that notice is important to having official litigation system and feared litigation system. second with respect to where this is, cases of robbing the right chords and avoid form shopping, and bake litigation and discovery specifically as efficient as possible so therefore we think it would be best discover was delayed to be addressed to get them out of the way. we want to beat her frivolous cases being brought. is important to be awarded in cases that are objectively unreasonable and an efficient mechanism to be awarded. financial incentives have shifted some is not so easy and cost 40, they are better for the system as a whole and it will be stronger and better than it is today. and could talk at earthlink, to turn the mike over. >> thank you very much for the invitation, always a pleasure to be here with michele and victoriana and talk about a topic we seem to be talking about for a long time, we went through three congresses where we wrestled with the notion of a patent system, what should depend system be, how to update it to make it fit with the international, our unde

gas & electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 25, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 26, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. and 27 will not be heard today. >> okay. are there any comments? public comments on the items to be heard in closed session today? >> noreen ambrose city attorney's office. i just wanted to ask for a motion to recuse commissioner courtney from item 16. >> correct. may i have that motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. i also need a motion whether to assert -- >> move to assert. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. okay. we are now going to take >> the commission has now reconvened into open session. the announcement following closed session is that items 16 and 17 were settled. items 18-26, no action. now i have a motion regarding a vote to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? aye? >> opposed? motion carries. >> any us in business. >> madame president, before we start the birthday party -- [laughter ]

system and fair litigation system. second with respect to which pieces are probably want to make sure they are brought in the right court and we want to avoid. third, we want to make litigation discovery is specifically specifically and make it as efficient as possible cause of everything that it would be best if the discovery was delayed until the motion had already been addressed and get them out of the way. and fourth, we want to detour the frivolous cases that are being brought so we think it's important that it would be possible to be awarded in the cases where the claims are brought into that are objectively unreasonable and there are some in the sums to be awarded. if we leave the financial incentives are shifted and so cost three to bring the litigation that is propped today that would be better as a whole would be stronger and better than it is today. it's something that we care about the very much. i would conclude there and turn the mike over. >> thank you for the invitation to be here. we are wrestled in th

litigation can only get you so far, i think.have been challenging the conditions in the jails for years. the case is 40 years old. it only gets you so far in terms of how you can change the conditions inside the jail, and what is minimally required to comply with the constitutional standards that you can raise in the litigation. it is not really an answer to the question, but it really is the reality of where you can get with litigation on some of this. we continue to monitor those conditions. we have medical and mental health monitors that going to the jails, and review what an cso is doing. we continue to do that. one of the challenges when we are talking about jail and detention litigation is, how to bring some of that information out of the jail, and how to show litigation to the public, making people in the community, making people sub -- such as yourselves, aware of what is happening inside the jails. it is a difficult system to penetrate, unless you are in there or you have someone who is in there who is impacted by the c

that notice is important to having official litigation system and feared litigation system. second with respect to where this is, cases of robbing the right chords and avoid form shopping, and bake litigation and discovery specifically as efficient as possible so therefore we think it would be best discover was delayed to be addressed to get them out of the way. we want to beat her frivolous cases being brought. is important to be awarded in cases that are objectively unreasonable and an efficient mechanism to be awarded. financial incentives have shifted some is not so easy and cost 40, they are better for the system as a whole and it will be stronger and better than it is today. and could talk at earthlink, to turn the mike over. >> thank you very much for the invitation, always a pleasure to be here with michele and victoriana and talk about a topic we seem to be talking about for a long time, we went through three congresses where we wrestled with the notion of a patent system, what should depend system be, how to update it to make it fit with the international, our unde

litigants have to go out and get injunctions early but not be premature in their litigation. to set up the status quo because it's clear that the supreme court has decided that instead of the usual multifactor test in deciding whether a state is going to be granted -- a stay is going to be granted, it's really only one factor. are you changing something close to the election? if the answer is yes i think we will see a lot of litigation on last minute. if you are changing the status quo prior to the election, the supreme court is liable to step in and probably the lower courts will too. thank you. [applause] mr. goldstein: thank you. i'm grateful for the panelists for being thorough and concise. we made the commitment so we could finish up here about 20 minutes early so you take questions. not. -- i'm not sure if we have a standby microphone or not. >> can just. all of the headlines of the wrapups, including mine and everyone else's have stressed the courts liberal tilt during the past term of. i wondered if any of you have comments on the extent to which that is accurate or i

he has litigated in this area. he has been in the courtroom and other places litigating around the 14th amendment. we are going to start with richard kreitner. welcome to our program at the african-american civil war museum. let's start off. give us some background on the 14th amendment and tell us what your article is about. richard: thanks for having me. i am the special assistant to the publisher of "nation" and the archivist. i was reading an anniversary issue of the magazine., the history written for the 100th edition, made a bleak reference to this provision of the fourth -- 14th amendment that said any states with disenfranchised voters for any reason will have their congressional representation reduced in proportion to the number that are disenfranchised. that is for any reason. if a state disenfranchised its voters with red hair, they will lose that percentage of numbers they go into a portion of representatives. my ears perked up as soon as i read that because it struck me as almost impossible that there

>> yeah, actually that's in litigation. so i can't comment on active matters where the state is a party to litigation. that wouldn't be legally appropriate. so what i would say is, with respect to looking at the overall subject matter, if you read the message, you'll see i have a section in there on the prison rape act and how to deal with it, in terms of us being proactive on that topic. >> do you think if it did happen the state would be liable though, i mean if'.. >> again, that's a matter of litigation. i'm not going to speculate on litigation. >> the "prison rape elimination act" the governor was referring to - known as prea - is a federal initiative to try to reduce the level of sexual assault in prison. it was passed in 2003-but it wasn't until almost ten years later that michigan's department of corrections began separating minors from adults. we'd heard there were several corrections officials at the event. since we'd been requesting an interview for weeks with no success, we tried approaching them directly. >> hi

i mean -- >> that's a matter of litigation and i am not going to speculate on litigation. >> but is itr position -- the prison rape he limb action act the governor was throwing to, known as p r.a. i is try to reduce sexual assaults in prison, it was pass ed in 2003 but it wasn't until almost 10 years later in he michigan's department of corrections began separating minors from adults. we had heard that there were several corrections officials at the event. since we had been requesting an interview for weeks with no success, we tried approaching them directly. i a am sebastian walk we are al jazerra. we wanted know why it had taken so long for the state to act on federal findings. >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> but nobody wanted to talk. here is michigan's top corrections official, telling me to go and speak to his staff. so if we do get somebody -- >> it will be me. >> it will be on you -- >> eventually this spokesperson did agree to an interview . we wanted to find out how many assault complaints the department received when youth were still being housed with adults. would it

it created a ton of side litigation. someone would file a motion and then you would immediately file a motion in response to their bulletin sanction motion. it got out of hand. the federal judges actually a posted and asked congress to change it back to the original american rule. i think that is an excellent question. it is the threat of you having to pay another attorney's fees is significant. but it is significant to the davids and not the goliaths. the david's are people who really don't have the resources. >> speaking of goliaths i want to give one more example. it goes to the heart of the legislation. it involves the state of nevada. nevada, for about a year and a half, has had a really good anti-slapp law on the books. a resident of new botta, and hopefully she does not listen to this or hear this -- a resident of nevada. steve wynn lost a lawsuit in california around march fourth, based off of anti-slapp legislation. about three weeks later, in the state of nevada there was a bill introduced in the state legislat

we'll try to dig in to that litigation charge. why that litigation number was higher than expected.mr. crane has to say. and the: think you very much -- anna: thank you very much. after the break we talk about big oil. the oil producer buying bt group for more than 70 billion u.s. dollars they -- they are planning at shell for a prolonged downturn. that is according to the company's statement. we'll try to dig in to what that downturn might look like. we spent time with the ceo of the business. dividend commitment will remain unchanged. $1.88 a share. the coveney says anybody who thought the fall in the oil price was good to put the oil majors off the commitment we are pleased by what we are hearing from shell. they are refining businesses. they try to deal with the extent of the oil price we will be seeing -- we have been seeing in recent months. oil prices forced a number of these businesses to change their strategy. if you want to get in touch with us i am want her. -- i am on their -- i am on twitter. stay with us here on "countdown." anna: "countdown." welcome back. you're watc

we we don't see a lot of cases so it's hard to say that this was ball a lot of litigation interestingto see how the alignments shakeout differently. >> as you know, obama care was before the court. in our discussions you said you saw connections between that case and the texas department of housing and community affairs fair housing act disparate impact >> i would like to discuss both. here's retrenchment. i want to discuss the case talked about her formative experience and was getting at this issue. more importantly with what you saw is a huge step backwards in unanimous in context. understand the context. i started law school and 79 with the case which involve title and the 1964 civil rights act. what is. forced labor's office of the ccp. he he went to court and set up the statute. you can't. cap denying employment opportunity because of race. you can't discriminate to which the majority of the courts so we're not going to allow a couple of words and statute to be interpreted. the overall purpose is to help minorities. next line -- let's face it you are going are going to ignore the

. >> you know, for an know, for an issue that has been hotly litigated for the same-sex marriage and lg bt rights to an issue that almost never his litigated in the this is an area of law and there is lots of learning based on opinions and the posturing of congress. these debates rarely it in the court. the george w. bush administration. >> and both the administrations refuse to enforce the statute on the grounds they are constitutional power rendered that statute again person born in jerusalem commenced litigation that first went to the court three years ago. the court said no and direct the dc circuit to decided on the merits. some some people thought the court was depriving itself an escape route. would not be able to use the political question if they concluded it would have been desirable seem to be a lot disconcerting noises they were being forced to decide something that had a lot of foreign affairs and political visibility. obviously obviously taking sides owns and controls yours is politically loaded question. in the court did address the merits and so he was right. justice

we have with us a litigator and a writer director of the campaign legal center. among the many other jobs he had was as the acting head of the voting section of the civil rights division of the department of justice. >> thank you tom. thank you to acs for sponsoring this event. great organization and a thrill to be. i have to say that the people in at the beginning of the term that we would see decisions upholding civil rights plaintiffs claims in the alabama redistricting case, that we would find chief justice john roberts rejecting a first amendment challenge to judicial candidates soliciting contributions and getting contributions and applying strict scrutiny, but still upholding the campaign finance law, and if you told me that rpg stands for ruth bader ginsburg but i consider to be right bold and great would write a decision in the arizona case upholding the right of the commission to do the power of redistricting to curb partisan gerrymandering would've looked at you with the same degree of lack of credulity that would've 20 years ago if he told me that 20

mark steyn is the world's second most famous climate litigator. the first most came news climate litigator is that special snowflake, that nobel prize winner michael mann. and the reason mark steyn is number with as the second most world famous climate litigator is because he has countersued michael mann because we're going to get to the bottom of all of this stuff and stop having the legal system being used to bully people who stand up for free speech and sound science and mark steyn is doing this. [applause] >> that takes even norm mouse amount of courage and an enormous amount of money. mark steyn does not have a legal defense fund like a lot of people. he prefers to do this, the free capitalism way by selling his wares, and so i recommend if you want to support this very important fight for free speech and for sound science you go to steyn online.com and buy many of his outstanding books, which i have done. you can get a mark steyn coffee mug which i have. and that's how you can support this very important work. one of the books you'll soon be

has filed a lawsuit and, in fact, there's leakage caused by my clients that's the proper place to litigate those matters not this permit appeal most of the allegations are speculation and we look forward to taking care of them in the courts rather than here at this point, i'd like to introduce chuck and carol i want to say there no good reason to reject the opinion of the department of building inspection thank you. >> hi, i'm chuck. >> i'm carol we lived added pine street for 27 years during that time we've worked diligently to maintain and upgrade our property one upgrade was the addition of the main floor bathroom and the deck completed in 2002 we hired the structural engineer and signed off by the city multiple times during the construction process with the on the job and including the final sign off for over a decade no complaint about your project. >> so as joe said at the end of last year, we received we were out of the country got back and received two unpleasant piece of the news one a notice of violation from the department of building inspection and we were glen eagle being sued

but, again, we can't get away from litigation. putting aside another 459 million pounds to cover litigation compared with net profit, 293 million standing in the quarter. >> okay. shall we talk about other earnings? >> let's do it. shell powers higher despite a steep drop in profit. they announced 605 job cuts. shell, however, keeping its shareholders happy by sticking with dividend plans for this year and next. >> with shell, the big news a couple months ago was the acquisition of bg group, $70 billion deal the biggest deal in the oil and energy space in about a decade. back then a lot of people said this is really a huge bet on the oil industry. you could argue it really wasn't because without they're going to gain exposeure to brazil and the l & g market. it's tough to say what shell is expecting in terms of the oil outlook. >> question is as you quite rightly say, you're betting on an oil price recovery. this now is more in line than what we've seen a bit of retrenchment. capital spending cut by 20%, 4 billion operating cost c

gas & electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. 25, existing litigation, pacific gas& electric. 26, existing litigation, pacific gas & electric. and 27 will not be heard today. >> okay. are there any comments? public comments on the items to be heard in closed session today? >> noreen ambrose city attorney's office. i just wanted to ask for a motion to recuse commissioner courtney from item 16. >> correct. may i have that motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. i also need a motion whether to assert -- >> move to assert. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. okay. we are now going to take >> the commission has now reconvened into open session. the announcement following closed session is that items 16 and 17 were settled. items 18-26, no action. now i have a motion regarding a vote to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? aye? >> opposed? motion carries. >> any us in business. >> madame president, before we start the birthday party -- [laughter ] -

why don't people know about litigation provisions?serve judgment on all of these numbers right now. blankman is saying they're pleased with performance for the quarter. uncertainty weighed on the level of conviction. you're right. i'm wondering what's wrong with this. >> $1.45 billion in net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters. that's a big number that you know, you would think -- analysts would have thought they had some kind of head up on a number. >> i wonder if it wasn't included in the estimates for some reason. the stock -- briefly i saw it down at 210. at this point it looks like it's relatively flat. it closed yesterday at $212.96. >> we back it out, but i guarantee you when the journal has it in -- how many points are there? >> ten points. >> they're going to say they fell blah blah blah to $1.98 because of a huge litigation -- >> if you add it it's $4.75. >> still fell because of the huge litigation expense. why isn't everyone else still putting provisions in for mortgage 37 related litigation?

litigation against netflix was thrown out.support the char ter of time warner. they said they will not charge them to interconnect to the backbone. that's positive too. >> what about china on the suggestion on the conference call, they are actually getting into that market may be delayed beyond next year as was originally planned because of the difficulty in getting government permissions? can that be more than a country issue, if for example, others get in there like hanna barbara and are able to get critical mass and come out from that position? >> it depends on how important you think local programming is. one of the things we have seen is netflix says they will launch in both countries with 65% u.s. programming and 35% local programming like in japan. if you think china's local programming is super important, then ali baba might get tracks. it is u.s. global that is important. netflix has huge advantage over anyone in china. they have global deals with the big seven in the u.s. >> what is your price target here? how high c

you save the time and expense of litigation, the pain from reliving this. there's additional ones at stake because there's an old saying under the law bad facts make bad law. i think this case if litigated to its conclusion had the potential and dare i say likelihood to become a paradigm example of that principle because you just have these two equally important legal issues and they're just in direct the igs with each other. we've got on one side of the case this police officer and these guys are on the front lines making life-and-death decisions everyday sometimes in a split second and they need the ability to have the judgment and discretion to do that. and then on the other side of this case we have another police-involved death. i think people are tired. i think they're concerned and there's this general perceptions but that police brutality has become a recurring theme in our society. so if litigated to conclusion, my fear would have been we could haven't reached a satisfying conclusion relative to either party. >> so, mark, you mentioned while this i

one thing, you may end up receiving a dreaded cease and desist letter threatening expensive litigation. that was the case with two businesses on the west coast who received those notices and could have lost everything. ♪ santa cruz is a northern california beach town with a reputation for great surfing. catching the waves here is so popular that the locals call their town surf city. >> you look around town you see surf city barber shop surf city cafe, surf city everywhere. >> bruce knoll isn't third generation owner of noland's on the wharf who have been serving visitors for 50 years. >> we sell shirts, sweltatshirts, hats things for the beach. >> he had a design that he hoped would catch on big time. >> let's throw usa in on the bottom. >> soon after it went on sale however, that shirt caught the attention of a rival surfing community 400 miles to the south and bruce's mother and co-owner ginger noland got a very upsetting notice. >> she came to us with a letter that she received from lawyers representing the huntington beach convention and visitor's bureau. she wasn't sure what the l

and litigation boomed for redistricting lawyers. not for democracy, necessarily. >> thank you very much. elaine littleman. i think everyone acknowledges that congress really isn't doing its thing. so when the justices say, well if this is a problem congress can makes it, that is really a laugh line for the solicitor general. should you just operate as though there is no way to fix the law and just hope for the best for what exists now. how should the supreme court react to that? >> from the perspective of the justices and their job and they say we are not going to overrule our interpretation. they say go across the street. do you think they really believe it? do you think that congress pays attention when they say it? >> in the case shelby county, congress isn't paying much attention. they haven't even given it a hearing. >> i told some of the justices about this. i just did an article in texas, the collapse of statutory oversince the clinton impeachment actually. another justice was aware. and i think there is still know about that

they created a ton of side litigation on the satellite issue. someone would file a motion and then you immediately file another. in response saying this is frivolous that they're calling me frivolous. it got out of hand. the federal judges asked congress to change it back to the original american role. i think that is an excellent question. this threat that you have to pay and other attorneys fees is significant but it is significant to the davids, davids, not the goliath's witches who which is it we're trying to prevent, the goliath for going after reporters and yelp reviewers from people who really do not have the resources to fight someone on a court of law. clicks speaking of goliaths, i want to give one more example and i realize are almost out of time. but it helps to go to the heart of why you need federal anti-slap legislation, and it involves the state of nevada. so nevada for about a year and a half has had a really good anti- slap law on the books or had one. and a resident in nevada and hopefully he does not listen to this or hear th

and i can't give you an exact answer because this is a question that is being litigated right now. lambda legal has a case against the social keep -- security administration and i think we are going to see issues like this, not just with social security, but with other kinds of pensions that have time limits. i will say i'm not optimistic that we are going to get the government to look back more than a decade and try to assess relationships and intent and all of that, but we are -- we are in litigation right now and you can actually follow this on our website www.lambdalegal.org. that is the one that affects the largest number of people in this country. there are issues even for people who get married today because in order for a spouse to qualify for social security benefits you have to be married for at least nine months. and we have had cases in recent years of people who were together for decades, were finally able to marry and then one of the partners died and they want to married for the requisite nine months. it sounds like a neutral role, and it is in some ways a neutral ru

even stronger the litigation since the person that didn't have any entitlement to it and the idea that the people who run the marina have this feeling they have to be protective of the rights of pifdz of people they give boat slips to i don't see that them as the guardian angels of the privacy rights someone wants to found out how much information in a boat slip and times to challenge is it they should have it raw i understand once again you get the slip that information becomes public your address and it is only the wait list when i don't understand if you have a water list it is chronological it is order who's at the tape and second and third and fourth and suddenly 6 comes up getting the slip i don't think you need you've got 6 names and addresses once they get the slip. >> i may not be remembering it correctly. >> i'm sorry. >> because i see and again my name is memory it is not - i esteemed to be remembering there was some information that appeared to be this is kind germane i could use it to see who my age chiej might be appropriate and all of a sudden the rec and park people sor

litigation system. second with respect to where cases are brought, we want to make sure cases are brought in the right court and we want to avoid form shopping brought by plaintiffs. we want to make it as efficient as possible. so therefore we think it would be best if certain -- if discovery was delayed until certain preliminary motions had already been addressed and dealt with and get them out of the way. and fourth, we want to deter the frivolous cases that are being brought. so we think it's important that there -- it be possible for fees to be awarded in cases where claims are brought that are objectively unreasonable, and there be some sort of efficient mechanisms so those fees can actually be rewarded. we believe if the financial incentives is shifted so it's not cost-effective to bring the kind of litigation brought today that will be better for the system as a whole. that will make our patent system better today. it's a big issue for us and something we care about. i could talk in length but i

john is a partner at vincent and elkance where he specializes in pale lant litigation. prior to joining them he served in a number of significant positions including an assistant solicitor general and deputy. while at dorge john received several awards. john also dorge john received several awards. john also clerked for judge daniel mahoney and anthony kennedy on the supreme court. to john's left is andy who argued the williams versus florida bar case. and his partner where he focuses on appellate litigation and advocacy for congress other regulatory ages regarding a variety of policy issues. during the reagan administration burwell. served as a assis nt solicitor general and clinton as general counsel. andy also a cofounder and codirector of the yale law school's supreme court advocacy clinic. gentlemen, let's get right into it. john, let me start with you. let's talk in 1993 as they frequently would ignore conflicts or try to paint them as consistent overrule. they frequently would ignore conflicts or try to paint them as consistent with the prior case law. but here t