brian stapleton has been representing them from the very beginning of this litigation. the reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the second amendment. up until the point that the supreme court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york had resisted their efforts to vindicate their rights in every turn and only when the supreme court granted the certiorari petition in this case did the city start to take efforts to try to recognize their rights. the court asked a lot of questions today about those continuing efforts by the city to try to make this case go away but they also asked very important questions about the merits that made clear that this is part and parcel of the kind of regulations that have no basis in text history or tradition and should not be upheld consistent with the second amendment so we are very hopeful that the court will decide this case on the merits and in favor of the petitioners but in all that we are very gratified we had our day in court to vindicate these important constitutional ri

this litigation i think has taken 5+ years. it's become relevant only at this late stage after the city of the state have have enacted a new law. why isn't the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough? in a 1983 action, damages are clearly available. the complaint long ago as it was filed did say they sought all available relief. typical prayer for relief. why isn't there a fair prospect the district court on remand would allow amended complaint to seek actual damages? >> two answers, one is that that's not how the court is approached and fair prospect is not enough to sustain case under article 3. >> fair prospect of relief isn't enough? about whether the claim is in the cased must precede a decision on the merits. that question is a jurisdictional one. solicitor general is mistaken that it can be deferred until later and the merits reached anyway. the prior point i think is equally important which is that it's not a matter of faulting the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs chose the case they wanted to brin

this litigation i think has taken 5+ years.nly at this late stage after the city of the state have enacted a new law. why isn't the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough? in a 1983 action, damages are clearly available. the complaint long ago as it was filed did say they stocked all available relief. typical prayer for relief. why isn't there a fair prospect the district court on remand would allow amended complaint to seek actual damages? >> two answers, one is that that's not how the court is approached and fair prospect is not enough to sustain case under article 3. >> the prospect of relief isn't enough? >> whether the claim is even in the case at all, whether the à Ãa decision about whether the claim is in the case most receipt the decision on merit. that question is a jurisdictional one.solicitor general is mistaken that it can be deferred until later and the merits reached anyway. the prior point i think is equally important which is that it's not a matter of faulting the plaintiffs but the pla

in the litigation. but it does seem a bit much, doesn't it, to fall plaintiffs for not having a specific damages requirements and their prayer for relief and in a complaint that was framed years ago, this litigation i think has taken 5+ years and this has become relevant only at this late stage after the city and the state has enacted a new law. why isn't the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough? in 1983 action, damages are clearly available. a complaint, long ago as it was filed did say that they sought all availablerelief . typical prayer for relief, rule 54 doesn't pull people to their prayers for relief. why wasn't there at least a pair prospect that the district court under a man would allow an amendment complaint the actual damages. >> two answers, one is that it's not how the court is approaching this question and to, their prospect is not enough to sustain a case under article 3 but there prospect of releases and enough ? >> prospect whetherthe claim is in the case at

most litigation settles without going to court and that's where the middle of the road in litigationance exists, and that's how we make a good deal of our money >> how do you pick the cases that you're going to invest in >> so we work together and our client base tends to be large companies and the large global offerings. we work together with our clients and the law firms to identify opportunities that are both financeable for the underlying client, where a cfo is saying, i would like to take some capital in against this litigation asset that i have today and that isn't doing anything good for me so we work together with clients and law firms to find cases that both are meritorious and also have sufficient economics that everybody is going to end up happy. the client, the lawyers, and bured f burford and its shareholders hasvery much for coming in and talking to us thanks, chris. >> and check, please! is next. we make ideas grow. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives. nice rock. to one that can take on a b

. >> if you said you don't engage intend to litigated, we don't want to litigate it will dismiss it with prejudice, i will venture your colleague on the other side of the aisle will be readily prepare to dismiss the appeal, but you have said and i have even repeated today that you are reserving the rights to file it again, and is that what this is all about? is there some game game gamesmanship going on here? >> i don't believe there and there is gamesmanship? >> all they have to say is there ought to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, any of these other issues are for the district. court >> to the judge kings point, jurisdiction and the comments of the game and ship that's what we face here all the time in cases that come up, we'll may have another i don't know what your motive is, i'm not going to impugn that to you, we have a legal issue, we are not the news channels, we are not the political folks are they're arguing about this cases we are a court of law. we need to decide the legal issues in this case, and forget about the questions what's gonna happen is, the world gonna turn

are you a litigator or an appellate lawyer? >> i dabble in the arts of litigation. marylandstrict of historically has had cases waiting to be ruled on for motions of dismissed -- to be dismissed for three years. >> that is ordinarily not a problem, but this case involves the separation of powers, counsel is in favor of careful. >> are there any subpoenas against the president? >> that implicates the president's interest. in at croft -- ashcroft come you can't avoid this problem. >> there are cases from other circuits about these de facto denials of immunity. but are there any like this over a period of time is so short. delay.s no unreasonable the district court is saying i am going through on it and discovery is open, but not against the party seeking discovery -- immunity. i understand your point about the president's personal capacity lawyers attending the deposition, but there is no discovery order against the actual party seeking immunity. i can't find any case like that. when you had no unreasonable delay in this discovery against a different party implicates

are you a litigator or just an appellate lawyer? >> i gavel in the arts of litigation. >> the district of maryland historical as that cases waiting to be ruled on promotions to dismiss for three years. in seven months is nothing. >> that is ordinarily not a problem with this case involves the separation of powers. counsel is in favor of careful -- >> arthur any subpoenas against the president? >> that implicates the president interest and again it doesn't matter, it ashcroft you can't avoid this problem. >> there are cases from other circuits about these sort of de facto denials of immunity but are there any like this where the time is so short? it doesn't seem unreasonable. the district court is saying i am going to want it and yes discovery is open but not against the party seeking discovery. i'm sorry, seeking immunity. i understand your point about the president's personal capacity, lawyers may have to attend a deposition but there is no discovery ordered against actual party seeking immunity. i can't find any case like that thi

we have no idea what the answer to the question might be if it had been litigated. the article 3 analysis focused on what the plaintiffs asked for and what they asked for was c categories and destination and that was by the state and city laws. to turn now to the question of future consequences, as i've said, the issue about coffee stops is an entirely feign dispute. we would not undertake prosecution of that or any violation of the law at this point. >> is there any way in which any violation could prejudice a gun owner? >> not that i can think of. the city is committed to closing the book into that old rule and we're not going to take it into effect. >> is there any way that a finding of mootness would prejudice further options available to the petitioners in this case? for example, seeking damages? >> i don't. i don't think so. it's possible they have a time bar on the damages, but it would depend on the allegation they made. if they've never made allegations related to damages and i think the other key point on future consequences is there's no factual basis in

and so -- >> if you said we don't intend to litigate it, we don't want to litigate it can we will dismiss it with prejudice, i'll bet you are calling on other side of the aisle will be readily prepared to dismiss the appeal. but you have said and even repeated today that you are reserving the right to file again. is that what this is all about? is there some gamesmanship going on? >> i don't believe there's gamesmanship. >> all that is relevant if you don't have jurisdiction. that's all you're to say is it ought to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. any of these other issues are for the district court. >> to the point of jurisdiction and the comets that gamesmanship, that's what we face all the time with cases that come up. you may have another motive, i don't know which motive is. we have a legal issue. we are not the news channels. we are not the political -- argue about these cases where a court of law. we need to decide legal issue in this case and forget about the question of what's going to happen? is a world going to turn upside down if we do this, with the present have to work

keep litigating, isn't it? >> judge gregory, i see my time has expired. >> you can answer the question, yes or no to the first part. and then you can go ahead. >> i couldn't guess what your answer would be. >> there are a number of -- there are a number of questions baked into that question. certainly our intent is not to tie up the president in litigation. in fact we've tried to dismiss the individual capacity defendant from this lawsuit and we're also not taking the position that if discovery had gone forward and we had noticed the deposition of the president that he would have no effective relief either from an effective denial or through mandamus, but here where the district court evidenced an intent to rule was working through the issues in this case and there's no order from which to appeal, we believe that this court should, at a minimum, we believe that this court does not have jurisdiction and we believe that even if this court does have jurisdiction, that the appropriate thing to do is to send it back

most complex litigation never makes it beyond the circuit courts. this has been the most long-lasting, important contribution the president could make well into the future, far beyond his tenure in office. we will have a judiciary more inclined not to make it up on the fly. you know president obama said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. that makes great sense if you are the litigant before the judge for whom the judge has empathy. not so good if you aren't. >> sean: let's talk about -- the issue has come up. let's see somebody work who retired at the end of this year leading into the summer, you have been very clear, if the president appointed somebody, he would follow through on that nomination. >> absolutely paid we definitely would do that. this paper back we were just talking about, the president's forward is about judges, by afterward catches up on what has happened during the trump administration on judges, because my memoir came up three years ago, before the president was elected. what we've done here, the president denied togethe

the opposition in the cancellation is a mini litigation. so fraudulent file or if they don't default, default may be a goes away for several thousand dollars. but they don't default all they have to do is file and then the case goes in to litigation it goes into years and several hundred thousand dollars. so the irreparable harm and helps for district court litigation in the stoppage uses, but not bottle it all up. the proposal together pto director to re-examine trademarks on his or her own own initiative. and then have expunged proceedings for trademarks that have never been used or visually fraudulent. i would be interested, this is my last question and from anybody on the panel. >> we believe those are good starts for legislation and the proposed legislation in the house. getting at the application and for expungement. we want to say one thing on the expungement so far there is a clause with language it gives a serious pause we believe it creates actual loophole that the filers could actually expose and allow the extension of time to ac

most complex litigation never makes it beyond the circuit courts. this has been the most long-lasting conjugation the -- contribution the president could make in the future, far beyond his tenure in office. we'll have a judiciary not to make it up on the fly. obama said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. that makes great sense if you are a litigate before the judge before whom the judge has empathy, not so good if you are not. >> sean: let's say somebody were to retire at the end of this year, leading into the summer. you have been very clear if the president had supported somebody, you would follow through on that nomination. absolutely. >> we definitely would do that. and this paperback we were just talking about, the president's forward is about judges, the afterword catches us up what's happened with the trump administration on judges because my memoir came out three years ago before the president was elected. what we did here, the president and i did with this paperback that he was showing on the screen, talk about how the judge proje

the original was class-a litigator. he argued in the u.s. supreme court and made the case turn by honors need not reach this issue, you can decide upon this narrow ground and they went for it immediately. he's a highly, highly distinguished lawyer. was thatesting thing is -- an interesting thing, that was john door had this very that we wanted to have a unified staff and my were mostly hillary labovitz, dagmar joe woods. but i also worked closely with sam garrison and on the republican side but i was welcome in both camps. not sure everybody was welcome in both camps and i think the hard core of the force, i'm not aware that had any republicans on it. watergatedence of the conspiracy i think was mainly developed by the democratic staff. were not quite so partisan texas congressman from who at a democratic caucus was --ed, what's the theme of jack brooks. two's the theme of article about agency abuse? f.b.i., c.i.a., it's all so understandi don't it. he took a cigar out of his mouth and said the theme of this going to get're there.n of bitch

. >> bert was a class "a" litigator. argued wittherspoon versus illinois. he made the case turn. he said you need not reach this issue and you can decide this now or -- he was a highly distinguished lawyer. an interesting thing was that john dohr had this very strong view, we wanted to have a unified staff, and, you know, my playmates were mostly hillary rodham, hamilton, to some extent joe woods, but i also worked closely with john davidson, john whitman and sam garrison on the republican side. but i was welcomed in both camps. i'm not sure everybody was welcome in both camps, and i think the hard core of the watergate task force, i'm not sure that had any republicans on it. so the evidence of the watergate conspiracy, developed mainly by the democratic staff. and they were not -- they were not quite so partisan as the congressman from texas, who at a democratic caucus was asked what is the theme of jack brooks? what's the theme of this article ii about agency abuse, fbi, cia, all so confusing, i don't understand it. he took the cigar out of his mouth and said the theme of this

it is inappropriate for this committee to attempt to influence ongoing litigation. today's hearing is not the role of this committee and and i lok forward to the opportunity to perform the oversight duties that the american people elected us to do in order to keep us safe. dr. longo, is it true that in the early 2000s testified under oath that talc containing asbestos was an urban legend? [inaudible] >> yes, ma'am, i did. >> what has changed since then? >> what has changed since then is we've been using and much more sensitive method and that was at the time that we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands and thousands of johnson & johnson confidential documents showing that the their own testing of r own products in their own minds had regular asbestos in it. we were not using the most sensitive techniques. since that time in three years we have analyzed over 109 johnson & johnson bottles and found 65% of them positive for regulated asbestos use heavy liquid density separation. in many other talc company. >> how long has that testing been avail

the defense would scream bloody murder and i became a civil litigator, that was the same thing. tape --script of the whoever made that decision, i think it was probably john doerr or bert jenner, they were absolutely right. >> how valuable were the materials? the develop and of the watergate conspiracy? i assume they were valuable but that wasn't -- i was not an article one man. what is the story with bert jenner, he changed his position. ? was he forced out by the minority leaders? i don't know about forced out. he was one of the prominent lawyers of the united states, the founder of a great chicago firm. myself, having gone to an ivy league law school , he was skyhigh as far as i was concerned. i remember him saying the president was going to be impeached early on. that was not in the newspapers, i don't think. he got there pretty quickly and he spent -- he and john doerr spent a lot of time together. he would come and make presentations to the republican members. i don't think they ever felt at ease with him. at one point, he was testifying think one man from ohio said you sa

there will probably be litigation. at that point the courts are make the determination. this do you mean came together quickly with the help of others -- this document came together with the help of others and there's nothing contentious about it at this point. >> i have a question for you. i think it's work talking about in public a little bit. and that is, it's on the third page, c1 -- page three. there is a paragraph that reads, there is no sustained if the officer resigns or retires any time before the chief or commission makes a final determination. if the commission continues its investigation despite an officer's retirement, the charges will be sustained. if the commission has made a final determination sustaining a finding and the officer has been afforded the opportunity to appeal. and the question i had is whether we would ever have the ability to continue an investigation after an officer retires or resigns? i thought we had lost jurisdiction at that point. >> this issue did come up at the working group. and buck was present, and he actually answered the quest

but all those are questions that would be anticipated heavily litigated down the road. and we'll cross that bridge when we get there. >> commissioner hamasaki? >> yeah. so this is something that's come up for me since i think early in my term on the commission. it's always seemed troubling that by resigning, an individual deprives us of our ability to investigate disciplinary or criminal conduct that's being -- that's occurred, either under the cover of law or another capacity, because they resign, and then the city, we're not doing our job by conducting and overseeing the investigation and releasing findings and holding individuals accountable and being transparent to our city about the problems that may have existed. so i've always been in favor of this. i'm glad to know that we have the legal authority on this, because the idea that we are going to sweep things -- or that we have forever swept things under the rug, not intentionally, because i think there wasn't the knowledge that we could do this, i welcome this news. and i look forward to us instituting this proces

number of cases referred to bic litigation committee two. we didn't send anything to city attorney. code enforcement outreach total 16,663 reached out to. counseling 1050. community program 2502. cases resolved 313. these are the numbers for november. >> thank you n.public comment on the director's report. seeing none. item 6. review approval of the minutes of the regular meeting november 20, 2019. >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second. any public comment on the minutes? are all commissioners in favor? any opposed. okay. the minutes approved. 7. discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the director. continued from the october 16, 2019 meeting. any public comment? seeing none. is there a motion to go to closed session? >> moved to go to closed second. >> second. >> motion and second. all commissioners in favor. aye. we are in closed session at 10:10 a.m. we will >> we are ready to reconvene. this is the building inspection commission continuing our closed session item number 7. this item d reconvene in open session to vote on whether to di

the presumption would provide clarity for courts and litigants. beyond the question of whether the presumption applies in certain cases it's unknown now what exactly you need to do to prove irreparable harm. one would think that proof of deception and confusion would be enough. but the ninth circuit said otherwise. finally, a presumption would be balanced by the fact that it is rebuttable. so an alleged infringer can come forward with evidence to counter it. also even with error represent rabl harm that doesn't mean the injunction issues. a litigant and movent must show the balance of shrtd shardship actives in their favor and injunction favors the public interest. in the end the time tested common sense doctrine has well served trademark owners consumers in the marketplace for many years and shuntd be taken away. thank you for your time and i welcome your questions. >> thank you. miss bannigan. >> chairman tillis ranking member corns and members of the subcommittee. good afternoon. "i" megan bannigan, counsel where my practice includes protecting

court of appeals for the federal, and litigated before the united states panned office. mcgahn is council, where she is a member of the international property media group. she has represented clients before the u.s. pto, the trademark trial and appeal board and the international trade commission. she is active in international trademark association, the ip section of the american bar association and the american intellectual property law association. thomas williams is the supervising attorney for duke law duke law school start-up vice president venture clinics where he works with opportunities to represent early stage for profit and non-profit entities also director of the duke university jdma joint degree in bioethics and science policy. prayer to joining duke law mr. williams was a corporate attorney and served as assistant counsel to a physician practice. finally stephen lee. stephen lee serves as chief sblg the property counsel for the target corporation where he told the position of senior director and assistant general counsel. he put prayer worked in private prac

he has spoken to the press come issued a public statements and testified in litigation but he apparently does not want to defend his company's actions here today. .hat is unfortunate and frankly, unhelpful. i hope and encourage the subcommittee to continue its important work on behalf of the american people and i pledge my support as they do so, thank you of again, mr. chairman for the support and hearing. and i yield back. chrmn krishnamoorthi: thank you, very much chairwoman maloney. i would like to recognize ranking member jordan for an opening statement if you wish. our linking member, mr. comer, has said what would need to be said. chrmn krishnamoorthi: really? that is the first time i have heard you say that. thank you, mr. jordan. our first panel today should've should opportunity that have been our opportunity to hear from the ceo of johnson & johnson. he was aware of our interested in march and said that our committee needed to hear their side of the story. we invited mr. gorsky to come before us one month ago. and yet, mr. gorsky is not here. mr. gorsky can still make this righ

think that memo is sufficient and it will not go to whether it is an operative document in this litigation. i would like to point you to two places in her memorandum and first page is 121a and this is the second page of her memorandum. the explanation reflects the first thing, my understanding of the duke memorandum and second thing, yet decision to rescind the daca policy was and remains sound. if you look at the end of her memorandum she states in the very last sentence for the reasons -- for these reasons in setting -- in setting vhs enforcement policies and priority, i concur with and decline to disturb acting secretary duke's decisions to rescind the daca policy. >> can i pick up on justice kagan's earlier? does the memo say even if daca was lawful i would still exercise my policy to discontinue. >> yes, your. >> if you look at the memo. >> what sentence are you looking at? >> page 123a and this is after she says it's illegal. >> second, regardless of whether the daca policy is ultimately illegal and it was rescinded by the dhs because there are at a minimum serious doubts about the l

then at 9:10, constitutional litigator justin pearson talks about occupational licensing requirements at the federalist society. watch this holiday week on c-span. senate democratic leader chuck schumer held a news conference monday to push for witnesses at a senate impeachment trial. senator schumer also requested specific documents and emails be subpoenaed by the senate. the u.s. house voted to impeach president trump last wednesday on two counts -- abuse of power and obstruction of congress. they pelosi has not sent articles of impeachment to the u.s. senate. senator schumer: thanks to everyone for coming. merry christmas. happy hanukkah. za, happyn everything. happy everything to everyone. i hope you have a good holiday season with your families and hope you don't have to work on christmas day. now, more than a week ago, i sent a letter to senator mcconnell -- sorry, more than a week ago, i sent a letter to senator mcconnell outlining a proposed structure for a fair and honest impeachment trial in the senate. nothing dilatory, nothing prolonged, but what joe friday said on "dragne

we have been subject to litigation. we are trying to figure out an amortization rate to resolve that litigation. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is dan jordan. i work for the central city collaborative as a housing peer counselor. i live on sixth street. it's a private sro hotel. and it's one of the most expensive ones in the city. this hotel has, with most of the private hotels, your facilities are located in a hallway. you have no kitchen, not in your room, not in the hallway, not in the building. and all they really want is that rent. they do very little to keep the building in repair. so you are at the mercy of the landlord. and they know this. and unfortunately for people on social security or very low income, these hotels are the last stop. we need to keep them as sro hotels and not allow them to be converted to tourist hotels. i know some of them are doing it anyway. but they need to be stopped. and made to convert back, because they haven't done it legally to begin with. thank you. >> thank you,

said that whatever settlement he might consider looking at the post office over the course of this litigationse claimants who were criminally convicted of false accounting. he held to that redline when he came to the settlement and that the post office may now offer up all of the internal documentation to the criminal cases in the hope that they may overturn or at least refer some of these cases to the court of appeal to possibly have their convictions removed. ten of whom went to prison, these cases are with the criminal case review commission but one would hope that given what the post office has accepted and given with thejudge the post office has accepted and given with the judge decided today, they will look at those prosecutions and as they are obliged to do. they will look at those prosecutions and as they are obliged to dolj know and as they are obliged to do.” know you have been following this for nine years and unfortunately we have run out of time but thank you for coming in to talk to us. we must go straight to the weather. it was not too bad today quite dry and sunny weather for

legislate, investigate, litigate. in our legislation we have 275 bills that are bipartisan on mitch mcconnell's desk. the grim reaper says all we're doing is impeachment. no. we have 275 bipartisan bills on your desk. among them are background checks. since we got back we had a vigil. one from a survivor. last night we had a vigil. all these numbers of years since newtown and every year we have this vigil. every day we pray that mitch mcconnell will pass that legislation because it will save lives. 25,000 people die-- have died since we sent the bill over. since we sent the bill over. not all of them would have been saved, but many of them would have. we have paycheck fairness for women. we have equal pay for equal work, paycheck fairness. violence against women act, re-authorization. issues that relate to raising the minimum wage. 30 million-plus will get an increase in their pay if we raise the minimum wage, 23 million of them women. quality act and discrimination against lgbtq community. dream and promise act. keep

a that's why the earlier conversation we had about the ongoing litigation on subpoenas matter, because if we get confirmation from the supreme court that, yes, in fact, you can't just tell a former senior aide, yeah, no, you can't go testify, you can ignore a congressional subpoena, or if you can impose what is one of these articles of impeachment, an absolute, unequivocal we won't give you a thing congress because we don't want to, that not even actually saying here's our privilege. we just don't want to. that's the kind of thing that will continue to be an issue. and as we'vee seen and as we know, adam schiff has said, we continue to investigate. is there sufficient evidence? absolutely. have we seen a congress, republican party in particular, raise not one objection, not one objection to a president that has stolen their gavel? that is crowning a king. >> ron klain, i need an honest answer before we need to fit in a commercial and keep this whole