDARD LIKE THAT,

40:32 - IT WOULD BASICALLY UNDO ALL OF

40:33 - THIS COMMERCE THAT YOU'RE

40:34 - TALKING ABOUT A FEB. IF EVERY

40:35 - CONSUMER COULD COME IN AND SAY,

40:41 - WELL, YOU KNOW, I AM I'M NOT A

40:42 - REASONABLY PRUDENT INTERNET

40:43 - USER. I'M I'M ILLITERATE AND

40:44 - THOSE MATTERS. SO I'M NOT BOUND

40:48 - BY MY CONTRACT. MEAN.

40:50 - THAT'S NEVER PREVENTED THE

40:52 - ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS

40:55 - OUTSIDE OF THE ONLINE CONTEXT.

40:58 - THAT'S NEVER BEEN A VALIDLY

41:00 - EXCEPTED DEFENSE OR EXCUSE TO

41:01 - RELIEVE SOMEONE OF CONTRACTUAL

41:03 - OBLIGATION. SO I THINK IT'S

41:05 - IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE IT AND

41:07 - OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT THE

41:10 - COURTS

41:11 - EMPLOYEE IT IN THE FASHION THAT

41:13 - WE'VE ARGUED, WHICH IS TO

41:15 - UNDERSTAND WHETHER RECENTLY

41:17 - PRUDENT PERSON WOULD WITH AND

41:23 - YEAH, WELL, WE'RE BACK TO A

41:24 - REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON.

41:25 - I MEAN, THE RECENT THE RECENT I

41:26 - I I PRESS A POINT HONESTLY IS

41:29 - BECAUSE SAW.

41:30 - >>I AGREE WITH THE BASIC

41:31 - CONCEPT THAT IF SOMEONE IS

41:33 - GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW

41:37 - A CLIENT, A CONTRACT, WE'VE WE

41:38 - PRESUME THAT THEY HAVE. IT

41:38 - DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF THEY

41:42 - ACTUALLY HAVE. BUT I'M JUST

41:45 - WONDERING ABOUT THE SALIENT SEE

41:45 - OF THAT OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE'RE

41:48 - TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE

41:50 - HYPERLINKS WITHIN A RATHER

41:50 - LENGTHY INTERNET DOCUMENT.

41:53 - IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

41:56 - >>THE PROCESSES ARE JUST

41:59 - DESIGNED TO BE.

42:02 - A LESS CUMBERSOME, MORE

42:02 - EFFICIENT, ALLOWED TO ALLOW THE

42:06 - CONSUMER TO

42:09 - >>EASILY MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS

42:10 - TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT WITH

42:11 - UBER

42:15 - >>AND SO WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

42:16 - OVERDOES IN THIS PARTICULAR

42:19 - INSTANCE IS IT MAKES THOSE

42:20 - TERMS AVAILABLE VIA THE

42:23 - HYPERBOLE, WHICH MEANS THAT

42:25 - YOU CAN ACCEPT ACCESS THOSE

42:26 - TERMS. YOU CAN READ THE

42:28 - CONTRACT. YOU CAN DECIDE NOT TO

42:31 - READ THE CONTRACT, BUT THE LAW

42:32 - DOESN'T WE LEAVE YOU IF YOU

42:34 - PROVIDED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY

42:35 - TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT AND THEN

42:36 - YOU NEED WHEN YOU NEED TO READ

42:38 - IT.

42:41 - UNLESS THE COURT HAS ANY

42:44 - FURTHER QUESTIONS. ALL. INCLUDE

42:47 - THE ARGUMENT. WE THINK THAT

42:48 - THIS COURT SHOULD NOT REACH ANY

42:51 - OF THE MERITS QUESTIONS.

42:52 - WE THINK 3.13, IS PLAINLY NOT

42:54 - SATISFIED. AND EVEN IF IT WERE.

42:58 - THE FAA HAS BEEN VIOLATED HERE

43:02 - BY VIRTUE OF THE NEW STRICTER

43:03 - BURDEN OF PROOF. A NEW RULES

43:05 - THAT THE COURT IS FASHION.

43:08 - WHEN YOU PUT THAT ASIDE, WHEN

43:09 - YOU REJECT THAT RULE AND APPLY

43:09 - JUST ORDINARY CONTRACT

43:12 - PRINCIPLES. REASONABLE NOTICE

43:14 - THE TERMS AND OBJECTIVE

43:16 - MANIFESTATION OF A CENT UNDER

43:18 - THIS COMMONWEALTH LAW. A

43:19 - CONTRACT IS FORMED, WHETHER

43:24 - YOU? I DIDN'T READ IT. THAT'S

43:27 - THAT'S BEEN THE LAW IN THE

43:27 - COMMONWEALTH FOR. WE PROBABLY

43:30 - HAVE AN INHERENT.

43:31 - >>THE PROBLEM AND NOT SOCIETY,

43:35 - IF NOT IN THE LAW THAT PEOPLE

43:37 - ARE TRYING TO ENGAGE IN

43:37 - COMPLICATED TRANSACTIONS

43:40 - GENERALLY WELL ON THEIR IPHONE

43:42 - AND TO THE READING OF A

43:43 - CONTRACTOR, THOSE TERMS IN THAT

43:47 - SETTING IS SOFT, MUCH DIFFERENT

43:49 - THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY

43:50 - CONCEIVED OF. WHEN WE TALKED

43:52 - ABOUT THE CONTRACT

43:53 - INTERPRETATION. BUT APPRECIATE

43:53 - YOUR ARGUMENT VERY MUCH.

43:54 - LET'S HEAR FROM MR. MESS WITH.

44:10 - >>GOOD MORNING. MADAM CHIEF

44:13 - JUSTICES, MAY IT PLEASE, THE

44:15 - COURT? I'M JOE AND WITH MY

44:16 - CO-COUNSEL IN COLLEAGUES HERE,

44:17 - TOM SWEENEY AND MEGAN KWOK.

44:20 - REPRESENT THE APPLE LEE'S

44:23 - SHANNON, KEITH, TRUDY.

44:24 - I'M GOING TO START WITH THE

44:25 - MERITS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT

44:28 - COMPLICATED.

44:30 - PENNSYLVANIA CONTRACT. LOT

44:30 - ISSUE HERE HAS EXISTED FOR

44:32 - CENTURIES BEFORE THE FORMATION

44:35 - OF THE UNION AND BOND PANEL

44:37 - APPLIED WELL SETTLED,

44:38 - PENNSYLVANIA CONTRACT FORMATION

44:41 - AND WAIVER LAW.

44:45 - REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS NOTICE

44:48 - IT DOESN'T EXIST HERE IN A

44:50 - HIDDEN HYPERLINK WHICH IS

44:52 - SMALLER INFANT AND LIGHTER IN

44:54 - COLOR. THEN THE REST OF THE

44:57 - TEXT WHEN HE ASKED MY SON.

44:59 - >>BECAUSE I WAS INTRIGUED BY

44:59 - THIS PROOF. COURTS CRAFTING

45:02 - A PAY.

45:06 - >>FOR BOTH FACING OR FOG OR

45:06 - WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WHERE DOES

45:08 - THAT COME FROM? WHAT'S THAT?

45:11 - WHAT'S THE PRINCIPAL?

45:14 - THAT YOU WOULD HAVE US

45:17 - ARTICULATE FOR

45:21 - >>HOW PROMINENT IS IT? A 16

45:21 - POINT FOLLOWING A 2 POINT FARM.

45:24 - IS THAT GOLD? IS IT, ALEX?

45:24 - IT?

45:25 - >>IS IT ON THE FIRST PAGE?

45:25 - IS THAT ON EVERY PAGE? WHAT'S

45:29 - THE LEGAL?

45:29 - >>PRINCIPAL THAT EMPOWERS A

45:33 - COMMON LAW COURT.

45:36 - >>TO

45:39 - CRAFT THESE, THESE ARE SPECIFIC

45:42 - GUIDELINES FOR THE OUT HOW A

45:43 - PROMINENT A CONTRACTOR MUST

45:44 - SPEAK.

45:46 - >>WELL,

45:47 - THE REQUIREMENTS, NOT THAT

45:48 - SPECIFIC JUSTICE. AND I THINK

45:48 - WE HAVE TO LOOK AT PENNSYLVANIA

45:51 - CONTRACT WHILE THAT'S

45:53 - A BOLD OVER THE YEARS WITH

45:55 - RESPECT TO TO NOT SPECIFICALLY

45:56 - SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE A

45:56 - PARTICULAR FOUGHT, BUT IT CAN'T

45:59 - BE HIDDEN YEAR. IT'S NOT JUST

46:00 - REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS NOTICE.

46:05 - BUT HERE WE ALSO HAVE NO

46:06 - EVIDENCE OF AN AMBIGUOUS MUTUAL

46:11 - ASCENT AND THE ARGUMENT ABOUT

46:11 - THIS.

46:12 - >>STRICTER OR HIGHER BURDEN.

46:15 - DOESN'T RELATE SPECIFICALLY

46:17 - TO ARBITRATION CLAUSES IS NOT

46:18 - DISCRIMINATORY AT ALL.

46:22 - >>IT RELATES TO A STANDARD

46:23 - REQUIRED, WHICH IS A HIGHER

46:27 - BURDEN IN THE LAW. ALREADY WHEN

46:28 - WAVING A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY

46:29 - ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 6 OF OUR

46:32 - CONSTITUTION.

46:35 - OF COURSE.

46:38 - >>WHAT'S THE

46:39 - >>HOW DO YOU AVOID A SLIPPERY

46:42 - SLOPE? WRONG?

46:44 - >>IF WE WORK WITH OUR T THE

46:47 - SUPERIOR COURTS.

46:48 - LINE OF REASONING ON THIS

46:51 - POINT.

46:54 - >>AND ROLL OUT A A.

46:55 - >>A RULE THAT YOU SAY IS NOT A

46:57 - STRICT RULE, SORT OF KIND OF

46:58 - SORT OF LOOKS LIKE A STRICT

46:59 - COVID. WERE WE TO ROLL THAT

47:01 - OUT?

47:02 - WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS

47:05 - ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA?

47:09 - >>FOR CONTRACTING GENERAL.

47:13 - GIVEN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO.

47:14 - GET IN THE MARKET AND BUY ALL

47:15 - KINDS OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

47:21 - WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE POINT

47:25 - OF DISTINCTION?

47:25 - THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO PREVAIL

47:29 - ON THIS POINT? BUT

47:30 - NOT DISRUPT ALL MANNER OF

47:30 - CONTRACTS. ARBITRATION AND

47:34 - OTHER WAS. AROUND. IT ARE CALM.

47:36 - I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

47:38 - HERE. JUSTICE IS SPECIFIC TO

47:39 - ONLINE.

47:40 - >>CONTRACTS AND THE WAY

47:41 - BUSINESS IS BEING DONE IN THIS

47:42 - NEW DIGITAL AGE AND FRANKLY.

47:46 - IF WE LOOK AT OTHER STATES,

47:47 - FOR EXAMPLE, NEW JERSEY, WITH

47:48 - THE AT LEAST CASE THAT HAS A

47:54 - REQUIRED SPECIFIC NOTICE AND

47:55 - INFORMATION HASN'T AFFECTED

47:57 - COMMERCE AT ALL. THESE FOLKS

48:00 - KNOW WHAT TO DO. THEY KNOW HOW

48:01 - TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION

48:02 - OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD THEY HIDE

48:07 - IT IN A HYPERLINK THAT'S

48:07 - SMALLER SIZE SPOT. A LIGHTER

48:10 - PRINT. TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT IN

48:13 - THIS CASE THAT IS ON THE 10TH

48:15 - PAGE OF SOMETHING A HYPERLINK.

48:18 - WHEN YOU'RE WAVING A

48:20 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. WHAT'S

48:22 - THE REASON FOR THAT OTHER THAN

48:25 - TO GET PEOPLE TO AGREE TO WAIVE

48:29 - THAT RIGHT WITHOUT ACTUALLY

48:30 - BEING AWARE OF IT AND CONSIDER

48:32 - IT. PART OF IT IS THAT.

48:35 - >>IT'S EITHER THAT OR THEY CAN

48:37 - OPEN UP A STORE FRONT.

48:38 - EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE TO SCHLEP

48:39 - INTO THE STOREFRONT AND SIGN A

48:39 - CONTRACT IN THE PRESENCE OF

48:40 - A LAWYER.

48:43 - >>WELL, COURTS HAVE.

48:46 - THESE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS WHERE

48:48 - IT SAYS WHEN YOU SIGN UP, FOR

48:50 - EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON

48:51 - SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU ARE

48:54 - GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY

48:57 - TRIAL BY AGREEING TO THIS.

48:57 - YOU ARE WAVING A CONSTITUTIONAL

48:59 - RIGHT OR THE TERMS OF THAT ARE

49:01 - CONTAINED IN THE HYPERLINK

49:04 - RIGHT BY THE HYPERLINK THAT HAS

49:05 - A CLEAR APPEARANCE OF A

49:08 - HYPERLINK IN BLUE. BOLD PRINT

49:10 - WITH A BLUE LINE UNDERNEATH IT

49:14 - THAT THOSE TERMS INCLUDE AN

49:15 - ARBITRATION PROVISION OR WAIVER

49:17 - OF YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL

49:18 - THAT GET YOU THERE. IT SIMPLE

49:19 - FOR THEM TO DO. THEY HAVE

49:21 - PEOPLE THAT ARE WAY SMARTER

49:23 - THAN ME. THAT CAN DO THAT BY

49:23 - OPPAGA IS HOW DO WE GET AROUND

49:25 - A KINDRED NURSES?

49:25 - >>U.S. SUPREME COURT'S

49:28 - DECISION.

49:31 - SIMPLY JUSTICE KINDRED NURSING

49:32 - WAS STRUCK DOWN BECAUSE IT WAS.

49:37 - >>A NEW RULE THAT WAS

49:39 - ARTICULATED BY THE SUPREME

49:39 - COURT OF KENTUCKY THAT IT NEVER

49:42 - BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE AS

49:43 - OPPOSED TO CENTURIES-OLD

49:48 - CONTRACT LAW AND THAT RULE

49:48 - RELATED ONLY TO ARBITRATION

49:52 - AS OPPOSED TO WAVING A

49:54 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN AN

49:55 - ONLINE AGREEMENT WHERE THAT

49:58 - INFORMATION IS NOT REASONABLY

49:59 - CONSPICUOUS TO PROVIDE THAT

50:00 - REASON. THESE CONSPICUOUS KNOW

50:02 - TO SCORE EVIDENCE AN AMBIGUOUS

50:04 - EVIDENCE OF MUTUAL SENT IN AS

50:07 - THIS COURT HAS SAID.

50:13 - OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

50:14 - REQUIRES A KNOWING AND

50:14 - INTELLIGENT WAIVER IN

50:15 - COMMONWEALTH PURSES. BARNETT.

50:17 - THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT.

50:20 - >>THAT'S HOW A PERSON IS.

50:21 - WE'RE NOT THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S

50:23 - CASE. THIS IS PRIVATE CONTRACT

50:23 - BETWEEN 2 PARTIES. THE UBER DID

50:24 - YOUR CLIENT RIGHT TO A JURY

50:27 - TRIAL.

50:30 - >>BUT THE CONSTITUTION

50:31 - GUARANTEES A CLIENT OR BREAK TO

50:34 - A JURY TRIAL AND THIS COURT

50:35 - IMPROPER. THE GOVERNMENT HAS

50:38 - NOT DEPRIVED YOUR CLIENT A

50:39 - RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL. THE GOT

50:41 - THE 2 PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE

50:42 - CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO

50:45 - PROVIDE A SERVICE AND YOUR

50:46 - CLIENT TOOK A BIT NOT JUST

50:46 - SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, BUT

50:47 - ACTUALLY THEN USE THE SERVICE.

50:52 - AND NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY HAS

50:54 - THE BRIDE TO PRIVATE YOUR

50:54 - CLIENT OF A JURY TRIAL. IT'S

50:56 - IT'S IF THIS IS A BETTER

50:58 - CONTRACT THAT RATE APPLIES

51:02 - JUSTICE. NOT JUST IN THE

51:04 - GOVERNMENTAL SETTING, BUT THIS

51:04 - COURT SAID IN A ROCK SHOW

51:07 - VERSUS

51:08 - FRANKFORT HOSPITAL, THE

51:09 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY

51:11 - TRIAL APPLIES EQUALLY IN THE

51:13 - CIVIL SETTING. AND YES, THAT

51:14 - MY CLIENT USED THE SERVICE.

51:16 - THEY DID. BUT WITHOUT THE

51:17 - INFORMATION, WHAT DOES YOUR

51:18 - QUIET THINK? THE TERMS AND

51:21 - CONDITIONS WERE? MY CLIENTS

51:22 - NEVER CLICK ON THE TERMS AND

51:23 - CONDITIONS ARE EVEN UNDERSTOOD

51:26 - THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE IN

51:27 - SMALLER FONT ON A COMPLICATED

51:30 - SCREEN, NOT ON THE FIRST PAGE,

51:31 - BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE TYPICAL

51:33 - APPEARANCE OF A HYPERLINK TERMS

51:34 - AND CONDITIONS COULD BE

51:37 - ANYTHING. WE'RE QUIET TOO.

51:38 - >>TAYLOR WAS THE SEXES. FIRE

51:41 - CALL CORRECTLY, ESSENTIALLY THE

51:44 - SAME THING JUST WASN'T ONLINE

51:45 - IT WITH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE

51:47 - THESE LONG CONTRACTS AND WE

51:49 - ALL SIGNED THEM, RIGHT? I MEAN,

51:52 - WE WE ALL CLICKED OR WE OR ARE

51:53 - WE SEEING IN PERSON AND JUST

51:55 - FLY THROUGH TO THE END?

51:56 - >>I MEAN, THE CONSEQUENCES ARE

51:57 - ON US. IF WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE

51:59 - THE TIME TO READ I JUST DON'T

52:02 - SEE THAT THE THE POINT AT WHICH

52:06 - THIS IN FINANCIAL ICING OF

52:08 - CONTRACT PARTIES IS GOING TO

52:09 - END. WELL, IF YOU PREVAIL ON

52:11 - THE MERITS, I DON'T KNOW HOW

52:15 - WE AVOID HEARING ALL KINDS OF

52:18 - LITIGATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY

52:19 - SAYS, OK, SIGN THE CONTRACT,

52:22 - BUT IT WASN'T BIG, BIG ENOUGH

52:24 - ON OR WASN'T OLD ENOUGH OR I

52:25 - YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WAS BLUE

52:25 - INK. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

52:28 - READING. WHERE DOES THAT?

52:29 - >>WELL, JUSTICE FIRST, I WOULD

52:30 - SAY THE WAY WE AVOID THAT OF

52:31 - THE WAY THE COURT AVOIDS THAT

52:35 - IS BY MAKING A CLEAR ROLL THAT

52:36 - PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW AND INDUSTRY

52:37 - WILL CERTAINLY FOLLOW IT.

52:38 - IF THIS COURT MAKES THE RULE.

52:41 - SECONDLY, JUSTICE WITH RESPECT

52:44 - TO

52:46 - IN-PERSON PAPER CONTRACT WHERE

52:47 - YOU SIT ACROSS THE TABLE FROM

52:47 - SOMEONE WHO PRESENT YOU WITH A

52:51 - 20 PAGE CONTRACT, YOU HAVE THE

52:52 - TERMS. THEY'RE THEY'RE RIGHT IN

52:53 - FRONT OF YOU THERE IN REGULAR

52:55 - SIZE PRINT. YOU CAN READ THEM.

52:55 - YOU DON'T HAVE TO HUNT FOR THEM

52:59 - OR FIND THEM IN A HYPERLINK

53:01 - HERE. THE DUTY TO RE DOESN'T,

53:03 - YOU KNOW, MORPH INTO HAVING TO

53:07 - GO ON A SCAVENGER HUNT AND

53:08 - SEARCH FOR TERMS THAT ARE NOT

53:12 - READILY AVAILABLE.

53:13 - >>PERSONAL CONTRACT CASES.

53:15 - WE WERE SEEING THEM COME UP IN

53:17 - TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE YOU

53:18 - KNOW.

53:19 - >>DIFFERENT ARE DIFFERENT

53:19 - ARGUMENTS BEING MADE ABOUT THE

53:20 - ENFORCEABILITY OF ARBITRATION

53:21 - AGREEMENTS WITH SOMEBODY

53:24 - ACTUALLY SIGNS IT IN WAS TOO

53:24 - COMPLICATED WAS TOO BROAD.

53:26 - THERE'S A RIGHT TO A JURY

53:27 - TRIAL. I MEAN, WHAT IF WHAT IF

53:28 - WHAT, IF THERE WAS A DAMAGES

53:31 - CAP?

53:32 - WHAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING IN

53:32 - THE CONTRACT? THE CAPTURE

53:34 - CLIENTS DAMAGES OF $75,000?

53:36 - I MEAN, WOULD YOU ARGUE THAT

53:37 - THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT

53:39 - TO ACCESS TO THE COURTS UNDER

53:40 - THE CONSTITUTION, THE REMEDIES

53:41 - CAUSE AND AND THEREFORE, THAT'S

53:42 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT HAS TO

53:45 - BE BOLDED PUT IN THE FRONT OF

53:48 - THE CONTRACT UNDER A LIST OF

53:48 - BANNER THINGS WHERE YOU'RE BUY

53:49 - IT, WHERE YOU'RE WAVING A RIGHT

53:51 - UNDER

53:51 - THE CONSTITUTION.

53:53 - >>WELL, A CAP ON DAMAGES WOULD

53:56 - BE VIOLATIVE OF THE

53:57 - CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, JUSTICE

53:58 - THAT INFORMATION JUST LIKE IN

54:00 - CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT CAUSES

54:03 - HAS TO BE PRESENTED IN A WAY

54:05 - THAT SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS THEIR

54:05 - WEIGHT AND WHAT THEY'RE WAVING

54:06 - THERE, WAVING A CONSTITUTIONAL

54:08 - RIGHT. THIS COMMONWEALTH HAS

54:08 - ALLOWED CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT

54:11 - CAUSES FOR.

54:12 - DECADES, AT LEAST. AND THERE

54:14 - ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THERE.

54:15 - WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

54:17 - TO CERTAINLY DIFFERENT WHEN

54:19 - YOU'RE IN A CONFERENCE ROOM

54:20 - WITH SOMEONE OR REAL ESTATE

54:21 - OFFICE OR WHATEVER IT IS AND

54:24 - YOU HAVE TO TIME TO READ THE

54:26 - CONTRACT. IT'S THERE IN FRONT

54:28 - OF YOU AND THEN YOU GET A KIOSK

54:31 - AT A AT A NEWS REPORT.

54:33 - >>YOU'VE GOT TO TERMS AND

54:34 - CONDITIONS ABOUT YOUR ACCESS TO

54:36 - THE AMUSEMENT PARK WITH DAPI

54:37 - DIFFERENT FROM THIS ONLINE

54:39 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS SITUATION.

54:41 - >>SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE REFERRING

54:41 - TO THE SANTIAGO CASE JUSTICE,

54:45 - BUT FOR IT IN IN IN THAT

54:47 - CIRCUMSTANCE.

54:48 - >>I IT'S.

54:48 - >>GOES BACK TO PENNSYLVANIA.

54:51 - LAW CONTRACT FORMATION IS.

54:51 - >>THE REASON THE CONSPICUOUS

54:54 - NOTICE IS THERE.

54:55 - AND AMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE OF

54:56 - MUTUAL CENT. AND IF YOU'RE

54:59 - WAIVING HER RIGHT TO A JURY

55:00 - TRIAL, THAT HIGHER BURDEN TO

55:01 - SHOW KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT

55:05 - WAIVER AND JUSTICE WORK.

55:07 - I DON'T THINK THIS RUNS AFOUL

55:09 - OF TAYLOR AT ALL. TAYLOR

55:10 - REFERENCES CONCEPCION AND

55:13 - TAYLOR IN CONCEPCION, BOTH

55:14 - SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE.

55:15 - >>THAT THE THE FAA EXCEPTION,

55:16 - THE SAVINGS CAUSE.

55:19 - >>THOSE.

55:22 - THINGS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO

55:23 - STATE LAW CONTRACT FORMATION.

55:26 - THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

55:26 - AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

55:27 - COURT RECENTLY IN MORGAN VERSUS

55:29 - SUNDANCE HAS SAID ARBITRATION

55:30 - IS ENTITLED TO NO GREATER

55:33 - TREATMENT.

55:34 - AND OTHER CONTRACTS. IN A

55:36 - UNANIMOUS 9, 0, DECISION.

55:37 - THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

55:39 - HERE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR

55:41 - GREATER TREATMENT. OR FOR REP.

55:46 - TO TO SUPPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE,

55:49 - ARBITRATION WERE LOOKING FOR

55:50 - EQUAL TREATMENT. WHAT UBER

55:53 - WANTS IS TO GIVE.

55:53 - ARBITRATION THIS SUPER CONTRACT

55:56 - STATUS.

56:00 - BE ABLE TO.

56:03 - BY PEOPLE TO THESE ARBITRATION

56:04 - CLAUSES AND WAVING THEIR

56:05 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WITHOUT

56:07 - EVER HAVING MADE A KNOWING

56:10 - INTELLIGENT WAIVER. TO

56:13 - CONTINUE.

56:18 - BOND PORT COURT'S OPINION

56:19 - INDICATES THAT THE WEBSITE

56:20 - DIDN'T PROVIDE REASONABLY

56:21 - CONSPICUOUS NOTICE AND THERE'S

56:23 - NO ACTION BY THE 2 LADIES THAT

56:26 - MANIFESTS MUTUAL ASCENT.

56:29 - >>IT'S A SERVICE.

56:32 - >>AND I THINK THE RECORD

56:32 - INDICATED THAT.

56:35 - >>MR. MS JUNIE.

56:36 - >>RIYADH'S THEY THEY RE

56:37 - CLICKED. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN,

56:39 - THEY RENEW ONE OR MORE

56:42 - OCCASIONS. THEIR AGREEMENT

56:44 - >>IT IS THE

56:47 - >>CONTINUED USE

56:48 - BY IT. SENTIENT DULL TO THERE'S

56:49 - NO EVIDENCE OF INTELLECTUAL

56:51 - INCOMPETENCE HERE.

56:55 - NOT SIGNAL THEIR ASCENT TO THE

56:57 - TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH

56:58 - THE PROVIDER MEAN THEY'RE NOT

56:59 - FORCED TO USE THEM OR THEY

57:00 - COULD HAVE WALKED. YOU COULD

57:01 - USE A LIFT. THE CUBA YELLOW

57:03 - CAP, BUT BY CONTINUING TO USE

57:05 - THE SERVICE AND CLICKING HENRY

57:06 - CLICKING, IS THAT NOT IN THE

57:08 - SENT TO THE TERMS THAT UBER IS

57:11 - PROPOSING TO THEM?

57:13 - >>NO JUDGE FOR THIS REASON

57:13 - BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION WAS

57:14 - NEVER PRESENTED TO THEM.

57:15 - IT'S THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE

57:17 - WHERE YOU HAVE TERMS HIDDEN

57:19 - IN A HYPERLINK THAT THEY NEVER

57:22 - KNEW WERE AWARE OF BEFORE YOU

57:24 - HAVE TO PROVIDE THE

57:24 - INFORMATION. THERE'S NO

57:25 - REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS NOTICE.

57:26 - AND THAT'S WHERE THIS ALL

57:28 - STARTS FROM PENNSYLVANIA.

57:31 - >>CONTRACT LAW THEY HAVE TO.

57:34 - WE ARE A FREE AGENT PROVISION

57:34 - UNDER YOUR THEORY ABOUT THIS

57:35 - BEING A COST RIGHT WITHIN OUR

57:38 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

57:41 - >>AN APP CLICKING TERMS AND

57:42 - CONDITIONS. DO THEY HAVE TO

57:45 - SPECIFICALLY ADVISE? IT'S SOME

57:47 - KIND OF A BOLD THING. THE

57:48 - PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION

57:49 - GRANTS YOU A RIGHT TO A JURY

57:52 - TRIAL BY ENGAGING OUR SERVICE.

57:53 - YOUR HERE BY WAIVING YOUR RIGHT

57:53 - TO A JURY TRIAL IN AGREEING

57:55 - TO ARBITRATE. DOES IT HAVE TO

57:59 - BE THAT SPECIFIC?

57:59 - >>NO JUSTICE, BUT IT PROVIDES

58:00 - NO INFORMATION. IT DOESN'T USE

58:04 - THE TERM ARBITRATION. IT

58:04 - DOESN'T DEFINE MEAN THAT EVEN

58:05 - IF YOU GET TO THE 10 PAGE FRONT

58:08 - IN CONSPICUOUS HYPERLINK, IT

58:09 - DOESN'T DEFINE ARBITRATION.

58:10 - IT DOESN'T SAY YOU'RE GIVING UP

58:13 - YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL THOSE 2

58:14 - RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO A JURY

58:14 - TRIAL DOESN'T SAY JURY TRIAL.

58:18 - YOUR BUTT IF IT DOESN'T FIT THE

58:19 - FINES, ARBITRATION AND SAY

58:19 - YOU'RE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO

58:20 - APPEAL AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO

58:22 - BE IN COURT. I THINK THAT'S

58:23 - SUFFICIENT. BUT YOU'VE GOT TO

58:25 - BE ABLE TO SEE IT. YOU'VE GOT

58:26 - TO GET THERE. THERE HAS TO BE

58:28 - REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS NOTES TO

58:30 - HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL AN

58:31 - ARBITRATION WHERE IT'S JUST A

58:32 - VERY NARROW VIEW OF WHAT YOU

58:32 - CAN APPEAL. BUT I'M JUST TRYING

58:33 - TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY HOW

58:35 - MANY?

58:37 - >>IT DOESN'T HAVE TO

58:37 - SPECIFICALLY SAY YOU ARE HERE

58:40 - BY WAIVING ACTS. I THINK IT HAS

58:45 - TO PROVIDE REASONABLE

58:45 - INFORMATION, REASONABLE NOTICE

58:46 - AND THAT WOULD IN THAT MOTION

58:47 - IS YES. JUST AS YOUR DEFINITION

58:50 - OF REASONABLE NOTICE. NOT ONLY

58:50 - WHAT YOU'RE AGREEING TO WHAT

58:53 - YOU'RE

58:53 - GIVING UP. IT COULD HAVE SPREAD

58:54 - INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE

58:55 - GIVEN OUT. YOU DON'T HAVE THE

58:57 - RIGHT TO PROCEED IN COURT.

58:57 - FOR EXAMPLE, OR YOU DON'T HAVE

59:00 - A RIGHT OF APPEAL.

59:01 - IT HAS TO DEFINE WHAT

59:02 - ARBITRATION IS THE DEFINITION

59:04 - OF ARBITRATION. IT TELLS YOU

59:06 - THAT. I MEAN, IT SHOULD.

59:09 - BUT FRANKLY.

59:10 - THE CONSUMERS DON'T KNOW THAT.

59:11 - I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU GO

59:14 - TO ARBITRATION IN A CASE IN THE

59:15 - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. YOU HAVE

59:18 - A RIGHT OF APPEAL.

59:19 - WHAT WHAT ARE CONSUMERS KNOW?

59:20 - THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE

59:22 - EVER. YOU'RE ALSO THE SO THAT

59:23 - ALL OF THIS HAPPENED IN THIS

59:23 - AGREEMENT. YOUR CLIENTS

59:26 - WOULDN'T HAVE CHOPPED YES.

59:27 - IF I FALL, IF ALL OF THIS, IT

59:28 - HAPPENED THIS AGREEMENT AND ALL

59:30 - OF THIS WAS DISCLOSED IN THE

59:31 - ARBITRATION EVER GO BACK TO

59:32 - YOUR CLIENTS WOULD NOT HAVE

59:34 - USED UBER.

59:35 - >>JUST JUST I DON'T KNOW

59:37 - BECAUSE I DIDN'T ASK MY CLIENT

59:39 - WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE.

59:41 - HOWEVER, THAT SORT OF BEGS THE

59:43 - QUESTION OF THE OBLIGATION TO

59:45 - PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO FORM

59:46 - A CONTRACT FOR THAT TO BE

59:47 - REASONABLY CONSPICUOUS NOTICED

59:49 - AN AMBIGUOUS MANIFESTATION OF

59:50 - MUTUAL CENT AND WHEN A

59:50 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS

59:53 - INVOLVED.

59:54 - A KNOWING INTELLIGENT WAIVER

59:55 - AND THE EVIDENCE OF THAT

59:56 - 100 DOESN'T EXIST. IN THIS CASE.

01:00 - 05.902 >>PLACE THE FINE PRINT ARGUMENT

01:00 - 06.603 TO MEMORIALIZE AND THAT FAMOUS

01:00 - 09.872 DISSENT BY JUSTICE MUST BE, YOU

01:00 - 10.607 KNOW ABOUT THAT. THE TINY

01:00 - 11.307 WRITING ON THE TOP OF THE DOOR

01:00 - 12.642 CALL HIM IS THAT THE ELDERS

01:00 - 15.311 CASE? I CAN REMEMBER WHICH CASE

01:00 - 19.248 SAYS, BUT I BUT A PRETTY SHOWS

01:00 - 19.882 OF DISSENT BECAUSE LOTS OF

01:00 - 20.717 DISSENT BY JUSTICE ON IN THEIR

01:00 - 23.920 COMMUNITY FULLY WRITTEN.

01:00 - 26.456 BUT FLOOR THE WRITTEN. BUT

01:00 - 27.490 IT MIGHT NOT CORRECT THAT THE

01:00 - 29.626 FINE PRINT ARGUMENTS HAVE NOT

01:00 - 30.493 GAINED TRACTION IN THIS COURT.

01:00 - 33.463 IN OTHER WORDS, COMING BACK TO

01:00 - 34.597 THIS POINT ABOUT ASCENSION IT

01:00 - 37.700 ALL UNDER DETECTIVE STANDARD

01:00 - 38.835 IS DEEMED TO

01:00 - 41.804 HAVE A INCOMPETENT TO HAVE READ

01:00 - 42.505 AND SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND WE

01:00 - 44.107 WILL HOLD AS A MATTER OF

01:00 - 44.841 CONTRACT LAW. THAT PERSON BOUND

01:00 - 50.113 TO THEIR AGREEMENT. ABSENCE

01:00 - 50.847 OF FRAUD, ARREST, INCOMPETENCE.

01:00 - 51.514 WHAT HAVE YOU, WHICH NONE OF

01:00 - 56.085 WHICH ARE ALLEGED HERE. TAKE

01:00 - 59.022 THIS IS WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR

01:00 - 59.722 ON YOUR LOCATION AS I TAKE IT

01:00 - 01.858 HERE OF A FINE PRINT ARGUMENT

01:01 - 04.560 WHICH SORT YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S

01:01 - 06.629 JUST IT'S SO. IT'S A HOMESPUN

01:01 - 07.330 WISDOM OUT IN THE WORLD ABOUT,

01:01 - 10.867 YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LIKE FINE

01:01 - 11.567 PRINT, BUT THE COURTS.

01:01 - 12.135 IF THEY DO STRIKE DOWN

01:01 - 16.839 CONTRACTS ON THAT BASIS, DOING.

01:01 - 18.908 >>WELL, I THINK THERE'S

01:01 - 20.677 2 DISTINCTIONS HERE. JUSTICE

01:01 - 21.210 AND ONE IS WAIVING A

01:01 - 23.379 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,

01:01 - 25.448 GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE ONE

01:01 - 26.449 SECTION 6 TO A JURY TRIAL

01:01 - 29.652 THAT'S CONSIDERED OR IN OUR

01:01 - 31.587 CONSTITUTION IS INVIOLATE.

01:01 - 32.188 2 IS FINE. PRINT IN THE

01:01 - 35.591 CONTRACT IS ACTUALLY THERE.

01:01 - 37.560 YOU CAN READ AND YOU DON'T HAVE

01:01 - 40.697 TO GO ON A HUNT FOR A HYPERLINK

01:01 - 43.866 THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE PAGE

01:01 - 44.901 AT ALL. LIKE A TYPICAL

01:01 - 48.705 HYPERLINK THAT DOESN'T APPEAR

01:01 - 49.439 ANYWHERE NEAR A STATEMENT ABOUT

01:01 - 50.039 WEAVER, OF ANYTHING THAT

01:01 - 50.707 DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE NEAR

01:01 - 53.276 WHAT YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON.

01:01 - 55.645 NOT.

01:01 - 56.345 TO WAIVE ANYTHING OR OR AGREE

01:01 - 58.748 TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BUT

01:01 - 02.385 JUST TO SIGN UP.

01:02 - 03.219 THE SERVICE, WHICH IS WHAT

01:02 - 06.255 HAPPENED HERE. SO I SEE A STARK

01:02 - 07.690 DISTINCTION

01:02 - 10.893 AND AND THAT GETS BACK TO THE

01:02 - 15.031 DUTY TO RE.

01:02 - 17.967 >>SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT

01:02 - 18.601 YOU SAID EARLIER, BUT I'M

01:02 - 22.038 LOOKING AT THE BEGINNING.

01:02 - 22.972 I SAID MAYBE I YEAH, IT IS TIME

01:02 - 26.142 THEY MAY BE UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU

01:02 - 26.843 SAID EARLIER. BUT I'M LOOKING

01:02 - 27.510 AT THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

01:02 - 29.412 AND IT DOES, IN FACT, SAY THAT

01:02 - 30.980 I

01:02 - 31.714 >>YOU AND THE ROUTE OR ARE EACH

01:02 - 34.217 WAIVING THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY

01:02 - 36.152 JURY?

01:02 - 38.721 THE PROBLEM IS IT WAS IN

01:02 - 41.157 CONSPICUOUS ENOUGH. I MEAN,

01:02 - 41.824 IT TELLS YOU YOU CAN'T GO TO

01:02 - 44.393 COURT. YOU WAIVE THE RIGHT TO

01:02 - 45.962 TRIAL BY JURY.

01:02 - 48.898 SO WHAT WHAT? WHAT'S THE

01:02 - 49.532 PROBLEM? AND IT'S NOT THE

01:02 - 53.169 LANGUAGE. IT'S THEIR LACK OF

01:02 - 55.138 EMPHASIS OF THE LACK OF.

01:02 - 56.005 >>I APOLOGIZE, JUSTICE. I'M

01:02 - 58.307 NOT SURE WHICH WHAT IN THE

01:02 - 58.975 RECORD YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

01:02 - 02.512 >>BUT BUT HAITIAN AGREEMENT.

01:03 - 03.045 AGREEMENT TO BINDING

01:03 - 04.313 ARBITRATION BETWEEN YOU AND

01:03 - 07.350 UBER.

01:03 - 09.819 >>THAT'S IN.

01:03 - 12.021 ON THE 10TH PAGE OF THE

01:03 - 14.824 HYPERLINK IN A SUBSEQUENT

01:03 - 15.825 VERSION, NOT THE ORIGINAL

01:03 - 16.959 VERSION GOING SO FAST THAT THE

01:03 - 20.263 THIS IS THIS IS NOT THE VERSION

01:03 - 20.997 THAT YOUR CLIENTS, I'M NOT THAT

01:03 - 21.731 I DIRECT, YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR.

01:03 - 23.900 AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

01:03 - 26.936 VERSION MY CLIENT SIGNED.

01:03 - 27.637 >>OR CLICK TO SIGN UP FOR THE

01:03 - 28.337 SERVICE IS ON THE 10TH PAGE OF

01:03 - 33.142 A HYPERLINK. IT DOES REFERENCE.

01:03 - 36.012 A JURY TRIAL. IT DOES SAY

01:03 - 38.147 ARBITRATION, IT DOES NOT THE

01:03 - 40.116 FINE. WHAT AN ARBITRATION IS

01:03 - 40.783 OR INDICATE YOU'RE GIVING UP

01:03 - 42.819 RIGHTS OF APPEAL. IF YOU EVER

01:03 - 43.186 GET THERE.

01:03 - 46.155 >>WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

01:03 - 46.789 MUST A MESS OF BETWEEN THE

01:03 - 48.257 >>PROVISION THAT'S ATTACHED

01:03 - 51.327 TO IT. JUST A STUNNING VIEW.

01:03 - 53.462 THIS

01:03 - 54.764 READING FROM AND THE PROVISION,

01:03 - 55.464 THE CONTRACT THAT YOUR CLIENT

01:03 - 57.800 SIGNS. ARE YOU SAYING IT WAS A

01:03 - 01.704 SUBSEQUENT FOR JEN? I BELIEVE I

01:04 - 04.774 IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT, I CAN

01:04 - 31.033 ABSOLUTELY.

01:04 - 31.701 THIS IS WHAT COACH COUNSELOR

01:04 - 32.001 FOR BY

01:04 - 39.342 >>I THINK THE HELP THAT I CAN

01:04 - 41.177 IF YOU HAVE A RECORD CITATION

01:04 - 44.447 THAT WOULD I DO. I WILL GET IT

01:04 - 48.451 FOR YOU. IT'S IN THE RECORD

01:04 - 50.553 AT ONE 20

01:04 - 53.322 THERE'S A REFERENCE TO IT IN

01:04 - 56.759 THE BRIEF. THAT'S AS SPIKE.

01:04 - 58.928 CLICKING CREATE ACCOUNT.

01:04 - 01.731 YOU AGREED IT WILL BURST TERMS

01:05 - 03.532 AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY

01:05 - 04.467 POLICY. YOU CAN SEE THAT TERMS

01:05 - 07.536 AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY

01:05 - 08.871 POLICY ARE.

01:05 - 12.008 SMALLER FONT. THEN EVERYTHING

01:05 - 14.410 ELSE ON THE APP AS WELL AS

01:05 - 18.814 WRITER, COLOR PRINT. THIS IS

01:05 - 19.448 OBVIOUSLY BLOWN UP FOR THE

01:05 - 21.651 PURPOSES OF OF THE PAGE AND

01:05 - 22.451 AND READABILITY AND NO

01:05 - 27.356 INFORMATION THERE WHATSOEVER

01:05 - 29.859 ABOUT WAVING ANYTHING. YOU'RE

01:05 - 30.426 RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.

01:05 - 32.561 ARBITRATION, A CONSTITUTIONAL

01:05 - 33.829 RIGHT OR OTHERWISE THAT IT

01:05 - 36.899 DOESN'T COME LESS. YOU

01:05 - 37.266 ACTUALLY.

01:05 - 40.202 I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THERE'S

01:05 - 41.203 REASONABLE NOTICE WITH RESPECT

01:05 - 43.005 TO ANYTHING IN THOSE TERMS AND

01:05 - 46.008 CONDITIONS UNDERSTAND THAT IS

01:05 - 46.642 HYPERLINK. IT'S CLICKABLE.

01:05 - 47.777 AND THEN WHEN YOU CLICK THERE,

01:05 - 50.846 YOU GET TO THE 10TH PAGE, BUT

01:05 - 53.115 DIFFERENT.

01:05 - 53.783 >>IF YOU'RE NOT WEARING THAT

01:05 - 57.053 LINGERIE TRIAL WAIVER LANGUAGE

01:05 - 58.287 IS FOUND. ON THE HYPERLINK.

01:05 - 59.922 IF YOU CLICK IT IN THE 10TH

01:05 - 04.927 PAGE ON THE 10 PAGE S.

01:06 - 05.528 >>SO THIS. SET UP ON THE

01:06 - 09.799 >>PHONE ON YOUR PHONE OR ON

01:06 - 10.399 YOUR. A LAPTOP OR IPAD,

01:06 - 13.102 WHATEVER.

01:06 - 15.371 >>YOU ARE ABLE TO.

01:06 - 17.873 >>OBTAIN A

01:06 - 18.541 >>UBER ACCOUNT WITHOUT EVER

01:06 - 21.243 CLICKING THE TERMS OF USE

01:06 - 22.244 BUTTON.

01:06 - 24.146 >>1000%, ALL YET TO DO WAS

01:06 - 27.049 CLICK TO CREATE ACCOUNT.

01:06 - 28.584 BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO EVER GET

01:06 - 29.285 TO THAT 10 PAGES A HYPERLINK.

01:06 - 32.221 IF YOU EVEN KNOW THAT THAT IS

01:06 - 32.621 A HYPERLINK.

01:06 - 37.960 IT'S JUST CREATE THE ACCOUNT.

01:06 - 39.829 WAS YOUR OTHER QUESTION ON MOVE

01:06 - 43.032 ON TO THE RULE? 3.13, ARGUMENT.

01:06 - 43.733 SO BACK TO THE BEGINNING, I'M

01:06 - 44.333 SORRY CAN GO BACK TO THE

01:06 - 46.602 BEGINNING. AND SO BACK TO THE

01:06 - 50.406 BEGINNING.

01:06 - 54.176 YOUR HONORS RULES. 3.13, IS NOT

01:06 - 55.111 THE RIGID

01:06 - 55.745 FORMULAIC RULE THAT PALIN

01:06 - 57.480 SUGGESTS COURTS HAVE

01:06 - 58.080 INTERPRETED PRACTICAL

01:06 - 01.117 CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING

01:07 - 04.220 RULED 3.13, LIKE THOSE

01:07 - 05.221 RECOGNIZED BY ON PANEL.

01:07 - 06.355 WE SHOULDN'T BE SUPPLEMENTING A

01:07 - 09.325 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO IT.

01:07 - 11.694 A JURY TRIAL TO A RULE APPROVED

01:07 - 13.796 APPELLATE PROCEDURE WHERE THERE

01:07 - 16.565 IS NO CLEAR PATH. OF APPELLATE

01:07 - 20.970 REVIEW. AS SUCH. IF THAT

01:07 - 22.805 OCCURRED. THE RULE.

01:07 - 23.706 IT WOULD ALLOW THE RULE TO

01:07 - 30.513 DEVOUR THE CONSTITUTIONAL

01:07 - 32.548 >>AND KUZ UP AT THE BACK END

01:07 - 35.618 UP CHALLENGING. IT'S A

01:07 - 38.788 JURISDICTIONAL MATTER.

01:07 - 40.089 WHETHER THE MATTER SHOULD

01:07 - 40.823 >>ATTRITION FIRST CLOSE, FAR AT

01:07 - 43.859 THE BACK AND WITH VERY LIMITED

01:07 - 45.061 POSSIBILITY,

01:07 - 46.762 GETTING THERE FOR LAY FOLKS

01:07 - 47.897 WHO ARE LITIGANTS CHEN IN CHILE

01:07 - 53.102 WAS IN A WHEELCHAIR AT THE TIME

01:07 - 58.841 AND KEEP TRULY WORKED.

01:07 - 59.175 THE WAY.

01:07 - 03.279 RULE 3.13, AS WRITTEN, FRANKLY.

01:08 - 03.946 ARBITRATION IS GIVEN

01:08 - 05.147 PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FROM THE

01:08 - 08.884 OUTSET. THEY HAVE AN AUTOMATIC

01:08 - 10.352 APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF

01:08 - 15.224 ARBITRATION, AN INJURED PERSON

01:08 - 16.058 HAS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL.

01:08 - 19.028 >>THEY CHOSE THEY MADE THE LAW.

01:08 - 20.496 WE DIDN'T MAKE IT. THEY GAVE

01:08 - 21.797 THE RIGHT IN THE ONE HAND AND

01:08 - 25.101 NOT IN THE OTHER. AND I MEAN,

01:08 - 25.734 IF YOU'RE RIGHT. IF YOU'RE

01:08 - 27.636 RIGHT.

01:08 - 28.270 >>ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT?

01:08 - 30.439 >>WE'LL BE FLOODED WITH ALL

01:08 - 34.310 THESE WILL BE FLOODED WITH ALL

01:08 - 34.844 OF THESE FOR AN END.

01:08 - 35.544 ARBITRATION CHALLENGES RATHER

01:08 - 37.046 THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH

01:08 - 40.583 IS WEAK. WE HAVE CHALLENGES ALL

01:08 - 41.283 THE TIME AFTER THE FACT THAT'S

01:08 - 43.719 HOW IT MOVED. THIS WOULD BE A

01:08 - 44.386 SEA CHANGE IN PENNSYLVANIA.

01:08 - 48.457 >>PRACTICE PUTTING ASIDE.

01:08 - 49.158 >>THIS IS WHY IT WON'T JUSTICE

01:08 - 50.159 BECAUSE WE LOOK AT THE

01:08 - 52.661 PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS.

01:08 - 55.698 >>PEOPLE.

01:08 - 56.565 >>ARE INJURED.

01:08 - 57.199 AND THEIR LAWYERS WHO ARE

01:08 - 59.668 REPRESENTING THEM ON A

01:08 - 01.036 CONTINGENCY BASIS.

01:09 - 03.606 THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS BASED

01:09 - 04.206 ON WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.

01:09 - 04.840 RIGHT. IF THERE'S SIGNED A

01:09 - 06.242 CONTRACT, IT'S CLEAR THEY

01:09 - 06.942 SIGNED THE CONTRACT, CONTINUE

01:09 - 09.478 TO SEE LAWYERS NOT GOING TO

01:09 - 11.313 PURSUE IT AFTER THAT. AND A

01:09 - 12.448 PLAINTIFF WHO NEEDS

01:09 - 13.115 COMPENSATION IS NOT GOING TO

01:09 - 15.651 CONTINUE. THIS IS VERY LIMITED

01:09 - 18.921 SCOPE.

01:09 - 20.756 THERE HAS TO BE A SITUATION

01:09 - 22.024 WHERE CONTRACT RULES. THEY HAVE

01:09 - 24.293 BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR EVER ARE

01:09 - 28.998 COMPLIED WITH NO REASON BECAUSE

01:09 - 30.099 BECAUSE NOTICE NO MUTUAL

01:09 - 30.900 ASCENT, NO KNOWING AND

01:09 - 34.837 INTELLIGENT WAIVER. AND HOW DO

01:09 - 36.839 WE HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE

01:09 - 37.840 FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE

01:09 - 38.774 SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THAT

01:09 - 41.710 IT'S THE DENIAL OF ARBITRATION.

01:09 - 42.912 THAT'S IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.

01:09 - 46.015 >>CAN WE CAN WE TAKE THAT AND

01:09 - 48.417 SAY, WELL?

01:09 - 49.385 IN ALL FAIRNESS, IF WE'RE GOING

01:09 - 49.985 TO ALLOW IT IN NILES OF

01:09 - 53.589 ARBITRATION, WE SHOULD ALLOW

01:09 - 54.523 IT IN GRANTS OF ARBITRATION.

01:09 - 57.560 I MEAN, DOES THAT GET ANYWHERE

01:09 - 58.127 WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF?

01:09 - 00.896 >>ROLE? I?

01:10 - 02.398 >>3.13. WELL, IT'S IN THE.

01:10 - 05.634 APPLICATION.

01:10 - 06.335 >>OF THE RULE JUSTICE. I MEAN,

01:10 - 08.871 IT'S A RULE OF APPELLATE

01:10 - 09.672 PROCEDURE THAT I THINK.

01:10 - 12.908 THIS COURT CONTROLS. BUT THERE

01:10 - 15.244 IS ALSO A STATUTE THAT GIVES

01:10 - 16.478 RISE TO THE RULE. BUT

01:10 - 19.548 >>WHAT'S YOUR READ? WHAT'S YOUR

01:10 - 22.484 REP?

01:10 - 23.652 >>WE ARE. TV'S IS IRREPARABLE.

01:10 - 26.755 WHAT'S PRABAL?

01:10 - 29.091 >>WELL, I

01:10 - 30.059 SUGGEST YOUR HONOR, YOUR REP

01:10 - 33.462 RULES WAS A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE

01:10 - 34.263 THIS WHERE LAYPEOPLE A COUPLE

01:10 - 36.065 WHO ONE OF WHOM IS SERIOUSLY

01:10 - 40.436 INJURED. HAS TO GO THROUGH.

01:10 - 43.606 JUMP THROUGH HOOPS. GO OVER

01:10 - 46.976 HURDLES OF THE TIME.

01:10 - 50.079 PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL EFFORT

01:10 - 52.481 OF.

01:10 - 55.217 AND COUNCIL PREPARING FOR AN

01:10 - 55.985 ARBITRATION GOING TO AN

01:10 - 57.653 ARBITRATION. THEN THE NEXT STEP

01:10 - 00.889 IS THEY HAVE TO ATTEMPT TO SHOW

01:11 - 03.359 FRAUD MISCONDUCT, WARM, A STATE

01:11 - 04.093 WHERE NO RIGHT OF APPEAL EXIST.

01:11 - 08.530 AND THEN EVEN WITH THE SOME

01:11 - 09.198 WILL CHANCE. BUT THAT COULD

01:11 - 09.832 OCCUR, THOUGH, THROUGH THE

01:11 - 12.968 ENTIRE APPELLATE PROCESS TO

01:11 - 14.203 TRY DAY.

01:11 - 14.870 WE GET THAT OVERTURNED THAT

01:11 - 17.940 THEY DIDN'T SIGN A CONTRACT.

01:11 - 19.074 OR COMPLY. A CONTRACT THAT

01:11 - 21.377 COMPLIED WITH PENNSYLVANIA LAW

01:11 - 23.512 IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THEN IF

01:11 - 27.116 THEY WIN ON APPEAL. START ALL

01:11 - 30.252 OVER AGAIN IN COURT. FIRST,

01:11 - 30.886 THOUGH, STILL UP 2 THINGS.

01:11 - 31.620 ONE.

01:11 - 33.656 >>I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING

01:11 - 35.357 YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THEY WOULD

01:11 - 37.993 HAVE TO SHOW FRAUGHT THEY WOULD

01:11 - 40.663 BE ABLE TO. ARGUE TO A COURT AT

01:11 - 42.531 THAT POINT. THE ARGUMENT THAT

01:11 - 45.334 YOU'RE MAKING UP, BUT YOU MAY

01:11 - 45.968 BE THE FIRST PART OF YOUR.

01:11 - 47.636 THERE'S THERE'S NO BASIS FOR

01:11 - 50.072 SAYING IN OTHER WORDS, THAT

01:11 - 50.706 IF THE BACK END OF SUCH AN

01:11 - 52.074 ARBITRATION THAT COULDN'T COME

01:11 - 53.709 TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

01:11 - 54.843 IN OUR VIEW, WHY YOU THINK, YOU

01:11 - 00.382 KNOW, THIS FINE PRINT THING

01:12 - 00.816 IT MEANS THAT

01:12 - 01.517 THEY WILL IF THEY'RE PUT OUT A

01:12 - 02.184 COURT IN ENDURE A GEISHA OF

01:12 - 08.290 RIGHTS JURY TRIAL. SO THAT'S

01:12 - 11.527 NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER 2,

01:12 - 13.429 IT WOULD SENIOR ARGUING

01:12 - 14.096 ULTIMATELY, THEN THERE'S NO

01:12 - 15.998 TOWARD ARBITRATION AND ALL WE

01:12 - 16.932 PRESUME WILL GIVE CONTRACT

01:12 - 18.867 ARBITRATION. BUT THERE'S NO

01:12 - 20.269 ARBITRATION LOT TOWARDS AT ALL.

01:12 - 20.903 CAN YOU RESPOND TO BOTH OF

01:12 - 21.904 THOSE POINTS? YES, JUST AS I

01:12 - 24.707 TRY TO RESPOND TO THEM IN ORDER

01:12 - 27.743 FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE

01:12 - 30.012 STANDARD.

01:12 - 31.146 >>IN THAT UNIFORM ARBITRATION

01:12 - 34.083 ACT AND TRIPLE-A ARBITRATION,

01:12 - 35.951 WHICH IS WHAT THIS QUOTE,

01:12 - 39.088 UNQUOTE AGREEMENT REQUIRES IS

01:12 - 40.589 A SHOWING.

01:12 - 43.726 BRULE 3.13, REFERENCING

01:12 - 49.231 FOLLOWED THE RULE 3.13.

01:12 - 50.766 THE RIGHT OF APPEAL. ONLY

01:12 - 52.668 EXISTS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF CAN

01:12 - 55.771 SHOW FRAUD, MISCONDUCT. MISTAKE

01:12 - 56.638 OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES.

01:12 - 01.443 THE EVALUATION OF A CONTRACT.

01:13 - 02.177 AT THE END OF ALL THE PROCEDURE

01:13 - 06.048 THAT THOSE FOLKS HAVE TO GO TO.

01:13 - 10.753 QUALIFY. FOR. THAT STANDARD OF.

01:13 - 12.621 FRAUD AND STATE.

01:13 - 17.493 MISCONDUCT. OUR REGULARITY.

01:13 - 19.294 IF. WE EVEN GET THERE.

01:13 - 22.798 >>NOW, JUST TRYING TO SORT THIS

01:13 - 25.934 OUT IN MY OWN MIND, IF THERE IS

01:13 - 27.035 AN APPEAL AFTER THE ARBITRATION

01:13 - 28.837 AND YOU WIN ON REVIEW OF THIS

01:13 - 31.006 QUESTION. SHOULD THIS APPEAL

01:13 - 34.243 SHOULD THIS ARBITRATION HAVE

01:13 - 37.045 BEEN COMPEL?

01:13 - 39.081 ISN'T THE ACTUAL ARBITRATION

01:13 - 44.553 PROCEEDING VERDICT ANALOGY.

01:13 - 45.287 >>IF YOU WIN, HOWEVER, AND I'LL

01:13 - 47.189 GET BACK TO YOUR ADDRESS.

01:13 - 56.331 YOUR QUESTION. JUSTICE WECHT,

01:13 - 00.102 THE REALITY OF IT IS.

01:14 - 02.538 THESE THINGS ARE NOT. LIKELY TO

01:14 - 05.574 COME BEFORE THIS COURT AND THE

01:14 - 07.743 PROBLEM.

01:14 - 08.310 INVOLVES THE LOSS OF A

01:14 - 12.781 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. THE

01:14 - 13.549 CAUSE. ULTIMATELY.

01:14 - 15.651 WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF A

01:14 - 18.720 LAY PERSON? CITIZEN GOES

01:14 - 20.489 THROUGH.

01:14 - 21.089 AND ARBITRATION PROCESS.

01:14 - 22.524 AND IN THIS CASE CHANT REALLY

01:14 - 25.461 WAS A PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE

01:14 - 28.564 A CAR CRASH CASE. GOES TO THAT

01:14 - 29.164 PROCESS AND GOES TO THE

01:14 - 30.833 ARBITRATION AND AS A PASSENGER

01:14 - 37.139 IN A VEHICLE IS LIKELY TO WIN.

01:14 - 38.407 THE ARBITRATION.

01:14 - 42.778 BE INADEQUATELY COMPENSATED.

01:14 - 44.446 IN THAT SETTING. THAT'S LIKELY.

01:14 - 47.616 BUT EITHER WAY IT ADEQUATELY

01:14 - 51.420 COMPENSATED OR NOT.

01:14 - 54.623 THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN APPEAL OR

01:14 - 55.357 THE COURT ACCEPTING AND APPEAL.

01:14 - 56.925 WE'RE GIVING THAT ANY

01:14 - 59.995 COUNTENANCE. IN A CIRCUMSTANCE

01:14 - 01.797 WHERE?

01:15 - 04.867 THEY HAVE TO SHOW FRAUD

01:15 - 09.037 MISTAKE.

01:15 - 09.638 THE MISCONDUCT OR OTHER

01:15 - 10.906 IRREGULARITIES, HIGHLY UNLIKELY

01:15 - 13.775 IN A LOT. I'M SORRY, NOT

01:15 - 15.010 ASKED TO KEEP GOING TO BE OUR.

01:15 - 15.844 >>LET'S LET'S JUST IMAGINE

01:15 - 17.913 UNDER YOUR HYPOTHETICAL.

01:15 - 18.514 THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS

01:15 - 19.147 TERRIBLE REPLIES. I'M NOT

01:15 - 19.781 WILLING TO ASSUME THAT THE

01:15 - 22.184 LET'S JUST ASSUME IT'S A

01:15 - 22.618 TERRIBLE WAR.

01:15 - 26.588 THE TRIAL COURT LITIGATION IS

01:15 - 27.055 JUST 8.

01:15 - 27.789 >>AND IN THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO

01:15 - 30.225 WITH WHAT HAPPENS AT THE

01:15 - 32.194 ARBITRATION.

01:15 - 32.861 >>WAS THE ARBITRATION AWARDS

01:15 - 33.562 DECIDED YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WIN

01:15 - 35.497 ON THE FIELD, BUT THAT DOESN'T

01:15 - 37.533 REALLY MATTER. WHAT MATTERS IS

01:15 - 39.167 THAT STAYS GOING TO GET LIFTED

01:15 - 41.003 AND YOU WILL THEN BE ABLE TO

01:15 - 42.504 APPEAL THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER

01:15 - 43.272 FORCING YOU TO GO TO

01:15 - 48.710 ARBITRATION. SO LET'S FOCUS

01:15 - 49.378 ON BACK AND NOT WHAT LIMITED

01:15 - 51.046 APPEAL RIGHTS YOUR CLIENT MAY

01:15 - 51.747 HAVE FROM THAT RACIAL BECAUSE

01:15 - 52.414 THAT'S THE QUESTION. I THINK

01:15 - 54.449 JUST A SWIPE AT THE CHASE FOR

01:15 - 56.585 ASKING YOU. HOW IS THAT APPEAL

01:15 - 59.354 FROM THE STATE ORDER WHEN IT'S

01:15 - 02.391 EVENTUALLY LIFTED? IRREPARABLY

01:16 - 02.724 LAST. I.

01:16 - 04.293 >>I APOLOGIZE IF I WASN'T

01:16 - 07.462 ANSWERING THE QUESTION CLEARLY

01:16 - 10.566 ARE DIRECTLY. HOWEVER. JUSTICES

01:16 - 11.533 THE

01:16 - 16.038 THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A

01:16 - 19.107 JURY TRIAL. HELD IN VIOLET IS

01:16 - 21.944 LOST BECAUSE

01:16 - 29.885 ONCE THE ARBITRATION HAPPENS.

01:16 - 30.519 IF THERE IS AND AWARD. THE

01:16 - 33.221 LIKELIHOOD OF GOING BACK TO

01:16 - 35.123 COURT AND

01:16 - 35.791 FILING A CLAIM TO SHOW SOME

01:16 - 39.528 IRREGULARITY, MISTAKE OR FRAUD.

01:16 - 41.363 AND ACTUALLY EXERCISING THAT

01:16 - 44.766 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS HIGHLY

01:16 - 46.802 UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN.

01:16 - 48.637 INCLUDING GETTING OVER THOSE

01:16 - 50.038 HURDLES. A COUNCIL SUCH THAT

01:16 - 52.774 I'M SORRY JUST IS SUCH THAT

01:16 - 54.776 THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS

01:16 - 56.912 BEEN LOST IN ALL PRACTICALITY.

01:16 - 59.214 >>I THINK WE UNDER I MEAN, I

01:16 - 59.781 JUST TRY ONE MORE TIME

01:16 - 02.351 FOLLOWING THAT CRIME JUSTICE

01:17 - 04.252 LAWSON'S QUESTION.

01:17 - 06.254 THERE'S A IT'S AN ORDER AT SOME

01:17 - 09.358 DOCKET NUMBER SOMEWHERE,

01:17 - 11.526 STAYING THE ARBITRATION.

01:17 - 12.260 SUB, IF THE CIVIL TRIAL AND THE

01:17 - 15.430 TRIAL DATE WORK A SOUTHPORT.

01:17 - 18.066 OKAY. SO SUBSEQUENTLY THERE IS

01:17 - 20.268 AN ARBITRATION. THERE IS AN

01:17 - 20.969 AWARD WHEN THERE'S AN ATTEMPT

01:17 - 23.805 TO REDUCE THAT AWARD TO

01:17 - 24.539 JUDGMENT.

01:17 - 30.312 DOES THAT HAVE TO BE FILED AT

01:17 - 31.013 THE SAME DOCKET NUMBER AS THE

01:17 - 33.181 ORDER STAYING THE HIGH COURT

01:17 - 35.951 ACTION PENDING THE ARBITRATION.

01:17 - 38.220 >>YES, JUSTICE. OKAY. SO SO.

01:17 - 41.289 >>WHY ISN'T IT THEN WHEN YOU'RE

01:17 - 43.191 BACK IN THAT

01:17 - 45.127 TRIAL COURT WHO STAYED THE EYE

01:17 - 46.862 WITH THE GEISHA IMPENDING THE

01:17 - 51.600 ARBITRATION. WHY AT THAT POINT,

01:17 - 53.669 CAN YOUR ARGUMENT BE YOU STAYED

01:17 - 57.339 LITIGATION PENDING THE NOW

01:17 - 57.973 RAISING MY QUESTION AGAIN,

01:17 - 59.975 QUESTIONING THE LEGITIMACY OF

01:17 - 02.878 THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE.

01:18 - 05.847 IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THEN

01:18 - 06.481 WHAT HAPPENED IN THE

01:18 - 09.451 ARBITRATION? IT'S A QUESTION OF

01:18 - 11.319 WHAT THE TRIAL COURT DID.

01:18 - 13.088 PRIOR TO THE ARBITRATION TAKING

01:18 - 13.388 PLACE.

01:18 - 15.924 >>YOU CAN JUSTICE, HOWEVER,

01:18 - 16.491 WITHOUT RAISING FRAUD.

01:18 - 20.429 >>WHATEVER ELSE YOU'RE ARGUING,

01:18 - 21.396 ILLEGALITY, IRREGULARITY, WHY

01:18 - 24.332 ISN'T IT AT THAT JUNCTURE?

01:18 - 24.966 JUST THE TRIAL COURT'S ON

01:18 - 25.701 ORIGINAL DECISION TO STAY IN.

01:18 - 28.770 YOU'RE SAYING THERE WAS NO

01:18 - 29.771 CONTRACT.

01:18 - 30.505 THAT'S WHAT THE THAT'S WHAT THE

01:18 - 33.842 SUPERIOR COURT HERE IS GOING

01:18 - 34.543 WITH MY SON. IT PRECISELY THAT

01:18 - 36.611 SITUATION.

01:18 - 37.312 >>YES, BUT AN ORDERED OVERTURN

01:18 - 40.315 THE ARBITRATION AWARD TO GO

01:18 - 44.152 BACK. TO COURT. YOU HAVE TO

01:18 - 44.853 GET AROUND THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

01:18 - 47.322 THOSE HURDLES OF FRAUD IN THE

01:18 - 49.357 STATE.

01:18 - 50.192 >>I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE CASE.

01:18 - 54.863 WE HAVE. WE'VE SAID THE OFFICER

01:18 - 55.864 IN THE GOLDSTEIN CASE IN 1938.

01:18 - 57.632 >>WE ALL THE OFFICES. THAT A

01:18 - 58.300 DISPUTE ABOUT WHICH PARTIES

01:18 - 01.269 WERE INCLUDED IN AN ARBITRATION

01:19 - 02.170 AGREEMENT WAS A QUESTION

01:19 - 02.871 FOR THAT. OF COURSE, THE SIDE

01:19 - 06.241 BEFORE THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS

01:19 - 08.376 ENFORCED AND THE SUPERIOR COURT

01:19 - 09.010 IN THE 2018 CASE OF SIMON

01:19 - 12.781 VERSUS WINDERMERE SAID, QUOTE.

01:19 - 14.816 THE NARROW STANDARD RIVERVIEW

01:19 - 18.453 DRIVE FROM SECTION 73. 41 IS

01:19 - 19.154 NOT APPLICABLE. WHEN REVIEWING

01:19 - 22.491 A PETITION TO VACATE BASED UPON

01:19 - 25.560 A CLAIM THAT THE PARTIES DO NOT

01:19 - 26.094 HAVE A VALID REMAIN

01:19 - 26.795 ARBITRATION. SO, YOU KNOW, THE

01:19 - 27.496 SCENARIO OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE

01:19 - 30.165 ASKING ABOUT WHEN YOU COME BACK

01:19 - 30.832 TO COMMENT, PLEASE AFTER AN

01:19 - 33.235 ARBITRATION WITH WHICH YOU'RE

01:19 - 36.104 NOT SATISFIED, YOU CAN. YOU CAN

01:19 - 37.806 CERTAINLY BRING YOUR ARGUMENT

01:19 - 38.473 ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FAA AND

01:19 - 40.976 ALL THIS, THIS UNIFIED FRONT

01:19 - 42.644 STUFF, ETC.

01:19 - 43.345 THE ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT THESE

01:19 - 47.315 PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT.

01:19 - 48.984 TO BRING THEIR TORT CLAIM.

01:19 - 49.718 BUT IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT,

01:19 - 51.153 AND THEN THAT APPLIES NOT JUST

01:19 - 54.022 TO YOUR CASE, BUT ANY ANY CASE

01:19 - 55.624 IN COURT.

01:19 - 56.324 >>AND IF I MAY JUSTICE WECHT,

01:19 - 59.861 IF THAT IS CORRECT, WHICH I

01:19 - 03.064 BELIEVE IT IS, THEN IF YOU WIN

01:20 - 04.800 ON THAT INITIAL APPEAL.

01:20 - 07.869 THE APPEAL OF THAT INITIAL

01:20 - 08.670 ISSUE, THEN

01:20 - 09.704 THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, AN

01:20 - 13.308 AWARD BECOME LEVY. BUT IF YOU

01:20 - 15.210 LOSE ON THAT ISSUE, THEN YOU'RE

01:20 - 15.977 APPEALING THE ARBITRATION AWARD

01:20 - 20.215 ON THAT NARROW STANDARD OF

01:20 - 23.018 PROOF FOR YOU. BUT STILL.

01:20 - 23.618 >>THESE FOLKS HAVE TO GO

01:20 - 29.157 THROUGH ALL THOSE HURDLES COST

01:20 - 29.758 AND EXPENSE FINANCIALLY

01:20 - 32.894 EMOTIONALLY PERSON, PERSONALLY

01:20 - 33.562 TACTIC AND OTHERWISE AND AND

01:20 - 37.132 THAT'S WHAT I REFERENCE BEFORE.

01:20 - 41.002 ABOUT REAL 3.13, NOT BEING

01:20 - 41.703 BRIDGET IN FORMULAIC AND THAT

01:20 - 42.437 THE PARK TO CONSIDERATIONS HAVE

01:20 - 45.407 BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

01:20 - 47.475 FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PRIDGEN

01:20 - 50.512 CASE, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A

01:20 - 51.213 RIGHT OF APPEAL FOR DENIAL OF

01:20 - 51.913 SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FINANCIAL

01:20 - 52.581 REASONS. WHEN WE'RE TALKING

01:20 - 53.515 ABOUT CORPORATE INTERESTS WHO

01:20 - 57.886 DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

01:20 - 59.888 FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE.

01:20 - 01.790 PHILIP MORRIS CASE. THAT WAS

01:21 - 03.692 THAT COMMONWEALTH COURT CASE

01:21 - 05.861 THAT JUSTICE PROPS AND

01:21 - 06.528 PARTICIPATED IN. AND I THINK

01:21 - 07.996 INSTRUCTIVE HERE, ALTHOUGH

01:21 - 11.867 CERTAINLY NOT BINDING ON THIS

01:21 - 13.935 COURT. THE SHARES CASE THAT

01:21 - 15.370 OPINION, WHICH WAS PARTICIPATED

01:21 - 18.607 IN BY CHIEF JUSTICE EMERITUS,

01:21 - 21.276 A SAILOR.

01:21 - 21.977 HOLDING THAT THE 3RD PRONG OF

01:21 - 25.180 RULE 3.13, BE IRREPARABLE HARM

01:21 - 25.847 IS MET BECAUSE THE RULES OF

01:21 - 30.118 AAA ARBITRATION DO NOT PROVIDE.

01:21 - 34.723 FOR RIGHT OF APPEAL.

01:21 - 36.491 THERE WAS ALSO REFERENCE TO

01:21 - 37.225 THE CIVIL CASE. LET'S TALK

01:21 - 37.993 ABOUT 7 FOR A MINUTE'S. YVONNE

01:21 - 38.627 WAS A COMPLETELY FACTUALLY

01:21 - 41.563 DIFFERENCE. A NARROW SAVE ON.

01:21 - 42.230 YOU HAVE MR. GAMBLE OWN WHO

01:21 - 44.699 WAS NOT A PARTY TO A CONTRACT

01:21 - 47.235 FOR ARBITRATION THAT REFUSE

01:21 - 50.038 TO PARTICIPATE. THE ARBITRATION

01:21 - 53.174 WENT AHEAD WITHOUT HIM AND

01:21 - 56.011 THERE WAS AND AWARD.

01:21 - 56.611 AGAINST HIM. HE THEN WAS

01:21 - 57.879 PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPEAL

01:21 - 00.015 DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE

01:22 - 03.018 OBJECTED. TO THE PROCEEDING AND

01:22 - 04.853 THAT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A

01:22 - 05.553 BASIS FOR VACATING THE AWARD.

01:22 - 07.355 THE CHILI'S DON'T HAVE THAT

01:22 - 10.258 OPTION HERE. THEY CAN'T REFUSE

01:22 - 11.860 TO PARTICIPATE. THEY'RE THE

01:22 - 13.895 PLAINTIFFS IF THEY DON'T

01:22 - 16.998 PARTICIPATE. THEIR CLAIMS

01:22 - 17.465 DISMISSED IT NO

01:22 - 20.135 LONGER EXISTS AND INDEL CO DO.

01:22 - 23.171 THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT. TO

01:22 - 24.306 ARBITRATE

01:22 - 25.006 THERE'S NO DISPUTE. I'M SORRY

01:22 - 26.141 THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO

01:22 - 26.975 ARBITRATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

01:22 - 28.843 IT WAS A DOCUMENT WHICH WAS

01:22 - 30.045 SIGNED IN THE CONTRACT. BUT

01:22 - 34.382 THERE WAS NO QUESTION ABOUT

01:22 - 36.117 REASONABLE NOTICE.

01:22 - 36.751 AND BIG U.S. MANIFESTATION

01:22 - 38.320 MUTUAL CENT.

01:22 - 40.221 >>OR

01:22 - 40.889 >>IN KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT

01:22 - 42.357 WAIVER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL

01:22 - 45.260 RIGHT.

01:22 - 48.229 >>IS

01:22 - 48.897 >>MY QUESTION ABOUT TORT AND

01:22 - 50.498 CONTRACT.

01:22 - 56.137 >>IS IS YOUR ARGUMENT IS THERE

01:22 - 59.674 PRINCIPAL DISTINCTION?

01:22 - 00.275 >>IN BETWEEN THE

01:23 - 02.243 >>WAIVER OF THE JURY, RIGHT IN

01:23 - 05.246 MY TENDING ARBITRATION

01:23 - 05.981 AGREEMENT IN THAT SHORT

01:23 - 06.681 CONTEXT, IT DOESN'T APPLY THE

01:23 - 07.415 CONTRACT CONTEXT. I'M THINKING,

01:23 - 09.451 OF COURSE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ALL

01:23 - 15.790 THOSE. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS

01:23 - 16.424 OF SECURITIES CLAIMS GO TO

01:23 - 17.125 ARBITRATION. IS THAT IS THAT A

01:23 - 19.527 DIVIDING LINE THAT YOU STAND

01:23 - 20.962 ON?

01:23 - 21.563 BECAUSE THEY'RE WAIVING?

01:23 - 23.498 IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE WAIVING

01:23 - 24.165 A JURY TRIAL RIGHT? IT COULD

01:23 - 25.834 INVOLVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS

01:23 - 28.903 OF DOLLARS.

01:23 - 32.440 >>THOSE ARE SOPHISTICATED.

01:23 - 33.141 SOPHISTICATED AND A TEASE AND

01:23 - 34.342 PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS THAT

01:23 - 38.246 ARE WAVING A JURY TRIAL RIGHTS

01:23 - 42.384 AND FRANKLY, THE FAA ORIGINALLY

01:23 - 44.319 WAS PAST BECAUSE OF

01:23 - 45.286 >>WANTING TO ENCOURAGE THE

01:23 - 49.924 ABILITY FOR THOSE SOPHISTICATED

01:23 - 53.795 PARTIES TO ARBITRATE, NOT

01:23 - 55.697 INITIALLY INTENDED TO BE

01:23 - 56.398 RELATED TO TO INDIVIDUALS LIKE

01:23 - 59.134 THAT. RUDY'S IN THE 6TH IN THIS

01:23 - 02.404 CIRCUMSTANCE AND FRANKLY.

01:24 - 04.939 >>WELL, YOU TOO.

01:24 - 05.607 >>2 HIKERS THAT WAS ONCE THE

01:24 - 06.908 CEO OF SHOWS THAT LEHMAN AND

01:24 - 10.245 THE OTHERS THAT, YOU KNOW, CEO

01:24 - 11.880 OF LAW.

01:24 - 12.614 >>KOHLBERG KRAVIS ROBERTS EVERY

01:24 - 14.582 WHAT HOW THIS INVESTIGATION

01:24 - 17.652 FIGURE.

01:24 - 17.986 >>WELL,

01:24 - 19.087 I THINK.

01:24 - 19.788 >>ORIGINALLY TALKING ABOUT THE

01:24 - 23.124 FAA WENT TO THE BUSINESS AND

01:24 - 24.959 CORPORATE INTERESTS. BUT

01:24 - 26.227 WITH I WASN'T REFERRING TO FIST

01:24 - 27.896 SOPHISTICATION OF INDIVIDUALS.

01:24 - 30.965 I THINK YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO

01:24 - 31.599 THE PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT

01:24 - 32.300 FORMATION IN PENNSYLVANIA AND

01:24 - 34.269 WHAT'S REQUIRED TO WAIVE THAT

01:24 - 35.804 RIGHT.

01:24 - 39.274 THAT LONGSTANDING LAW HAS BEEN

01:24 - 40.475 THERE AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED

01:24 - 42.544 AND UBER KNOWS HOW TO FOLLOW

01:24 - 45.613 IT. AND THEY CERTAINLY KNOW HOW

01:24 - 46.214 TO CHANGE.

01:24 - 49.851 TERMS AND PROVIDE THE

01:24 - 50.585 INFORMATION UP FRONT. THEY WERE

01:24 - 53.822 PROVIDED A ROAD MAP BY THE ON

01:24 - 54.522 BUCK OPINION AND FRANKLY,

01:24 - 55.223 THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR WEB SITE

01:24 - 57.659 AND THEY'RE SIGN-UP PROCESS

01:24 - 01.830 SINCE THAT.

01:25 - 03.998 >>ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER

01:25 - 04.732 QUESTIONS FOR MISTER MASSA WANT

01:25 - 08.937 TO CONCLUDE? CERN FINISHED?

01:25 - 10.672 >>YES, JUSTICE THAT THAT'S THIS

01:25 - 13.741 IS VERY OF YOUR TIME. AND I

01:25 - 19.881 WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT

01:25 - 23.518 MOCK OPINION SHOULD THEM.

01:25 - 24.119 BE UPHELD BY THIS COURT?

01:25 - 25.253 THANK YOU.

01:25 - 25.920 >>THANK YOU BOTH. EXCELLENT

01:25 - 29.991 ARGUMENTS. AND I THINK FOR OUR

01:25 - 30.892 LAW STUDENTS, THEY GOTTA A NICE

01:25 - 31.192 TASTE.

01:25 - 32.694 >>A COURT WILL BE HEARING

01:25 - 33.394 ARGUMENT IN THE CASE. THE CITY

01:25 - 34.829 OF PHILADELPHIA VERSUS THE

01:25 - 37.866 ESTATE OF J S THE FACTS OF THE

01:25 - 40.001 CASE

01:25 - 40.969 ARE HORRIFIC. JS WAS AN INMATE

01:25 - 44.105 AT KERN FROM ALL CORRECTIONAL

01:25 - 45.073 FACILITY. SEE FCF IN

01:25 - 46.541 PHILADELPHIA WHERE IT'S ALLEGED

01:25 - 47.175 HE SURVIVE SUFFERED SEXUAL

01:25 - 49.944 ASSAULT AND ABUSE ON ONE OF

01:25 - 52.747 THE CARDS HE SOUGHT TO HOLD THE

01:25 - 55.517 CITY LIABLE FOR THE SEXUAL

01:25 - 57.285 ASSAULT UNDER WHAT HE BELIEVED

01:25 - 58.253 IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL

01:25 - 01.122 IMMUNITY THAT THE CITY HAS

01:26 - 02.724 TOWARDS SUCH TORTS. WHAT HE'S

01:26 - 04.893 RELYING UPON IS A 2019

01:26 - 08.029 EXCEPTION THAT WAS ADDED THAT

01:26 - 09.364 ACCORDING TO

01:26 - 11.366 THE CITY, ONLY PROVIDE RELEASES

01:26 - 13.434 IMMUNITY WHEN IT WHEN IT JUST

01:26 - 14.769 WHEN IT PERTAINS TO SEXUAL

01:26 - 16.738 ABUSE SUFFERED BY PEOPLE WHO

01:26 - 18.406 WERE MINORS AT THE TIME OF

01:26 - 19.240 THEIR INJURY, ACCORDING TO J

01:26 - 20.475 S AND NOW CHANCES ESTATE

01:26 - 23.144 BECAUSE CHANCES PASSED AWAY

01:26 - 24.946 THE WAY THAT THE PROVISION IS

01:26 - 25.713 WRITTEN. THAT'S AN EXCEPTION

01:26 - 27.815 FOR ALL THOSE WHO SUFFER WHO

01:26 - 29.417 SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL ABUSE AT

01:26 - 30.118 THE HANDS OF OFFICIAL ACTION.

01:26 - 32.954 AGAIN, THIS IS ALL THESE ARE

01:26 - 34.989 AWFUL FACTS. THE QUESTION IS,

01:26 - 36.257 AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY LAW

01:26 - 38.693 THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:26 - 42.697 INTENDED TO AND DID THEY EXEMPT

01:26 - 43.398 ALL ACTS OF SEXUAL ABUSE FROM

01:26 - 47.101 THIS UP FROM IMMUNITY OR WAS

01:26 - 47.802 WAS THEIR LANGUAGE ABSOLUTELY

01:26 - 48.436 LIMITED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE

01:26 - 49.070 MINORS AT THE TIME OF THE

01:26 - 51.439 ASSAULT.

01:26 - 53.508 >>GOOD MORNING.

01:26 - 57.178 >>GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONOR.

01:26 - 58.146 JASON JAB BEFORE THE APPELLANTS

01:26 - 00.281 AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

01:27 - 04.118 AND YOUR A LOT TALLER THAN

01:27 - 04.819 MISTER MASSA. SO IF YOU COULD

01:27 - 05.486 PULL THAT MICROPHONE ON THAT

01:27 - 07.021 AND MOST PEOPLE, YEAH, A LITTLE

01:27 - 07.655 BIT HIGHER. THAT BE GREAT.

01:27 - 16.631 >>THANK YOU, SIR. YES, YOUR

01:27 - 17.298 >>IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE

01:27 - 17.932 SEX ABUSE EXCEPTION TO THE

01:27 - 20.435 LOCAL POLITICAL TORT CLAIMS

01:27 - 22.237 ACT.

01:27 - 25.273 APPLIES TO ADULTS AND CHILDREN

01:27 - 27.675 ALIKE.

01:27 - 30.712 THIS COURT NEED LOOK NO FURTHER

01:27 - 31.546 THAN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE.

01:27 - 34.682 OF THE STATUTE THAT WAS ENACTED

01:27 - 39.053 BY THE LEGISLATURE.

01:27 - 41.589 THE LANGUAGE AT ISSUE BREEDS

01:27 - 43.558 CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES AN

01:27 - 45.827 OFFENSE. A NEW MURRAY DID UNDER

01:27 - 48.863 SECTION 5, 5, 5, 1, SUBSECTION,

01:27 - 49.731 7.

01:27 - 52.800 IN PARENTHESES RELATING TO NO

01:27 - 55.637 LIMITATION APPLICABLE.

01:27 - 57.772 CLOSE PARENTHESES. IF THE

01:27 - 58.840 INJURIES TO THE PLAINTIFF WERE

01:27 - 59.674 CAUSED BY ACTIONS OR OMISSIONS

01:27 - 03.578 OF THE LOCAL AGENCY WHICH

01:28 - 08.483 CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE. THE TERM

01:28 - 11.619 CONDUCT IS DEFINED IN TITLE 18

01:28 - 14.889 SUB SECTION 103.

01:28 - 15.590 CONDUCT IS LIMITED TO ACTIONS,

01:28 - 19.460 OMISSIONS ACCOMPANYING STATES

01:28 - 22.530 OF MIND OR WHERE RELEVANT A

01:28 - 23.031 SERIES OF ACTS AND

01:28 - 25.767 >>YOU SAY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE.

01:28 - 27.435 SO.

01:28 - 30.538 >>IT SAYS 55 1, 7, AND WE TURN

01:28 - 31.406 TO IT.

01:28 - 33.875 IT LIMITS IT TO VICTIMS UNDER

01:28 - 35.877 18 YEARS OF AGE AND TIME.

01:28 - 42.517 WHY DOESN'T? PLAIN LANGUAGE?

01:28 - 45.553 >>THERE'S A COUPLE OF

01:28 - 48.923 DIFFERENT.

01:28 - 49.624 ANSWERS TO THE FIRST IS ITS 8.

01:28 - 51.993 IT'S ACROSS REFERENCE TO THE

01:28 - 52.293 WEST.

01:28 - 54.962 >>IT WOULD BE THE MY POSITION

01:28 - 58.032 MEETING THAT. THE LEGISLATURE

01:28 - 01.302 IN.

01:29 - 03.237 SUBSECTION 8, 5, 4, 2, BE 9

01:29 - 06.341 IS SPECIFICALLY POINTING THE

01:29 - 07.875 COURT WHERE THE READER.

01:29 - 10.712 TO THE LIST OF THE OFFENSE IS

01:29 - 12.513 NOT NECESSARILY. PREAMBLE TO

01:29 - 15.616 THE LIST, BUT EVEN MORE

01:29 - 17.785 IMPORTANTLY.

01:29 - 18.353 WHEN YOU GET INTO THE

01:29 - 22.590 DEFINITION OF ELEMENTS OF THE

01:29 - 25.860 OFFENSE. CONDUCT.

01:29 - 28.830 THE AGE OF THE VICTIM. STATUTE

01:29 - 29.831 OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BE IN

01:29 - 31.265 ATTENDANCE CIRCUMSTANCE, NOT

01:29 - 34.402 CONDUCT THAT AMOUNTS TO AN

01:29 - 35.036 OFFENSE. THE LEGISLATURE.

01:29 - 37.472 >>WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR? THE

01:29 - 40.441 LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER.

01:29 - 44.379 IT'S CALLED IN SHAPE.

01:29 - 45.079 PUNISHABLE CONDUCT. BY VARIOUS

01:29 - 48.015 CATEGORIES, INCLUDING THE AGE

01:29 - 49.884 OF THE VICTIM.

01:29 - 52.987 AND IN FACT, THAT THEY'VE DONE

01:29 - 56.190 THAT A DIRECT FUNDS.

01:29 - 58.559 >>AND I THINK THAT THAT'S 100%

01:29 - 01.896 CORRECT. BUT WHAT'S TALLY ABOUT

01:30 - 06.300 THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE IS THE

01:30 - 08.102 USE OF THE TERM CONDUCT AS

01:30 - 10.905 OPPOSED TO CONDUCT AN ATTENDANT

01:30 - 11.606 CIRCUMSTANCES. THE WHEN YOU'RE

01:30 - 14.175 TALKING ABOUT AN OFFENSE,

01:30 - 14.976 WHETHER IT BE.

01:30 - 15.710 AND WE COULD JUST PICK ONE FROM

01:30 - 19.547 THE LIST, INVOLUNTARY DEVIANT

01:30 - 23.117 SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. THERE ARE

01:30 - 23.851 CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS OF THAT

01:30 - 24.519 STATUTE THAT DO REQUIRE THE

01:30 - 27.488 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

01:30 - 30.591 TO PROVE THE AGE OF THE VICTIM

01:30 - 33.060 BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

01:30 - 37.365 IS WHAT WOULD BE CALLED IT.

01:30 - 39.066 AN ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE NOT

01:30 - 40.535 CONDUCT WHO CAUGHT ONE MORE

01:30 - 41.135 THING WE CAN CALL IT AN

01:30 - 42.370 ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE OR THE

01:30 - 45.540 CALL THE CAT MAY HAVE. BUT

01:30 - 48.276 >>IF WE AGREE

01:30 - 49.043 WITH YOU, THEY ARE WE DIRECTLY

01:30 - 49.610 FLOUT WHAT THE GENERAL

01:30 - 50.978 ASSEMBLY'S TELLING US. IN OTHER

01:30 - 53.881 WORDS, WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE

01:30 - 55.016 WHAT THEY SAID BECAUSE THE

01:30 - 55.683 OFFICES OF UNDER 18 YEARS OF

01:30 - 02.089 AGE IS OVER 18 YEARS OF AGE.

01:31 - 05.193 >>I SUPPOSE I WOULD ANSWER THAT

01:31 - 08.463 QUESTION IN THIS FASHION.

01:31 - 11.132 >>IF THE COURT BELIEVES THAT

01:31 - 11.833 THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE

01:31 - 14.368 WAS TO INCORPORATE THE

01:31 - 19.707 PREAMBLE.

01:31 - 20.341 >>I SUPPOSE TO THE CASE IS

01:31 - 20.975 OVER. THAT'S THE PROBLEM,

01:31 - 22.076 THOUGH, EVEN IF WE FIND YOUR

01:31 - 25.112 ARGUMENT TO BE PERSUASIVE, IF

01:31 - 25.680 THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR.

01:31 - 28.015 >>WE DO GET TO THE INTENT OF

01:31 - 28.850 THE LEGISLATURE.

01:31 - 29.584 >>AND THAT'S AND THAT'S EXACTLY

01:31 - 32.653 CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY I

01:31 - 33.754 STARTED WITH.

01:31 - 35.756 WITH WITH THAT WITH THE PLAIN

01:31 - 37.758 LANGUAGE, BECAUSE I DO THINK

01:31 - 39.861 THAT UNDER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE

01:31 - 43.130 YOU HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY

01:31 - 44.599 TO GET THE

01:31 - 48.369 H QUALIFIER IN 2 SUBSECTION

01:31 - 48.970 OR EXCUSE ME. 8 SECTION.

01:31 - 51.539 85. 42 BE 9 COUNCIL SHARE WITH

01:31 - 54.308 US.

01:31 - 56.244 >>WHY WOULD THE GENERAL

01:31 - 56.911 ASSEMBLY HAVE JUST A WRECKED

01:31 - 59.680 MAKE REFERENCE TO THOSE SEXUAL

01:31 - 00.715 STATUTES THAT IT

01:32 - 01.382 WANTS TO INCLUDE AS OPPOSED

01:32 - 08.389 TO CONTAINING AN AGE QUALIFY.

01:32 - 12.460 >>IT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO 55.

01:32 - 13.928 51 SECTION 7, WHICH INCLUDES AN

01:32 - 14.562 8 QUALIFIER. IT COULD HAVE

01:32 - 16.998 EASILY REFERRED TO THE SEXUAL

01:32 - 20.067 STATUTES.

01:32 - 20.835 >>THAT'S TRUE.

01:32 - 21.502 EXCEPT THAT THERE'S IT'S NOT

01:32 - 28.142 ALL OF THE SEXUAL STATUTES.

01:32 - 28.843 STATUTES THAT ARE LISTED UNDER

01:32 - 34.949 5, 5, 5 SUM, ONE SUBSECTION, 7.

01:32 - 37.818 TO RISE AS SOME OF THE MOST

01:32 - 40.955 SERIOUS AND HEINOUS OF.

01:32 - 44.926 >>OF THOSE THE SAME PLANT.

01:32 - 47.628 ARE SORT OF THE SEXUAL

01:32 - 48.329 OFFENSES, ONE OR 2. WELL, IT'S

01:32 - 50.798 THE MOST SERIOUS SPENCER OR

01:32 - 51.299 NOT.

01:32 - 53.868 >>CORRECT. BUT I THINK THE

01:32 - 56.337 ISSUE BECOMES ONE OFF. SO ONE

01:32 - 59.440 ISSUE FOR REGISTRATION. I'M

01:32 - 01.042 STILL.

01:33 - 03.344 I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING

01:33 - 05.513 YOUR ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE TO

01:33 - 09.917 EXCLUDE THE AGE WHILE A FIRE

01:33 - 11.986 FROM A DIRECT REFERRAL TO A

01:33 - 13.988 STATUTE BY THE GENERAL

01:33 - 15.056 ASSEMBLY, WHICH IS BASED UPON

01:33 - 15.656 THE 8 QUALIFIER FOR ITS

01:33 - 19.093 IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION.

01:33 - 22.997 HOW DO YOU GET AROUND? YOU'RE

01:33 - 24.165 ASKING US IS MY COLLEAGUES

01:33 - 24.832 THERE AT THE OTHER END SAID

01:33 - 26.300 YOU'RE ASKING US TO CUT THE

01:33 - 29.203 STATUE. DIDN'T HAPPEN. JUST

01:33 - 30.638 SAY ALL THESE ARE THE OFFENSES

01:33 - 32.974 AND NOT QUALIFIED BY THESE ARE

01:33 - 33.641 OFFENSES CONDUCTED AGAINST A

01:33 - 35.042 MINOR WHICH WAIVES THE STATUTE

01:33 - 38.179 OF LIMITATION.

01:33 - 40.047 >>SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT ASKS

01:33 - 40.781 THE COURT TO CUT THE STATUTE IN

01:33 - 43.184 HALF BECAUSE AGAIN, TO WAIVE

01:33 - 47.188 IT.

01:33 - 48.155 B, 9 OPERATES. IS IT CROSS

01:33 - 50.291 REFERENCES? THE LIST IS SECTION

01:33 - 55.296 5, 5, 5, ONE, SUBSECTION, 7

01:33 - 59.100 IS 8. IT COMPLETELY OPERABLE

01:33 - 01.035 STATUTE IN SO FAR AS IT

01:34 - 03.104 CONCERNS US THAT THE STATUTE OF

01:34 - 05.172 LIMITATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL

01:34 - 06.874 PROSECUTION OF THOSE DEFENSES.

01:34 - 09.977 YOUR ARGUMENT, THE 55 51 7,

01:34 - 12.513 THAT STATUTE IS AMBIGUOUS.

01:34 - 15.082 >>NO, SIR, THE STATUTE IS IS

01:34 - 15.650 NOT AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE

01:34 - 18.219 >>I MEAN, IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS.

01:34 - 20.655 IT SAYS.

01:34 - 23.658 >>THAT IN A IN A CRIMINAL

01:34 - 24.659 PROSECUTION FOR THE FOLLOWING

01:34 - 26.427 OFFENSES WHEN THE WHEN THE

01:34 - 27.161 MINOR VICTIM IS UNDER 18, THERE

01:34 - 29.664 IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

01:34 - 35.536 THAT'S WHAT THAT'S S SUBSECTION

01:34 - 36.203 >>85, 42 BE 9 HAS NOTHING TO

01:34 - 39.540 DO WITH THE STATUTE OF

01:34 - 41.342 LIMITATIONS THAT.

01:34 - 41.742 CARVES OUT.

01:34 - 45.680 >>IT'S AN OFFENSE ENUMERATE AND

01:34 - 46.347 OFFENSE MURRAY AND A FENCE.

01:34 - 49.350 A RATED UNDER SECTION 5, 5, 1,

01:34 - 53.554 7,

01:34 - 54.255 >>I SAID WHAT IT SAYS CONDUCT.

01:34 - 57.224 >>KNOW, CONDUCT WHICH

01:34 - 57.825 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE.

01:34 - 01.529 SO IT HAS TO BE CONDUCT.

01:35 - 02.563 THAT IS AN OFFENSE. NUMERATOR

01:35 - 05.399 SECTION 5, 5, 5, 1, 7, THAT'S

01:35 - 06.033 CORRECT. AND THE OFFENSES

01:35 - 11.038 ENUMERATED UNDER 5, 5, 1, 7,

01:35 - 12.673 OUR OFFENSE IS WHERE THE

01:35 - 13.374 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS RENT

01:35 - 15.876 IS WAIVED, WHERE THE VICTIM

01:35 - 18.012 IS UNDER 18.

01:35 - 19.513 >>I MEAN THAT YOU THAT THAT IS

01:35 - 20.214 CORRECT. THAT IN THE CRIMINAL

01:35 - 25.753 IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, RIGHT?

01:35 - 26.620 WHAT? I'M WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.

01:35 - 27.521 YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO ME THAT I

01:35 - 28.222 THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE

01:35 - 31.092 SUGGESTING, THOUGH, IS, IS YOUR

01:35 - 33.527 FOCUS ON CONDUCT?

01:35 - 34.095 >>WELL, I THINK WE'RE

01:35 - 34.762 STRUGGLING WHY WE'RE ASKING

01:35 - 37.131 THESE QUESTIONS TO YOU IS

01:35 - 38.766 BECAUSE

01:35 - 40.835 IF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:35 - 42.803 SPECIFICALLY WANT TO SAY THESE

01:35 - 43.704 WHAT UNITY IS WAY FOR THESE

01:35 - 45.139 CRIMINAL OFFENSES, THEY WOULD

01:35 - 45.806 HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT THEY

01:35 - 48.976 DID. AND 5, 5, 5, 1, 7,

01:35 - 50.878 CREATING A LIST.

01:35 - 51.879 HOW ARE WE TO INTERPRET THE

01:35 - 52.580 INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:35 - 54.648 BY NOT REFERRING TO SPECIFIC

01:35 - 56.717 THAT LIST?

01:35 - 01.622 >>MEETING 5, 5, 1, THROUGH

01:36 - 02.857 WHATEVER. AND REFERENCING JUST

01:36 - 06.627 7. I MEAN, THAT HAS TO BE IN A

01:36 - 08.229 TENT BEHIND THAT IN THAT STATUE

01:36 - 08.896 WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO

01:36 - 11.132 WAIVE IMMUNITY AND EVEN SAYS IT

01:36 - 11.799 IN WITH REGARD TO WAIVER OF

01:36 - 14.435 IMMUNITY FOR OFFENSES AGAINST

01:36 - 15.569 JUVENILES.

01:36 - 17.638 HOW ARE WE TO INTERPRET THE

01:36 - 18.339 GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S INTENT FOR

01:36 - 20.975 REFERRING TO THAT AS OPPOSED TO

01:36 - 25.846 THE CRIMES CODE PROVISION?

01:36 - 27.014 >>5, 5, 5, 1, 7, DOESN'T WAIVE

01:36 - 27.715 IMMUNITY. WITH RESPECT TO JUST

01:36 - 30.084 CATCH A LIMITATION. RIGHT?

01:36 - 34.321 AND SO.

01:36 - 37.224 IT GOES BACK TO THE USE OF THE

01:36 - 37.858 TERM CONDUCT AS OPPOSED TO

01:36 - 38.392 CONDUCT AN ATTENDANT

01:36 - 41.295 CIRCUMSTANCES CONDUCT WHICH

01:36 - 41.896 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE,

01:36 - 43.964 CORRECT. AND THE ONLY OFFENSES

01:36 - 44.665 ENUMERATED ARE UNDER 5, 5, 5,

01:36 - 45.299 1, 7, OUR OFFENSE AGAINST

01:36 - 47.468 JUVENILE. THAT'S INCORRECT.

01:36 - 47.968 BECAUSE JUVENILES.

01:36 - 50.704 >>IT SAYS UNDER 18 VICTIM WHERE

01:36 - 53.707 THE VICTIM IS UNDER 18.

01:36 - 54.408 >>THAT WOULD BE IN ATTENDANCE

01:36 - 55.109 CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT RATE CAN BE

01:36 - 57.845 WHICH IS ONE OF THE ENUMERATED

01:36 - 01.081 OFFENSE IS CAN BE COMMITTED.

01:37 - 03.284 >>AGAINST.

01:37 - 04.051 >>A GROUP OF THE STATUTE OF

01:37 - 05.052 LIMITATIONS IS NOT WAY FOR FAT

01:37 - 05.753 FOR RAPE AGAINST ADULT IN THE

01:37 - 08.255 CRIMINAL CONTEXT. I WOULD

01:37 - 14.762 AGREE.

01:37 - 15.529 AND THEN IF I COULD JUST

01:37 - 17.765 CONTINUE WITH WE'RE TALKING

01:37 - 18.299 ABOUT THE ATTENDANT

01:37 - 22.002 CIRCUMSTANCES.

01:37 - 24.872 >>THAT'S DEFINED. AS A.

01:37 - 26.140 >>INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION

01:37 - 26.874 OF THE FORBIDDEN CONDUCT IN THE

01:37 - 29.109 DEFINITION OF THE OFFENSE,

01:37 - 32.213 WHICH WOULD BE YOUR WHY.

01:37 - 34.648 >>WHY YOU GET TO?

01:37 - 40.020 PARTS OF 7 THAT YOU LIKE AND

01:37 - 40.621 NOT THE PARTY TO DO THE

01:37 - 43.157 LEGISLATURE THE LEGISLATURE

01:37 - 46.227 SAID THE NUMERATOR UNDER

01:37 - 47.328 SECTION.

01:37 - 48.562 >>55, 51 7 AND THEN WE GO TO 50

01:37 - 51.031 WALKED 5, 1, 7 SEEMS TO ME YOUR

01:37 - 52.499 ARGUMENT RELIES ON ON ASKING

01:37 - 54.235 US TO SAY, GIVE ME THE PART

01:37 - 57.271 OF 7 THAT I LIKE, BUT NOT THIS

01:37 - 01.475 OTHER PART. ARE WE REQUIRED

01:38 - 02.109 TO APPLY ALL OF THAT. THE

01:38 - 05.045 LEGISLATURE TOLD US AND NOT

01:38 - 08.582 JUST DEPARTMENT WANTS TO.

01:38 - 09.717 >>I THINK THAT

01:38 - 10.684 THE THE THIS AGREEMENT, IF YOU

01:38 - 14.521 WILL, THAT I HAVE WITH SOME

01:38 - 15.256 OF THE QUESTIONING IS THAT MY

01:38 - 15.956 POSITION IS THE LEGISLATURE

01:38 - 19.059 DIDN'T TELL YOU TO APPLY THAT

01:38 - 21.595 HOLE.

01:38 - 24.465 THE ENTIRETY OF SUBSECTION 7

01:38 - 25.666 THAT THIS STATUTE SPECIFICALLY

01:38 - 28.802 POINTS YOU TO THE LIST OF A NEW

01:38 - 32.640 MARINA DEFENSES.

01:38 - 35.476 WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO TALK

01:38 - 36.310 ABOUT A CRIMINAL STATUTE OF

01:38 - 37.945 LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF A

01:38 - 40.814 WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

01:38 - 44.051 BUT BECAUSE THE WITH DOESN'T

01:38 - 44.885 OFFER OR ADD ANYTHING.

01:38 - 45.519 >>WELL, SHORT IS BECAUSE I

01:38 - 48.789 THINK WHAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:38 - 49.523 IS SAYING IS JUST AS WE CREATED

01:38 - 52.293 AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE

01:38 - 54.995 OF LIMITATIONS FOR OFFENSES

01:38 - 55.696 AGAINST JUVENILES. WE ARE ALSO

01:38 - 56.363 GOING TO WAIVE IMMUNITY FOR

01:38 - 58.432 OFFENSES AGAINST JUVENILES.

01:38 - 59.133 THAT'S WHY THEY'RE LINKING THE

01:38 - 01.735 2. WHY ISN'T THAT WHAT GENERAL

01:39 - 02.236 ASSEMBLY INTENDED?

01:39 - 03.671 >>I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO THE

01:39 - 06.707 WAY THAT THEY WROTE. THE

01:39 - 10.110 STATUTE.

01:39 - 10.778 AND AGAIN, I GO BACK TO YOUR

01:39 - 13.247 CONDUCT IS THERE'S NO LOGICAL

01:39 - 16.450 CONNECTION BETWEEN.

01:39 - 18.619 >>AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

01:39 - 19.186 AND I JUST GAVE YOU A

01:39 - 19.787 CONNECTION. THE GENERAL

01:39 - 20.487 ASSEMBLY SAID IF WE'RE GOING

01:39 - 22.423 TO WAIVE THE STATUTE OF

01:39 - 23.257 LIMITATIONS FOR PROSECUTING

01:39 - 25.926 THESE CRIMES AGAINST JUVENILES

01:39 - 26.527 WERE ALSO GOING TO WAIVE

01:39 - 27.194 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR CIVIL

01:39 - 28.696 LIABILITY FOR CRIMES AGAINST

01:39 - 31.799 THESE JUVENILES. WHY IS IT THAT

01:39 - 33.734 A LOGICAL CONNECTION?

01:39 - 34.468 >>BECAUSE THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT

01:39 - 35.703 ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES AND

01:39 - 38.973 THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES

01:39 - 41.709 WOULD BE WHAT?

01:39 - 44.345 THE VICTIM OR FACTS THAT

01:39 - 44.712 IMPLICATE.

01:39 - 47.381 >>OR.

01:39 - 48.515 >>BUT LOOK AT THE STATUTE OF

01:39 - 48.916 LIMITATIONS.

01:39 - 50.250 >>COUNCIL, WHY SHOULD THIS

01:39 - 50.884 COURT NOT BE GUIDED BY THE

01:39 - 54.221 FEDERAL CASE OF CHEESE? FIRST,

01:39 - 54.955 THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, WHICH

01:39 - 57.124 INTERESTINGLY IS A SEXUAL

01:39 - 00.194 OFFENSE AT THE VERY SAME.

01:40 - 04.465 INSTITUTIONS. THE FCF.

01:40 - 06.633 >>I ADDRESSED GENE IN MY

01:40 - 08.369 BRIEFING BOTH IN THIS COURT AND

01:40 - 11.338 AND BEFORE THE COMMONS WORK AND

01:40 - 14.274 I SAY IT WITH THE UTMOST

01:40 - 16.043 RESPECT TO A JUDGE WILL BECAUSE

01:40 - 19.580 I I RESPECT HIM AS A JUSTICE.

01:40 - 20.948 I DON'T THINK THAT HE GRAPPLES

01:40 - 23.984 WITH THE FINER POINTS THAT I'M

01:40 - 25.786 TRYING TO TO

01:40 - 29.890 TO MAKE IN HIS IN HIS OPINION.

01:40 - 33.093 >>HE SEEMS TO EQUATE AGE OF

01:40 - 33.694 THE VICTIM WITH CONDUCT.

01:40 - 36.397 AND I THINK WHEN YOU GO INTO

01:40 - 40.234 THE WAY THAT

01:40 - 41.802 THE LEGISLATURE DEFINED.

01:40 - 44.972 THE TERMS CONDUCT THE TERMS

01:40 - 48.709 ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES.

01:40 - 50.477 HE'S SILAGE WERE THAT THAT HE'S

01:40 - 55.516 LOGICAL REASONING DOES NOT

01:40 - 57.551 STAND UP. BECAUSE AGAIN.

01:40 - 00.621 WHEN IT'S WE'RE FOCUSING ON

01:41 - 01.155 CONDUCT

01:41 - 03.057 CONDUCT IS SOMETHING THAT THE

01:41 - 08.896 THAT AN ACTOR DOES. IT'S NOT.

01:41 - 11.698 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

01:41 - 12.599 NOT IN THAT ACTORS CONTROL.

01:41 - 14.168 AND I WOULD SAY JUST THE

01:41 - 16.904 PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT.

01:41 - 19.740 BECAUSE

01:41 - 20.274 >>WELL, CERTAINLY A

01:41 - 23.077 >>IT UP USER COULD PICK A

01:41 - 26.580 VICTIM.

01:41 - 27.448 THE ABUSER IS NOT THAT THE

01:41 - 28.182 CONDUCT OF THE ABUSER AND THE

01:41 - 30.084 STATE OF MIND OF THE ABUSER HAS

01:41 - 31.218 NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AGE.

01:41 - 33.787 >>THAT'S THAT THAT'S WHAT

01:41 - 36.890 CONDUCT CONCERNS. AND SO WHEN

01:41 - 42.329 JUDGE FOR BREE KNOW,

01:41 - 45.432 I WOULD SAY CONCISELY.

01:41 - 46.266 >>SAID THAT.

01:41 - 48.102 >>AGE OF THE VICTIM IS PART

01:41 - 52.773 OF WHAT CRIMINALIZES.

01:41 - 53.073 >>BUT

01:41 - 53.774 >>EXCUSE ME, PAGE, THE VICTIM

01:41 - 55.075 IS PART OF WHAT CRIMINALIZES

01:41 - 58.979 THOSE OFFENSES. I THINK THAT

01:41 - 01.014 THAT'S INCORRECT. THE OTHER

01:42 - 01.982 THING THAT IT'S IT'S SORT OF AN

01:42 - 02.683 ARGUMENT THAT I NEED MUCH MORE

01:42 - 03.884 STRONGLY BEFORE THE

01:42 - 04.585 COMMONWEALTH COURT BECAUSE IT

01:42 - 06.987 KIND OF CAME UP A LITTLE BIT

01:42 - 10.057 DIFFERENTLY. THE STATUTE OF

01:42 - 10.657 LIMITATIONS TO WAIVE IT.

01:42 - 13.260 THIS COURT'S EXPLAIN THE SEXUAL

01:42 - 15.529 THAT HAITIANS IS IT'S.

01:42 - 17.464 NOT YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A

01:42 - 18.599 RIGHT TO THE TO THE STATUTE OF

01:42 - 19.266 LIMITATIONS. THE STATUTE OF

01:42 - 20.434 LIMITATIONS IS SOMETHING THAT

01:42 - 23.303 AT A CERTAIN POINT I WILL CUT

01:42 - 26.206 OFF THE ABILITY. FOR

01:42 - 29.376 PROSECUTION TO BE BROUGHT.

01:42 - 30.077 BUT THE FACT THAT

01:42 - 35.582 THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS

01:42 - 37.618 RIGHT. DOESN'T MEAN.

01:42 - 38.285 CONDUCT IS ANY MORE OR LESS

01:42 - 40.787 CRIMINAL THAN IT WAS AT THE

01:42 - 42.923 TIME IT OCCURRED.

01:42 - 45.993 AND SO THAT'S YET ANOTHER

01:42 - 46.560 REASON WHY I THINK.

01:42 - 49.596 FOCUSING ON THE STATUTE OF

01:42 - 50.597 LIMITATIONS.

01:42 - 53.400 IF YOU END UP WITH AN ABSURD

01:42 - 57.204 RESULT. BECAUSE SOMEBODY THAT

01:42 - 00.307 WAS. RATE, FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER A

01:43 - 02.142 CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

01:43 - 03.410 MAYBE THE STATUTE OF

01:43 - 04.144 LIMITATIONS COMES INTO PLAY AND

01:43 - 07.414 THAT PERSON CAN'T BE PROSECUTED

01:43 - 08.115 ANYMORE. WHAT IT STILL DOESN'T

01:43 - 10.551 MEAN THAT THERE WAS THERE WAS

01:43 - 10.918 AN ARRAY.

01:43 - 13.854 WHAT WAS IT WAS VERY MUCH

01:43 - 18.292 ILLEGAL.

01:43 - 20.627 WITH RESPECT TO.

01:43 - 22.996 AND I KNOW THAT IT WAS ALLUDED

01:43 - 23.730 TO IN THE CITY'S BRIEF AND SOME

01:43 - 26.333 OF THE QUESTIONS HERE OF

01:43 - 30.737 ALLUDED TO IT.

01:43 - 32.239 ASKING THIS COURT TO SORT OF

01:43 - 35.342 REGARD CERTAIN LANGUAGES

01:43 - 39.479 SURPLUS FOR SURPLUS. I WOULD

01:43 - 41.915 RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT.

01:43 - 42.716 THIS IS A DIFFERENT

01:43 - 43.383 CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE OF THE

01:43 - 46.019 WAY THAT A CROSS REFERENCE

01:43 - 48.922 WORKS.

01:43 - 49.623 IF IT'S A IT'S A FULLY ACTIVE

01:43 - 50.457 STATUTE AND THERE'S A LIST OR

01:43 - 55.195 SOMETHING IN THE STATUTE THAT.

01:43 - 55.762 LEGISLATURE DECIDES TO

01:43 - 56.396 REFERENCE. AND THAT'S WHAT

01:43 - 02.970 HAPPENED HERE. IT WAS THE LAST.

01:44 - 05.505 ANOTHER POINT THAT I THINK WAS

01:44 - 08.542 RAISED AND I WANT TO TOUCH ON

01:44 - 09.409 BRIEFLY.

01:44 - 12.512 IS THAT THE ISSUE OF THE

01:44 - 14.047 PARENTS AT A COOL?

01:44 - 14.715 I CITED IN THE BRIEF TO THE

01:44 - 18.652 LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING MANUAL.

01:44 - 23.357 BECAUSE MY OPPONENT HAS MADE.

01:44 - 25.559 MUCH OF THE FACT THAT THE MEET

01:44 - 28.729 THE PARENTS THAT A CULL WAS

01:44 - 31.732 INCLUDED IN SECTION B 9.

01:44 - 32.432 MY POSITION WITH THAT IS THAT

01:44 - 33.634 REALLY ADDS NOTHING TO THE

01:44 - 35.369 COURT'S ANALYSIS BECAUSE THAT'S

01:44 - 36.837 WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WHEN

01:44 - 40.073 EVER THE LEGISLATURE REFERENCES

01:44 - 42.909 ANOTHER SECTION.

01:44 - 43.543 UNSWORN, FALSIFICATION TO

01:44 - 46.013 AUTHORITIES IS ONE WHERE YOU'LL

01:44 - 46.713 SEE

01:44 - 47.447 THAT LISTED. WE'RE LEADING TO A

01:44 - 48.715 NICE, WARM FALL. SUFFOCATION OF

01:44 - 51.818 US ARE NICE. IT'S JUST A A

01:44 - 53.353 STYLISTIC REQUIREMENTS.

01:44 - 57.591 ASSUMING THAT THE COURT STICKS.

01:44 - 59.660 THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS

01:44 - 04.431 IMPORTANT TO GO INTO. I HAVE A

01:45 - 05.032 COUPLE OF AND BEFORE YOU

01:45 - 08.402 APPROACH IT THAT WAY, THAT'S

01:45 - 09.036 APPROACHING THIS WAY. YES.

01:45 - 11.438 >>LET'S LET'S ASSUME THAT WE

01:45 - 14.508 FIND THIS AMBIGUOUS. WHAT'S

01:45 - 20.047 YOUR ARGUMENT?

01:45 - 21.315 >>I THINK THAT.

01:45 - 24.117 EVEN IF EVEN IF THE IF THE

01:45 - 27.287 COURT FINDS IT AMBIGUOUS.

01:45 - 29.656 I STILL THINK THAT. THE TERM

01:45 - 32.826 CONDUCT SHOULD. HEAVILY IN THE

01:45 - 34.961 IN THE COURT'S MIND.

01:45 - 37.264 BECAUSE IF THE LEGISLATURE IS

01:45 - 37.998 IS FOCUSING ON CONDUCT RATHER

01:45 - 41.068 THAN DOWNBEAT AMBIGUOUS, ASSUME

01:45 - 42.336 WE FOUND

01:45 - 42.803 IT'S AMBIGUOUS.

01:45 - 43.470 >>WHAT WOULD YOU TELL US TO

01:45 - 45.605 LOOK TO TO RESOLVE THE

01:45 - 48.308 AMBIGUITY?

01:45 - 50.811 >>SO I WOULD I WOULD ASK YOU TO

01:45 - 51.478 TO THINK ABOUT THE WAY THAT

01:45 - 54.147 STATUTES CAN BE CROSS

01:45 - 56.416 REFERENCED.

01:45 - 57.117 MEANING THAT THE JUST BECAUSE

01:45 - 01.888 THE STATUTE IS CROSS REFERENCED

01:46 - 02.923 IN A A PARTICULAR PIECE OF

01:46 - 05.425 LEGISLATION DOES NOT INDICATE

01:46 - 06.093 AN INTENT FOR THE COURT TO A

01:46 - 08.795 HOLY. IT INCORPORATES THAT.

01:46 - 11.998 THAT CROSS REFERENCE INTO THE

01:46 - 15.168 STATUTE. ANOTHER POINT THAT I

01:46 - 16.603 WOULD MAKE AND I KNOW.

01:46 - 22.476 THE CITY IS QUOTED A LOT OF

01:46 - 23.577 A LOT OF

01:46 - 26.646 STATEMENTS FROM LEGISLATORS

01:46 - 31.585 SPECIFICALLY ABOUT.

01:46 - 32.285 SEX ABUSE SCANDALS IN CATHOLIC

01:46 - 35.655 CHURCH AND OTHER SITUATIONS.

01:46 - 37.991 AND THAT FOR THEM IS EVIDENCE

01:46 - 41.061 OF THE LIMITATION THAT THIS

01:46 - 42.896 STATUE TO SCHOOL STAFF.

01:46 - 46.099 YOUR ARGUMENT OR MIGHT I WOULD

01:46 - 49.069 ASK DEPOSIT.

01:46 - 52.172 THE FACT THAT A LEGISLATOR OR

01:46 - 53.774 EVEN THE LEGISLATURE.

01:46 - 56.877 PASS A STATUTE SEEKING TO

01:46 - 57.878 ATTACK A PROBLEM.

01:46 - 00.847 IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY'RE

01:47 - 01.515 SEEKING TO ATTACK ONLY THAT

01:47 - 05.585 PROBLEM AND NO OTHER PROBLEM.

01:47 - 08.288 AND I THINK THAT.

01:47 - 10.624 COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF THAT WHEN

01:47 - 13.059 YOU WHEN YOU SEE THE WAY

01:47 - 16.163 LEGISLATION COMES UP FOR

01:47 - 17.731 CRIMES. I WAS.

01:47 - 18.432 PARENTS ARE THIS THAT THE PAUL

01:47 - 21.234 MUELLER LAW, WHICH IS ABOUT TO

01:47 - 24.004 COME INTO EFFECT. DEALS WITH

01:47 - 27.040 TEXTING WHILE DRIVING. AND THAT

01:47 - 30.177 WAS.

01:47 - 32.979 AFTER THERE WAS A HORRIBLE

01:47 - 33.713 CRASH INVOLVING A TRUCK AND THE

01:47 - 36.149 DRIVER WHO WAS ON HIS PHONE OR

01:47 - 40.287 IPAD, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

01:47 - 43.356 IF A MONTH. I GET STOPS ON THE

01:47 - 47.127 TURNPIKE, TEXTING.

01:47 - 48.195 IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE FOR ME

01:47 - 51.398 TO TRY TO DEFEND IN COURT

01:47 - 53.033 SAYING, WELL, LOOK.

01:47 - 55.635 THAT STATUTE WAS ENACTED

01:47 - 56.303 BECAUSE THERE WAS THIS TRUCK

01:47 - 57.938 CRASH. AND SO I WAS DRIVING A

01:47 - 59.506 TRUCK. SO IT DOESN'T APPLY WHEN

01:47 - 02.576 IT.

01:48 - 03.243 >>WHAT

01:48 - 07.180 THAT STATUE SAID, SOMETHING

01:48 - 07.581 COURSE. BUT

01:48 - 10.350 >>IF THE STATUTE SAYS SOMETHING

01:48 - 11.117 ABOUT THE AGE OF THE

01:48 - 11.518 TEXT, RIGHT?

01:48 - 12.252 >>THEN YOU WOULDN'T. I MEAN, IF

01:48 - 13.119 IT SAID, YOU KNOW, IT ONLY

01:48 - 13.787 APPLIES TO PEOPLE UNDER THE

01:48 - 16.289 SATE, YOUR OWN PEOPLE OVER THIS

01:48 - 18.525 AGE RIGHT?

01:48 - 21.628 THEN NOT YOUR ARGUMENT WITH

01:48 - 24.197 ARNOLD WATER RIGHT?

01:48 - 25.765 >>WELL, IT AND THAT DOES TAKE

01:48 - 28.068 YOU TO A POINT WHEN YOU HAVE.

01:48 - 31.071 >>HAVE A STATUE.

01:48 - 32.105 >>THAT IS SPECIFICALLY GEARED.

01:48 - 33.874 >>TOWARDS A SPECIFIC PROBLEM OR

01:48 - 36.676 A SPECIFIC CLASS OF PEOPLE.

01:48 - 37.344 >>IT OUGHT SAY THAT IN THIS

01:48 - 39.646 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT'S

01:48 - 40.347 NOT WHAT YOU HAVE. YOU HAVE

01:48 - 43.416 A STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT SEX

01:48 - 43.917 ABUSE.

01:48 - 47.020 AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT

01:48 - 47.587 CONDUCT. IT REFERS YOU

01:48 - 47.988 TO ANOTHER.

01:48 - 50.123 >>A LOT OF YOU WERE TO PREVAIL.

01:48 - 56.062 >>IT WOULD SEE YOUR ARGUMENT.

01:48 - 59.032 THEN WHAT? INTO DOUBT.

01:48 - 59.933 >>THE APPLICABILITY OF A WHOLE

01:48 - 00.567 RANGE OF STATUTES THAT THE

01:49 - 04.237 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RELIES ON TO

01:49 - 06.940 CROSS REFERENCE. OTHER

01:49 - 07.641 PROVISIONS. WHAT THEY HAVE TO

01:49 - 10.210 STOP CROSS REFERENCING OTHER

01:49 - 11.912 PROVISIONS AND INSTEAD START.

01:49 - 14.714 >>RATING, EVERYTHING THEY NEED

01:49 - 17.784 TO INCLUDE.

01:49 - 18.518 >>BECAUSE

01:49 - 20.387 I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A

01:49 - 21.254 PROBLEM WITH CROSS REFERENCING

01:49 - 25.859 WHAT WHERE? I THINK THE PROBLEM

01:49 - 26.560 COMES IN IS WHEN YOU YOU HAVE

01:49 - 29.362 A STATUTE THAT CROSS REFERENCES

01:49 - 30.063 ANOTHER STATUTE. AND NOW WE'RE

01:49 - 32.499 TRYING TO REACH SAYINGS INTO

01:49 - 35.302 IT.

01:49 - 36.002 IN TERMS OF FIGURING OUT WHAT

01:49 - 39.272 IT SETS WINNING WHEN INDEED.

01:49 - 39.973 THE CROSS REFERENCES AN

01:49 - 44.077 AMBIGUOUS, IT TELLS YOU EXACTLY

01:49 - 45.912 WHAT TO LOOK AT A SPECIFIC

01:49 - 47.113 LIST, NOT THE WHOLE STATUTE.

01:49 - 50.150 WE WILL BE READING INTO IF WE

01:49 - 50.784 IF WE INVENTED NUMBER 18.

01:49 - 51.451 >>WE'RE NOT READING INTO IT.

01:49 - 52.852 WE'RE READING WHAT THEY WROTE.

01:49 - 57.691 AND THEY SIT UNDER 18.

01:49 - 00.160 >>RIGHT? THAT'S

01:50 - 03.196 AND I WOULD AGREE THAT IF THE

01:50 - 03.830 STATUTE SAID SEX ABUSE OF

01:50 - 06.499 MINORS OR IF THE STATUTE TALKED

01:50 - 07.968 ABOUT.

01:50 - 11.037 PUTIN AGE QUALIFIER IN

01:50 - 12.172 SUBSECTION B 9.

01:50 - 15.308 BUT THAT IS THAT IS CLEAR

01:50 - 16.042 INTENT. THAT IS A SPECIFIC

01:50 - 19.145 INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO

01:50 - 20.113 CABIN THIS EXCEPTION.

01:50 - 23.183 IN THAT FASHION. BUT THAT'S NOT

01:50 - 24.584 WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

01:50 - 28.221 WE HAVE A STATUTE THAT TALKS

01:50 - 29.856 ABOUT SEX ABUSE. IT TALKS ABOUT

01:50 - 30.590 CONDUCT AND IT GIVES YOU A LIST

01:50 - 31.591 OF OFFENSES THAT YOU'RE HERE TO

01:50 - 37.163 LOOK AT TO DETERMINE WHETHER

01:50 - 37.831 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY HAS BEEN

01:50 - 40.200 WAIVED IN THAT IN THAT

01:50 - 49.909 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.

01:50 - 50.677 THAT I KNOW WAS RAISED IN MY

01:50 - 51.544 OPPONENT'S BRIEF. AND IT'S

01:50 - 54.748 SOMETHING I WANTED TO ADDRESS

01:50 - 58.284 WAS THE

01:50 - 02.722 THE CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC FISK

01:51 - 03.890 AND WHETHER OR NOT THE

01:51 - 11.164 LEGISLATURE IS INTENDING 2.

01:51 - 14.434 I GUESS. SHOT PUT.

01:51 - 16.202 MAKE PUBLIC THE PRIVATE RIGHTS

01:51 - 17.003 OF ACTION OR OR THINGS OF THAT

01:51 - 20.140 NATURE. AND WHAT I WOULD

01:51 - 20.707 SUGGEST TO THE COURT.

01:51 - 24.411 IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT

01:51 - 27.747 THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE.

01:51 - 29.949 THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE

01:51 - 32.652 IF THE COURT CONCLUDES WORKER

01:51 - 35.121 ACT THAT NOW THE FLOODGATES OF

01:51 - 35.755 LITIGATION WOULD BE OPENED

01:51 - 41.027 BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT MAKE.

01:51 - 43.830 THE LOCAL POLITICAL

01:51 - 44.464 SUBDIVISIONS, INSURERS FOR

01:51 - 44.898 SEXUAL ABUSE.

01:51 - 47.567 >>IN ORDER TO RECOVER UNDER

01:51 - 48.902 THIS SECTION.

01:51 - 50.937 THERE NEEDS TO BE NEGLIGENCE ON

01:51 - 53.239 THE PART OF THE PARTICULAR

01:51 - 56.342 POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.

01:51 - 57.110 >>AND THAT WHAT THAT

01:51 - 59.112 WOULD BE KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER,

01:51 - 59.713 WOULD COME UP IN IT IN A

01:51 - 03.850 PARTICULAR CASE, YOU WOULD

01:52 - 04.651 STILL NEED TO SHOW.

01:52 - 06.619 >>CULPABILITY ON THE PART OF

01:52 - 07.654 THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

01:52 - 09.756 SO

01:52 - 10.690 >>I THINK IT'S A MISNOMER TO

01:52 - 12.525 SUGGEST THAT IF THIS COURT WERE

01:52 - 15.662 TO SAY YES, MR. JABBING YOUR

01:52 - 17.697 INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT.

01:52 - 20.066 IF THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS AND

01:52 - 23.136 REALLY INDICATED, BUT IT ONLY

01:52 - 23.870 APPLIES TO MINORS.

01:52 - 24.571 ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S GOING

01:52 - 28.508 TO BE A FLOOD OF LITIGATION

01:52 - 30.577 AND IN LAST THERE'S A SERIOUS

01:52 - 31.277 PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABUSE GOING

01:52 - 34.714 ON IN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

01:52 - 38.284 I JUST DON'T SEE THAT BEING AN

01:52 - 40.019 ISSUE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT

01:52 - 43.156 IT'S INCUMBENT TO SHOW

01:52 - 46.793 NEGLIGENCE ON TOP.

01:52 - 49.028 THE ONE OTHER. AREA THAT I

01:52 - 49.662 WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I

01:52 - 52.198 ADDRESSED WAS THE MOOSE

01:52 - 55.635 AMENDMENTS.

01:52 - 59.405 I ACTUALLY THINK. AND I KNOW

01:52 - 00.273 THAT MY MY COLLEAGUE POINTS TO

01:53 - 03.309 THE MOOSE AMENDMENTS AS

01:53 - 04.511 EVIDENCE.

01:53 - 07.280 SUPPORT OF HIS THERE POSITION.

01:53 - 10.350 BUT I THINK IT ACTUALLY DOES

01:53 - 15.121 THE OPPOSITE.

01:53 - 18.224 THERE WERE 2 PARTICULAR

01:53 - 21.327 AMENDMENTS IF THAT WERE

01:53 - 22.996 ADVANCED BY SENATOR MOVES.

01:53 - 27.834 ONE OF WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED

01:53 - 31.638 SUBSECTION 8, 2, 42 P A C S

01:53 - 36.709 SECTION 5, 5, 5, 1,

01:53 - 40.079 AMENDMENT.

01:53 - 42.549 HAVE WAIVED THE STATUTE OF

01:53 - 46.719 LIMITATIONS. IN CRIMINAL CASES.

01:53 - 54.861 FOR ALL OF THE SAME OFFENSES.

01:53 - 01.000 WERE LISTED IN 5, 5, 5, 1, 7,

01:54 - 02.902 WITH

01:54 - 03.503 THE EXCEPTION OF THEIR 2

01:54 - 06.439 SECTION SKEWS ME STATUTORY

01:54 - 09.475 SEXUAL ASSAULT.

01:54 - 11.211 WASN'T THERE. NOR WAS THE

01:54 - 11.911 SPECIFIC SUBSECTION FOR HUMAN

01:54 - 14.647 TRAFFICKING THAT PERTAINS TO

01:54 - 18.484 MINORS.

01:54 - 20.320 AND IN ADDITION TO THAT

01:54 - 25.291 AMENDMENT, SENATOR MOVES ALSO

01:54 - 28.895 PROPOSED PUTTING WEST OF A

01:54 - 29.495 CROSS REFERENCE TO THAT

01:54 - 32.398 PROPOSED SUBSECTION IN 2.

01:54 - 33.199 85. 42 BE 9.

01:54 - 36.336 AND I THINK THAT YOU WOULD NEED

01:54 - 37.570 IT. THERE.

01:54 - 39.606 BECAUSE IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE,

01:54 - 42.675 BUT FOR THAT. IN THE INCLUSION

01:54 - 43.910 OF THAT.

01:54 - 46.045 THERE WOULD BE A LOT TO BE READ

01:54 - 49.082 INTO THE FACT THAT ONLY

01:54 - 50.617 SUBSECTION 8.

01:54 - 51.351 WAS CROSS REFERENCED RATHER

01:54 - 53.519 THAN BOTH SUBSECTION 8 AND A

01:54 - 55.088 BOOST. SKEWS ME RATHER THAN

01:54 - 58.658 BOTH SUBSECTION 7 AND

01:54 - 01.728 SUBSECTION 8. AND I THINK THAT

01:55 - 05.231 THAT SHOWS THAT INDEED THERE

01:55 - 08.735 WAS NOT THIS DESIRE.

01:55 - 09.969 IT TOOK ONLY LIMIT THIS 2

01:55 - 12.338 MINERS, PERHAPS MINERS WERE

01:55 - 12.939 SOMETHING THAT THAT THE

01:55 - 17.710 LEGISLATURE WAS THINKING ABOUT.

01:55 - 19.078 BUT LIKE SO MANY OTHER

01:55 - 19.746 CIRCUMSTANCES, US THAT THEY

01:55 - 21.781 PASSED THE STATUTE TO DEAL WITH

01:55 - 24.851 AN ISSUE, BUT IT ALSO CAN

01:55 - 25.585 ADDRESS

01:55 - 26.019 OTHER THINGS.

01:55 - 26.619 >>THAT'S WHAT I'M REALLY

01:55 - 29.289 STRAINING TO UNDERSTAND.

01:55 - 33.626 YOUR LOGIC.

01:55 - 35.561 55. 51 SET. LET'S SAY.

01:55 - 38.865 WE EXERCISE THE PREAMBLE, WHICH

01:55 - 39.699 BRINGS IN THE 8 QUALIFIER,

01:55 - 40.400 CORRECT. AND THE STATUTE JUST

01:55 - 42.535 LIST. THE ENUMERATED OFFENSE

01:55 - 45.405 IS. THAT HOLDS WEIGHT. BUT

01:55 - 48.107 YOU'RE ASKING US TO NOT EXCISE

01:55 - 50.076 THE PORTION OF THE STATUTE THAT

01:55 - 52.812 INDICATES THAT A PROSECUTION

01:55 - 53.513 FOR THESE MEN RATED OFFENSE IS

01:55 - 56.616 PROVIDED THAT THESE OFFENSES

01:55 - 57.917 ARE AGAINST A MINOR.

01:55 - 01.054 IF YOU'RE FAILING TO ADDRESS

01:56 - 02.755 THAT ISSUE, WHAT YOUR EYE.

01:56 - 05.391 YOU'RE ASKING US TO JUSTICE WEX

01:56 - 06.092 SAID TO CUT OUT. THAT PART OF

01:56 - 08.661 THE STATUTE, WHICH YOU DON'T

01:56 - 09.696 LIKE.

01:56 - 13.433 WHEN ALL THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:56 - 14.167 HAD TO DO WAS NOT AND INTRODUCE

01:56 - 17.603 THE PREAMBLE OF 8 QUALIFIER IN

01:56 - 18.271 JUST LIST. THE 18 PER DUNN'S

01:56 - 20.306 SECTION OF SEX OFFENSES UNDER

01:56 - 22.742 THE 3,000 SERIES, MAYBE 4,000.

01:56 - 26.012 IF THEY WANT TO CLOSE. AND SO

01:56 - 27.914 THAT'S WHY I'M REALLY

01:56 - 31.117 DISTRACTED BY HOW YOU'RE TRYING

01:56 - 31.818 TO SHARE WITH US THAT IT'S NOT

01:56 - 34.253 IN THIS STATUTE IS NOT

01:56 - 35.855 AMBIGUOUS.

01:56 - 37.323 BUT YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IT

01:56 - 39.525 AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE WE'RE

01:56 - 41.694 APPLYING IT INCORRECTLY BECAUSE

01:56 - 42.295 WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO

01:56 - 43.896 CONSIDERATION THE AGE QUALIFIER

01:56 - 45.365 BECAUSE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

01:56 - 49.402 MANDATED THAT WE CAN. IT MAKES

01:56 - 50.436 SENSE TO YOU BECAUSE IF IT

01:56 - 51.771 DOESN'T, THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE

01:56 - 54.407 THE ARGUMENTS GOING TO MAKE A

01:56 - 57.543 SUDDEN IT JUST US. LET ME.

01:56 - 58.945 >>LET ME TRY TO.

01:56 - 59.612 THE CLEAR UP WHAT I'M SAYING

01:56 - 01.647 THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THAT'S

01:57 - 07.587 NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I'M

01:57 - 09.088 SAYING IS THE LEGISLATURE

01:57 - 10.556 ENACTED SECTION. 55. 51

01:57 - 13.860 SUBSECTION 7 WITH THE INTENTION

01:57 - 15.495 OF ADDRESSING.

01:57 - 16.396 THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF

01:57 - 19.499 LIMITATIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION

01:57 - 22.769 OF THOSE OFFENSES.

01:57 - 27.373 AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S

01:57 - 28.274 ANOTHER SUBSECTION OF IT.

01:57 - 31.177 TITLE. 42. IT DEALS WITH STAFF

01:57 - 31.811 AT THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

01:57 - 34.313 AND SPECIFICALLY THE WAIVERS

01:57 - 38.418 OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

01:57 - 39.552 THE STATUTE SAYS THAT SEX

01:57 - 40.186 ABUSE. IT'S GOING TO BE AN

01:57 - 42.655 EXCEPTION TO SOVEREIGN

01:57 - 46.325 IMMUNITY.

01:57 - 47.326 THEN WHAT THAT DOES IS

01:57 - 50.396 IT SAYS TO TO DETERMINE WHAT

01:57 - 51.631 PARTICULAR.

01:57 - 54.834 >>TO DETERMINE THE PARTICULAR

01:57 - 56.169 CONTOURS OF THE WAIVER.

01:57 - 58.971 WHAT WE WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO

01:57 - 59.572 IS WE WANT YOU TO LOCK.

01:57 - 02.108 >>AT THE OFFENSES THAT ARE

01:58 - 03.509 ENUMERATED.

01:58 - 06.579 AND SECTION 5, 5, 5, ONE

01:58 - 07.280 SUBSECTION, 7.

01:58 - 08.514 >>AND WHY WOULDN'T SAY THAT

01:58 - 11.584 WHEN IT COULD JUST MAKE

01:58 - 15.154 REFERENCE

01:58 - 15.855 2 SECTION? WAS IT 33? 0, ONE.

01:58 - 17.457 31. 21. 22 23. 24. IT MAKES

01:58 - 20.526 NO SENSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

01:58 - 21.227 CROSS REFERENCE. IT WELL THINK

01:58 - 24.697 A DIRECT UNDERSTANDING WOULD

01:58 - 26.999 BE A DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE

01:58 - 27.633 STATUTES OF THE CRIMINAL

01:58 - 30.770 OFFENSES THAT THERE'S PART THE

01:58 - 32.038 CONDUCT THAT THEIR WAIVER.

01:58 - 35.108 I MEAN, I THINK THIS

01:58 - 37.443 DOCUMENTATION.

01:58 - 40.580 >>I SO I I SUPPOSE THE

01:58 - 46.319 LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE.

01:58 - 49.455 >>IN SECTION 85 40 TO BE 9

01:58 - 50.056 LISTED THE THE SPECIFIC

01:58 - 50.723 SUBSECTIONS OF THE OF THE OF

01:58 - 54.093 THE CRIMES CODE. IT COULD HAVE

01:58 - 56.028 DONE THAT. BUT IT'S JUST AS

01:58 - 56.729 EASY IF THEY HAVE A LIST THAT

01:58 - 59.098 THEY LIKE TO. TO POINT TO THAT

01:58 - 59.398 LIST.

01:58 - 00.800 >>THING THAT WILL WAIVE STATUTE

01:59 - 04.103 OF LIMITATIONS FOR OFFENSES

01:59 - 06.606 AGAINST MINORS.

01:59 - 08.141 >>WELL, THAT'S WHAT THE THAT'S

01:59 - 10.576 WHAT, 5, 5, 5, 1, 7, AND

01:59 - 11.677 OPERATES TO DO.

01:59 - 13.980 >>INDEPENDENT.

01:59 - 14.280 >>OF.

01:59 - 14.947 >>SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. WE'RE

01:59 - 17.750 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. COMES IN

01:59 - 18.017 IS.

01:59 - 21.487 >>THEY'RE THEY'RE FOCUSING THE

01:59 - 24.090 COURT ORDER. THE READER'S

01:59 - 24.457 ATTENTION.

01:59 - 26.492 >>OWEN.

01:59 - 27.126 >>A LIST OF THE FENCES AS

01:59 - 29.729 OPPOSED TO WE LISTING THE

01:59 - 33.032 OFFENSE. IS THERE.

01:59 - 37.737 >>MR. JB, YOU MAKE VERY NUANCED

01:59 - 39.005 ARGUMENT, WHICH I MAY NOT

01:59 - 39.705 COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M

01:59 - 40.273 GOING TO GIVE YOU THE

01:59 - 42.842 OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A

01:59 - 45.444 CONCLUDING STATEMENT.

01:59 - 46.012 >>AND SO YOUR HONOR IN

01:59 - 48.648 CONCLUSION.

01:59 - 50.883 >>I WOULD.

01:59 - 51.684 >>JUST I'D REITERATE WHAT I

01:59 - 52.385 SAID. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO

01:59 - 55.154 LOOK AT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF

01:59 - 55.688 THE STATUTE.

01:59 - 58.758 >>LOOK AT THE WAY THAT CONDUCT

01:59 - 59.659 IS DEFINED.

01:59 - 01.727 LOOK AT THE WAY THAT ATTENDANT

02:00 - 03.029 CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DEFINED.

02:00 - 05.231 LOOK AT THE WAY THAT THE

02:00 - 07.300 ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE IS

02:00 - 08.634 DEFINED AND WHAT THE

02:00 - 09.302 LEGISLATURE DID HERE WAS THE

02:00 - 16.209 LEGISLATURE WAVE TO IMMUNITY.

02:00 - 17.243 FOR CONDUCT? THAT IS.

02:00 - 21.247 BASICALLY AMOUNTING TO A NUMBER

02:00 - 23.583 OF CRIMES THAT ARE LISTED IN

02:00 - 29.188 SUBSECTION 5, 5, 5, ONE, 7.

02:00 - 30.790 AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU.

02:00 - 34.961 WE'RE COMMONWEALTH COURT AND

02:00 - 35.661 >>AND A JUDGMENT ON OUR BACK.

02:00 - 38.598 ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

02:00 - 42.902 LET'S HEAR FROM IS NOT AN.

02:00 - 44.971 >>ISRAEL WILL SHORT SERVICE

02:00 - 45.805 ANNOUNCEMENT, A HOME IT WAS

02:00 - 47.073 DISTRACTED. DRIVING LAW IS IN

02:00 - 47.807 EFFECT IN PENNSYLVANIA. SO JUST

02:00 - 48.474 WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IN

02:00 - 49.141 CASE ANYBODY WAS WATCHING A

02:00 - 51.277 FINE ARGUMENT AND BELIEVE THAT

02:00 - 55.615 THEY COULD.

02:00 - 56.515 >>THANK

02:00 - 57.383 >>YOU, PROFESSOR BROUGHT YOU

02:00 - 00.586 FOR BRINGING YOUR STUDENTS.

02:01 - 03.289 I HOPE I HOPE THEY STILL WANT

02:01 - 06.392 TO BE LAWYERS. ALL OKAY.

02:01 - 07.994 THE SAME CANNOT.

02:01 - 08.628 GOOD MORNING. YOUR HONORS.

02:01 - 09.262 MAY IT PLEASE? THE COURT.

02:01 - 11.464 JENNIFER MCNAUGHTON FOR THE

02:01 - 13.466 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.

02:01 - 14.200 >>IF THERE'S AN EXPRESSION THAT

02:01 - 17.470 THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS

02:01 - 18.537 USUALLY THE CORRECT ONE.

02:01 - 19.171 AND IN THIS CASE, I WOULD

02:01 - 19.839 SUBMIT THAT THE SIMPLEST

02:01 - 21.040 READING OF THE 9TH EXCEPTION

02:01 - 24.110 TO THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IS THAT

02:01 - 25.711 IT?

02:01 - 26.445 APPLIES ONLY TO VICTIMS WHO ARE

02:01 - 27.580 MINORS AT THE TIME THAT THE

02:01 - 30.616 CRIME IS COMMITTED. THE 9TH

02:01 - 32.852 EXCEPTION.

02:01 - 33.452 INCORPORATES A SEPARATE

02:01 - 35.121 SECTION. THAT WAS PART OF THE

02:01 - 35.788 SAME BILL SECTION. 55, 51 7.

02:01 - 38.291 WE'LL CALL THAT THE LIMITATIONS

02:01 - 40.359 PROVISION. THAT PROVISION

02:01 - 42.695 STARTS WITH AN AGE QUALIFIER.

02:01 - 45.564 THE VICTIM MUST BE UNDER 18.

02:01 - 46.232 THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS

02:01 - 48.768 THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MET

02:01 - 49.502 TO INCORPORATE THE ENTIRE WELL,

02:01 - 50.436 THAT ASIANS PROVISION,

02:01 - 53.239 INCLUDING THAT HUGE QUALIFIER

02:01 - 54.807 AND AT LEAST 12 OTHER COURTS.

02:01 - 55.474 I HAVE READ THAT STATUTE IN

02:01 - 57.343 THAT MANNER. PLUS THE

02:01 - 58.010 COMMONWEALTH COURT HERE.

02:01 - 01.080 PLUS THE TRIAL COURT HERE WHICH

02:02 - 01.714 REVERSED ITS OWN DECISION.

02:02 - 04.183 OVERRULING OUR PRELIMINARY

02:02 - 05.985 OBJECTIONS.

02:02 - 06.652 VERSUS I HAVE NOT AWARE OF A

02:02 - 09.789 SINGLE CASE WHERE A COURT HAS

02:02 - 10.956 INTERPRETED YOU KNOW, I THINK

02:02 - 11.924 SECTION OR THE SOVEREIGN

02:02 - 15.027 IMMUNITY ACT EXCEPTION AND IN

02:02 - 16.996 THE MANNER THAT MR. JOB

02:02 - 19.165 IS ARGUING.

02:02 - 20.866 >>ALSO, CAN I I MEAN, I MAY BE

02:02 - 21.634 THAT ONE PERSON WHO MIGHT SEE

02:02 - 25.304 THIS OTHERWISE HAVE, BECAUSE

02:02 - 30.676 I DON'T SEE THAT ON SUBSECTION

02:02 - 32.712 9 INCORPORATES 5, 5, 1, 7, IT

02:02 - 37.350 INCORPORATES THE OFFENSES

02:02 - 37.983 ENUMERATED IN 5, 5.7. YOU

02:02 - 41.954 ARE READING SUBSECTION 9, 2,

02:02 - 44.890 SAY KHAN DOCK. FOR WHICH THE

02:02 - 46.525 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS WAY

02:02 - 48.427 IN 5, 1, 1, 7, THAT'S NOT WHAT

02:02 - 51.430 IT SAYS. IT SAID THAT YOU THEN

02:02 - 55.167 CAPTURING THE LIMITATION TO

02:02 - 56.068 CONDUCT DIRECTED

02:02 - 57.937 TOWARD MINORS. BUT THAT'S WHAT

02:02 - 00.873 THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CAUSE.

02:03 - 01.540 IT TALKS ABOUT THE OFFENSES

02:03 - 06.312 ENUMERATED UNDER THAT SECTION.

02:03 - 08.214 >>WELL, YEAH, THE ENTIRETY OF

02:03 - 08.848 THE PHRASES CONDUCT WHICH

02:03 - 10.716 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE AND YOU

02:03 - 12.251 WERE 8 UNDER SECTION 5, 5, 1,

02:03 - 15.354 7, THOSE OFFENSES ARE

02:03 - 16.922 ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION

02:03 - 17.590 5, 5, 1, 5, 1, 7, WITH THE H

02:03 - 19.759 QUALIFIER AT THE TOP. SO

02:03 - 21.794 READING THAT SECTION, YOU DON'T

02:03 - 23.496 EVEN GET TO THE OFFENSE AGREE

02:03 - 27.299 WITH YOU. I THINK THAT THERE'S

02:03 - 30.469 AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.

02:03 - 33.139 >>ACTUALLY THE QUALIFIER HAS

02:03 - 36.142 NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I

02:03 - 37.576 SUBSECTION 9 IS TALKING ABOUT.

02:03 - 39.478 SUBSECTION 9 IS TALKING ABOUT

02:03 - 43.382 THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED UNDER

02:03 - 46.552 5, 5.7.

02:03 - 48.454 NOT THE QUALIFIER.

02:03 - 51.257 IT WOULD'VE BEEN EASY TO SAY.

02:03 - 52.057 IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO SAY

02:03 - 55.628 KIND ACT FOR WHICH THE STATUTE

02:03 - 58.564 OF LIMITATIONS IS WAY AND 5, 5,

02:03 - 00.232 POINTS HAVING THAT CAPTURES

02:04 - 00.866 YOUR LIMITATION OF CONDUCT

02:04 - 05.137 DIRECTED TOWARD MINORS OR IT

02:04 - 08.040 COULD HAVE SAID CONDUCT IN

02:04 - 08.707 CONGRESS BY 5, 5.7 ONE WHICH

02:04 - 12.878 ONCE AGAIN CAPTURES THE

02:04 - 14.413 QUALIFIER. BUT WHEN THEY

02:04 - 15.080 REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO THE

02:04 - 17.983 OFFENSES ENUMERATED UNDER THAT

02:04 - 19.285 STATUTE.

02:04 - 21.887 I HAVE A HARD TIME READING IT

02:04 - 22.588 ANY OTHER WAY THAN TO LOOK AT

02:04 - 25.024 THE OFFENSE IS THAT ARE

02:04 - 29.695 ENUMERATED.

02:04 - 30.329 >>THOSE I THINK US AS JUST

02:04 - 31.330 ARKANSAS ROBSON POINTED OUT

02:04 - 32.164 THOSE OFFENSES DON'T SIMPLY

02:04 - 33.666 RESIDE UNDER THAT SECTION.

02:04 - 34.400 THEY ALREADY EXIST IN THE

02:04 - 38.370 CRIMES CODE. THEY WERE LISTED

02:04 - 39.338 UNDER THAT SECTION WITH THE AGE

02:04 - 41.273 12 FOR NOW, IF THE IF THE

02:04 - 41.941 GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN THE 9TH

02:04 - 43.309 EXCEPTION HAD SIMPLY REFERRED

02:04 - 47.112 BACK TO THE CRIMES CODE,

02:04 - 47.813 CREATED A SIMILAR LIST AND NOT

02:04 - 49.748 INCLUDED IN AN AGE OF 12 MIRE.

02:04 - 52.751 WHY ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY DID?

02:04 - 54.687 >>WHEN THEY REFER TO

02:04 - 56.355 SPECIFICALLY CONDUCT WHICH

02:04 - 59.391 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE

02:04 - 00.459 ENUMERATED UNDER 5,

02:05 - 03.896 5.7, THE THERE'S AN ENUMERATED

02:05 - 07.900 LESS UNDER 5, 5.7. WHAT?

02:05 - 09.702 WHY ISN'T THAT I INCORPORATING

02:05 - 11.036 THOSE DEFENSES OFFENSE IS

02:05 - 12.605 BECAUSE I THINK THAT LANGUAGE

02:05 - 14.273 JUST UNDER 5, 5, 1, 7, IT'S

02:05 - 17.510 ONLY UNDER 5, 5, 1, 7,

02:05 - 20.279 >>IF THE VICTIM IS A MINOR AND

02:05 - 21.313 THAT THAT LIST, I MEAN, THAT'S

02:05 - 22.281 NOW WITH THE STATS. I MEAN, I

02:05 - 23.115 UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND HOW

02:05 - 26.552 YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE IS

02:05 - 27.152 APPARENTLY READING MESS.

02:05 - 31.557 BUT

02:05 - 33.359 >>I THINK IT THAT READING TAKES

02:05 - 35.327 OUT THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO

02:05 - 37.530 THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED THAT

02:05 - 40.466 STATUTE THERE IS A LESS.

02:05 - 43.869 >>AND NEW OR AIDING OFFENSES.

02:05 - 44.570 9 IS REFERRING YOU TO THE LIST

02:05 - 47.573 OF OFFENSES THAT ARE ENUMERATED

02:05 - 49.341 UNDER THAT SECTION.

02:05 - 49.975 >>AND AND RESPECTFUL YOUR

02:05 - 52.545 HONOR. THE REASON THAT THEY

02:05 - 56.515 ARE ENUMERATED THERE.

02:05 - 57.149 >>IT'S BECAUSE OF THE AGE

02:05 - 57.850 QUALIFIER IS BECAUSE THE U.S.

02:05 - 58.484 AND LEAVE US IS IT BECAUSE

02:05 - 00.386 COUNCIL THEY COULD INSTEAD OF

02:06 - 01.554 SAY INSTEAD OF SAYING

02:06 - 04.623 >>ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 5,

02:06 - 05.791 5, 1, 7, THEY COULD HAVE SAID

02:06 - 08.327 ENUMERATE UNDER SECTION 30 11.

02:06 - 13.032 3RD, IT WELL, 31, 21 CETERA.

02:06 - 14.433 WHICH WHICH WOULD

02:06 - 16.635 UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES

02:06 - 17.269 APPELLANT'S COUNSEL WOULD

02:06 - 18.203 CLEARLY PREFER PREVAIL. YOU'RE

02:06 - 22.775 RIGHT THAT THE BIDDING. INSTEAD

02:06 - 24.910 THEY USED REFERENCE TO 55, 1,

02:06 - 28.714 7, WHICH CONTAINS THE AGE FALL

02:06 - 29.848 FAR IS THAT THE STATION?

02:06 - 31.884 >>EXACTLY. YOUR HONOR. IT

02:06 - 32.618 AGAIN. USE THESE CRIMES ALREADY

02:06 - 34.353 EXISTED. JUST 5, 5, 1, 1, 7,

02:06 - 36.622 DOES NOT DEFINE THOSE CRIMES.

02:06 - 37.423 IT TAKES THEM AND APPLIES IN

02:06 - 41.827 AGE QUALIFIER TO THEM. SO TO BE

02:06 - 42.928 AN OFFENSE UNDER

02:06 - 43.662 THAT SECTION, THAT IS QUALIFIER

02:06 - 44.330 HAS TO BE MET AND SAY IS IT

02:06 - 47.299 THAT THE LIST OF OFFENSES ONLY

02:06 - 49.802 OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS?

02:06 - 50.502 >>IN THAT SECOND, 5, 5, 1, 7,

02:06 - 53.472 RIGHT? IT ONLY THEY ONLY APPEAR

02:06 - 56.542 THERE WITH THE

02:06 - 57.176 AGE QUALIFIER.

02:06 - 57.810 >>MINERS GREATLY RESPECT.

02:06 - 58.477 JUST STARTING TO HURT US ON

02:06 - 01.480 THIS SO MUCH. SO I'M GOING TO

02:07 - 02.181 ASK YOU. IF HER INTERPRETATION

02:07 - 03.949 IS REASONABLE OR PROPOSED

02:07 - 06.151 INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS

02:07 - 06.719 THINKING ABOUT AND MY

02:07 - 08.120 INTERPRETATION IS REASONABLE

02:07 - 08.754 OR YOUR INTERPRETATION IS

02:07 - 10.723 REASONABLE OR WHOEVER'S

02:07 - 11.824 TRADITIONS WILL CONTRACT.

02:07 - 15.027 THAT BY DEFINITION IS AN

02:07 - 16.462 AMBIGUOUS STATUTE.

02:07 - 17.396 YOU STILL WENT RIGHT BECAUSE

02:07 - 19.198 WAIVERS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

02:07 - 20.966 HAVE TO BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED

02:07 - 24.637 IN WHICH CASE WE TAKE OF THOSE

02:07 - 25.604 2, WE TAKE THE MOST NARROW

02:07 - 26.972 CONSTRUCTION RIGHT?

02:07 - 28.307 >>YES, SIR, ARE AN ADDITION TO

02:07 - 29.041 THAT THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE FOR

02:07 - 30.476 INTERPRETING TORT CLAIMS ACT OR

02:07 - 31.977 THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT.

02:07 - 34.313 WE ALSO HAVE A VERY REMARKABLE

02:07 - 37.783 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HERE.

02:07 - 38.484 >>WELL, I THINK GUY, I'M NOT A

02:07 - 39.084 BIG FAN OF WHAT I DON'T.

02:07 - 41.920 I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S TOO

02:07 - 42.588 MUCH LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN

02:07 - 44.890 PENNSYLVANIA. WHAT ONE

02:07 - 45.924 LEGISLATOR SAYS OR WHAT

02:07 - 47.726 AMENDMENTS THEY OFFER IS IS

02:07 - 49.862 ONE LEGISLATORS VIEW OF THE

02:07 - 50.429 WORLD AND IS NOT TRUE

02:07 - 51.096 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. I THINK

02:07 - 51.764 THAT'S TRUE, EXCEPT WE HAVE

02:07 - 55.901 A LOT MORE THAN ONE. WE HAVE

02:07 - 56.602 JUST THAT BREATH OF DISCUSSION

02:07 - 59.471 AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

02:07 - 01.674 REGARDING

02:08 - 02.174 THIS BILL WAS IT'S

02:08 - 04.209 OVERWHELMING. IT'S ALL ABOUT

02:08 - 04.843 PROTECTING MINORS. NOT IN.

02:08 - 07.446 IT WAS THIS WOULD BE WISE OLD

02:08 - 09.581 GENTLEMAN FROM CAMBRIA.

02:08 - 10.282 >>WE'RE THE MUCH AS VICE CHAIR

02:08 - 13.919 OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR

02:08 - 14.453 SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

02:08 - 15.154 >>NO, YOUR HONOR. BUT CLEARLY

02:08 - 18.190 THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS OF

02:08 - 19.191 GREAT PERSONAL IMPORTANCE.

02:08 - 21.326 2 OF THE LEGISLATORS SPOKE UP

02:08 - 23.195 AND SAID THAT THEY WERE

02:08 - 25.264 SURVIVORS OF CHILD SEX ABUSE.

02:08 - 26.799 SO CLEARLY THIS WAS WHAT WAS ON

02:08 - 29.068 THE MINDS OF THE LEGISLATORS

02:08 - 30.402 FOR SAYS THERE WAS NOT ANY

02:08 - 31.003 MENTION OF SEXUAL CRIMES

02:08 - 34.940 AGAINST ADULTS AND RAVING

02:08 - 37.042 IMMUNITY FOR THAT. SO AGAIN, TO

02:08 - 39.278 BRIEFLY POINT TO THE MOOSE

02:08 - 39.912 AMENDMENTS, SENATOR, MOST

02:08 - 42.514 CLEARLY INTERPRETED THE BILL

02:08 - 44.349 THAT THE HOUSE BILL.

02:08 - 45.417 PROTECTING CHILDREN ONLY AND

02:08 - 46.985 SHE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT

02:08 - 47.586 WOULD HAVE EXPANDED THE

02:08 - 49.088 STATUTE. LIMITATIONS REFORM AND

02:08 - 52.391 THE IMMUNITY WAIVERS TO ADULTS

02:08 - 53.926 AND THOSE WERE

02:08 - 56.128 VOTED DOWN.

02:08 - 57.229 >>AND IF THE IF THE LEGISLATURE

02:08 - 58.664 INTENDED OR WANTS TO TO FROM

02:08 - 01.834 THIS STATE, THEY CERTAINLY CAN

02:09 - 02.434 REVISIT ABSOLUTELY IRAN.

02:09 - 04.803 >>I THINK THE LEGISLATURE HERE,

02:09 - 07.940 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAD A

02:09 - 08.574 TOUGH JOB FOR THEMSELVES.

02:09 - 11.343 THIS COMMUNITY ACTS, THEY THEY

02:09 - 11.977 HAVE TO BALANCE.

02:09 - 14.113 >>THE NEED TO PROTECT THE FIST

02:09 - 15.914 THE PUBLIC FISK. ON THE ONE

02:09 - 19.084 HAND AGAINST A STRONG DESIRE TO

02:09 - 22.788 TO AID VICTIMS OF OF WRONGDOING

02:09 - 23.388 BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

02:09 - 25.023 AND BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE

02:09 - 25.724 POLITICAL BRANCH THE

02:09 - 26.425 LEGISLATURE IS FOR. AND IF WE

02:09 - 28.494 LOOK AT THE THOUGHT AND THE

02:09 - 29.161 CARE THAT WENT INTO INITIAL

02:09 - 30.963 DRAFTING OF THE TORT CLAIMS

02:09 - 33.132 ACT AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

02:09 - 33.799 ACT. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A

02:09 - 34.366 JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT

02:09 - 35.801 COMMISSION THAT WAS CONVENED

02:09 - 39.538 TO STUDY THIS ISSUE AND STUDY

02:09 - 40.272 THE POSSIBILITY OF

02:09 - 41.006 INSURANCE AGAINST TORTS AND THE

02:09 - 43.442 DEBATE THAT WENT INTO THIS

02:09 - 44.510 BILL.

02:09 - 45.244 I THINK WE CAN SEE THAT THE

02:09 - 47.045 LEGISLATURE DID NOT TAKE.

02:09 - 47.780 IT'S THIS THIS ROLE CASUALLY.

02:09 - 50.783 THEY THEY STRUCK THE BALANCE

02:09 - 51.617 THAT THEY STRUCK. THEY USE THE

02:09 - 52.251 LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE AND

02:09 - 54.753 WE'RE SIMPLY HERE TO APPLY THAT

02:09 - 55.788 IN 10.

02:09 - 58.490 >>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

02:09 - 59.158 ATTORNEY WITH NON? THANK YOU

02:09 - 02.161 BOTH VERY MUCH. I THANK YOU

02:10 - 04.196 VERY MUCH. YOUR HONORS JUST

02:10 - 05.898 BASED ON THE PLAINLY WHICH

02:10 - 06.598 RESPECTIVELY. SO THE NEXT CASE

02:10 - 07.299 WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HIM

02:10 - 10.202 PREVIEW FOR YOU IS

02:10 - 13.272 COMMONWEALTH. THE OUTLAW.

02:10 - 15.007 >>THIS CASE IS GOING TO LOOK AT

02:10 - 18.110 WHETHER A SINGLE VERBAL

02:10 - 19.278 OUTBURST IN A COURTROOM.

02:10 - 20.012 >>IS ENOUGH FOR A JUDGE TO HOLD

02:10 - 25.684 SOMEONE IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

02:10 - 26.418 SO THE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THIS

02:10 - 28.420 CASE ACTUALLY OCCUR JUST ACROSS

02:10 - 31.390 THE STREET OVER AT THE CRIMINAL

02:10 - 32.324 COURTHOUSE IN PHILADELPHIA,

02:10 - 34.259 A SPECTATOR THAT IS A PERSON

02:10 - 37.362 THAT WAS IN THE GALLERY, A

02:10 - 38.063 PERSON THAT WAS WATCHING COURT

02:10 - 38.664 PROCEEDINGS WATCH IS AN

02:10 - 39.965 ARGUMENT INVOLVING A FRIEND OF

02:10 - 43.068 THEIRS. WERE HIS FRIEND IS A

02:10 - 45.404 CRIMINAL DEFENDANT.

02:10 - 47.406 DURING A BREAK IN THE

02:10 - 49.474 PROCEEDINGS. THE SPECTATOR

02:10 - 53.412 STANDS UP. THAT'S MISTER OUTLAW

02:10 - 54.313 AND YELLED AN OBSCENITY AT THE

02:10 - 55.280 JUDGE. NOT GONNA REPEAT IT FOR

02:10 - 58.483 YOU HERE NOW, BUT THE ESSENCE

02:10 - 59.184 OF IT IS THAT IT IS PROFANE IS

02:10 - 01.119 OBSCENE AND IS INAPPROPRIATE.

02:11 - 02.354 THAT IS NOT DISPUTED. THE NEW

02:11 - 06.592 BILL INDIVIDUAL IN LEAVES THE

02:11 - 07.226 COURTROOM COMES BACK. THE

02:11 - 08.660 SHERIFF, THE CANES AND THE

02:11 - 09.294 JUDGE ENDS UP HOLDING THE

02:11 - 11.830 INDIVIDUAL IN CRIMINAL

02:11 - 14.566 CONTEMPT.

02:11 - 17.169 SENTENCES THAT INDIVIDUAL TO

02:11 - 17.870 SERVE SOME TIME IN CUSTODY, 15

02:11 - 20.739 TO 30 DAYS IN CUSTODY FOR THE

02:11 - 21.373 OUTBURST IN THE COURTROOM.

02:11 - 26.011 NOW, THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT THAT

02:11 - 26.645 YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IT IS

02:11 - 29.681 ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT

02:11 - 30.682 CONDUCT THE FACTS. AND I

02:11 - 32.050 JUST RELAYED CONSTITUTE AN A

02:11 - 34.253 FOR A JUDGE TO HOLD AN

02:11 - 36.622 INDIVIDUAL IN CONTEMPT AND WHAT

02:11 - 38.257 THEY'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON IS

02:11 - 41.326 WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT

02:11 - 43.428 ACTUALLY.

02:11 - 45.163 OBSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION

02:11 - 45.864 OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN

02:11 - 46.565 THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU NEED TO

02:11 - 49.501 SATISFY IN ORDER TO BE HELD IN

02:11 - 51.436 CONTEMPT AND WHAT THE PUBLIC

02:11 - 52.137 DEFENDERS WHO REPRESENT THE MR

02:11 - 53.305 OUTLAW IN THIS CASE ARE GOING

02:11 - 54.706 TO ARGUE OR SOMETHING TO THIS

02:11 - 55.374 EXTENT IS THAT WHILE IT WAS

02:11 - 57.376 INAPPROPRIATE, WHAT WAS SAID,

02:11 - 00.312 WELL, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

02:12 - 01.013 SAID IT. NEVERTHELESS WAS NOT

02:12 - 04.549 OBSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION

02:12 - 05.183 OF JUSTICE BECAUSE IT WAS

02:12 - 05.851 EITHER JUST AS THE COURT WAS

02:12 - 08.487 TAKING A BREAK OR DURING A

02:12 - 10.622 BREAK.

02:12 - 11.189 BUT INTERESTINGLY, THE

02:12 - 12.357 PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

02:12 - 14.593 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS SUBMITTED

02:12 - 15.294 BRIEFS THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH

02:12 - 15.961 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT THE

02:12 - 17.596 CONDUCT OF MR OUTLAWED DOES NOT

02:12 - 21.600 EQUATE TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

02:12 - 24.202 THERE WILL BE ARGUMENT AS WELL

02:12 - 24.903 FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY

02:12 - 26.204 GENERAL. THAT IS THE STATE

02:12 - 27.973 PROSECUTOR IN THE COMMONWEALTH

02:12 - 28.640 IN THE AG IS GOING TO ARGUE

02:12 - 30.609 TO THE CONTRARY, WHAT THEY'RE

02:12 - 34.479 GOING TO ARGUE. WE'LL HEAR FROM

02:12 - 37.249 THEM DIRECTLY. IS THAT WHEN AN

02:12 - 37.916 INDIVIDUAL YELLS OBSCENITIES

02:12 - 39.851 AND USES PROFANITY DIRECTED

02:12 - 40.986 TOWARD A JUDGE IN A COURTROOM,

02:12 - 41.653 REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT

02:12 - 43.288 WE'RE ON A BREAK OR NOT.

02:12 - 46.358 ON A BREAK THAT IS IN OF

02:12 - 46.992 ITSELF.

02:12 - 49.528 INAPPROPRIATE, DISRESPECTFUL

02:12 - 52.631 AND IT SATISFIES THE ELEMENTS

02:12 - 54.066 OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

02:12 - 55.233 AGAIN THERE THERE. THERE ARE

02:12 - 58.770 SPECIFIC ELEMENTS AND IT'S FAT,

02:12 - 59.504 SPECIFIC ISSUES HERE. BUT THE

02:12 - 04.343 BROADER IMPLICATIONS APPLY TO

02:13 - 04.910 EVERY COURTROOM IN THE

02:13 - 06.378 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

02:13 - 07.045 AND WHAT SPECTATORS THAT IS

02:13 - 07.713 PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME IN TO

02:13 - 11.583 WATCH COURT WHAT THEY CAN OR

02:13 - 13.452 CANNOT DO IN A COURTROOM IN

02:13 - 14.119 PENNSYLVANIA. SO THAT'S THE

02:13 - 14.820 ISSUE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT WE

02:13 - 18.490 EXPECT TO SEE IN THIS MATTER.

02:13 - 21.693 >>HONORS CHIEF JUSTICE AND MAY

02:13 - 22.361 IT PLEASE, THE COURT? AARON

02:13 - 24.029 MARCUS, FROM THE DEFENDER

02:13 - 27.933 ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA.

02:13 - 28.533 ON BEHALF OF OUTLAW AND

02:13 - 31.136 RUNNERS. NUMBER ONE, I I DID

02:13 - 32.838 NOT INTEND AND REPEATING

02:13 - 33.538 THE PHRASE NONETHELESS, Q YOUR

02:13 - 35.974 WELL CAR, I'LL HOLD YOU IN

02:13 - 38.043 CONTEMPT.

02:13 - 44.783 YOUR HONOR AND EMEKA SUGGEST.

02:13 - 45.817 NEARLY PER SE CRIMINAL OFFENSE

02:13 - 47.219 FOR A PERSON TO INSULT A COURT

02:13 - 50.555 USING PROFANITY. IF THE JUDGE

02:13 - 51.823 SIMPLY HAPPENS TO HEAR IT, NO

02:13 - 52.557 MATTER. THE EFFECTS OF MINUTES.

02:13 - 55.193 HE SAID IT TO THE JUDGE,

02:13 - 56.628 THOUGH, RIGHT?

02:13 - 59.898 THE RECORD IN THAT RESPECT IS

02:13 - 00.899 NOT ACTUALLY PARTICULARLY

02:14 - 02.467 CLEAR. IT WAS SAID IN THE ROOM.

02:14 - 03.168 THE JUDGE SAYS IT WAS DIRECTED

02:14 - 04.569 TOWARDS THE COURT, WHETHER IT

02:14 - 07.739 WAS PRESENTED TO HIM OR TO HER

02:14 - 08.373 IS A QUESTION OF FACT. AND

02:14 - 11.977 ACTUALLY, I WOULD SUBMIT TO

02:14 - 15.580 THIS COURT THAT THE RECORD FROM

02:14 - 17.482 JUNE 16TH 2022, WHICH IS WHAT

02:14 - 18.083 THE COURT CONSIDERS THE

02:14 - 19.718 CONTEMPT HEARING. AMICUS

02:14 - 20.585 CONSIDERS THE CONTEMPT HEARING.

02:14 - 24.790 WE CONSIDER THAT CONTEMPT

02:14 - 25.791 HEARING DESPITE THE COURT

02:14 - 26.725 SAYING THE NEXT DAY THAT I

02:14 - 27.692 DIDN'T, THAT I HELD HIM IN

02:14 - 29.461 CONTEMPT. NOT THAT DAY. THE

02:14 - 33.331 RECORD'S LITTLE SCAMTRACKER.

02:14 - 41.840 IT'S A VERY SCANT RECORD.