and this person must show why it didn't or show mitigating factors why it's public record or what have you. that's why they are in there. you can probably end the sentence with, consider all the relative circumstances surrounding the case, period. and consider what is pertinent to at that time as mitigating factors and not have any lists. this list is not meant to be exhaustive. but it might be simpler for you to allow yourself to be able to consider everything. >> what if we remove a-d? >> what? >> a-d. >> a period where there is a comma now. i would be fine with that. >> i had the question whether those are intended to be affirmative defenses. in other words one could say, when i get to the "d" for example, whether the respondent spoke with council and relied on that of the employee. that probably is a grounds for which it becomes difficult to say that there has been a violation. we might decide that they should, that the advice they got was wrong. and that we should issue an order saying that the documents shall be produced. but on the other hand, we might say the employee acted in

there is not an excuse or doesn't mitigate that. it doesn't seem to capture the people that want information of records that they wanted. as opposed to a fine or finding some allegation legit mitt. -- legitimate. >> i have a quick question, on the supervisor of records, is there something you suggest is included or changed to address the situation that you were describin describing? >> i do think, i do think there is something in the draft that the prior task force submitted. but -- and i can look at it and make a suggestion in a minute. but i am not exactly sure how -- my hesitation is i am not sure how the supervisor of records referral would come to you. 6735. does the supervisor of records make referrals to the ethics commission? can someone go to them? or would they have to come to the task force? do you know this answer? >> (inaudible). >> why don't you come up here a second. i couldn't hear you. >> david pillpel. determination of the supervisor of record are not automatically forwarded to the commission or task force. someone

or nonviolation. are there other factors that cut the other way? these sound like mitigation and why they are important and should be included. there is no parallel. it's a one-way rachet and that's not the right way for us to draft these. what every the opposite of mitigating or exasperating. some 25 cent word that we lawyers throw in. aggregating. it seems unbalanced the way this set is written. i don't have a revision apart from the helpful, of the word that floated to me. but i think we could come up with one while we talked. >> what was the intent for a-d? >> with the

because it seems to me that they are causing, that maybe we need to start looking at mitigations or, i don't know if fees is the way to go or what, but it seems it me they are using public, you know, they are benefiting from -- anyway, that's enough said. >> sure. it's a great question and i'm going to get into some of those issues very briefly and quickly here in a minute then we can have more of a conversation. we want to have all of your office involved in that but certainly the question of what are the benefits and impacts of them presently, that was our first call of action. further policy considerations about what the management or potential regulatory approach is, is the next step. >> i guess where they are, where they go. there's a sense they just impact the entire city but they probably are really concentrated in some neighborhoods more than others. >> i'm going to skip a slide, skip two slides just to get right to the heart of that question which does show they are pretty widespread through the city with certain concentrations on corridors such as van ness, market street, no

professor, can you address the question of how you would use this information either as aggravation or mitigation in a death personality case? do you have any opinions about that? >> a couple observations. first it's worth noting that most jurisdictions, the rules of evidence, whether it's the kelly test in california or the due better rule in federal jurisdictions does not apply at capital sentencing. so many of the questions about how valid the research is and how robust it is doesn't necessarily come up because the standards are much lower in capital sentencing. it's a huge question. you could have exactly the same brain scan on the prosecution side as kent pointed out. these are dangerous people. many of them will say straight up, if you let me go, i'm going to do it again and i really can't control myself and that sounds aggravating. on the other side of it, we are to some extent the victims of our preferences or the inability to control our preferences. we are victims of our environments growing up. we are victims of our context that we live in and, therefore, we all, you know, are not "res

and that 08% of them feel they can't help mitigate that or manage that. then you look at retail investors in the u.s., 80% think they're not going to have enough for retirement, but 60% of them don't want to take any more risk, so it's a tough market out there and people are scared still. >> tom: so you get paid by putting money to work, and among the alternative investments you're looking at, real estate environment trusts. what makes you like real estate investment? >> well, i think, not talking about someone's home here, we're talking about investments that have been income stream that are being professionally managed, whatever way you can move into real estate investments, it also performance very well because it's a tangible hard asset. the fed keeps pumping money into the system, central bank keeps pumping money into the system, lick quidity eventually will see an inflationary environment and real estate is a great hedge against that. >> tom: i take it you do not have a position in iwr, correct, john? >> i do not have a position in iyr. >> tom: john

does that mitigate or neutralize at that angles' taking?no, i think when you go to the gas pump and price are 3.85, you know your life is not better. and especially because we have a situation where the president has attempted to do really zero in order to try to change that for american families. people aren't stupid. at the end. day, politics becomes reality. >> by the way not only that, he's taking credit for the-- for the energy production in this country now. >> absolutely. charles: you would think when he could, throw george bush a bone. you brow beat the guy and after all that is george bush's policies what you were talking about, made it possible. and john, i wish i could say that it's that simple. you know? because life is just not that simple and people are swayed shall that's why they spend a billion dollars on commercials. there seems to be a strong entrenchment of people who believe it's not president obama's fault. that he needs more time and that his policies-- you think that more and more people will have some sort of epipha

my view is that this evidence has not been particularly useful either as aggravation or as mitigation. so i have been doing an empirical study over the past six years now to look at, introduction in criminal cases. it's equivocal at best. it sometimes ends up being aggravating, but so far it hasn't panned out. why hasn't it panned out? in part because science isn't quite there yet in that we're able to see some things at a group level, but being able to talk bay single individual to look at their brain and to understand the extent to which their brain differences contribute to their behavior is very challenging. there just isn't enough data for that yet. you can say things at a groupwide level, though. and so kent mentioned earlier the case out of florida in the sue presume court graham in which the court said the juvenile should be treated differently with respect to life without the possibility of parole. the same happened in simmons where the court has treated juveniles differently. it may be the case we can start to do that. we can start to categorize people. we categorized a grou

. >> host: well, what is one of those barriers you think would be removed or mitigated? >> guest: i think the primary one is more conceptual in nature, and that is this: our telephone regulations were adopted largely in an era where you had voice communications traveling over copper wires, and those wires were operated by monopolies. and so those regulations were, basically, enacted at a time when you had a very different landscape than you have today. today there is a lot of different competition, intermodal competition where you have cable companies and wireless companies competing with the telephone companies to provide the same service. so in my view, the fcc should take a forward-thinking approach, look at more technologically neutral, less regulatory way of p thinking about some of these services. so when it comes to fiber deployment, for example, my view is we should not think of it in the same ways we thought about copper wire monopolies back in the '70s, we should think about competitive fiber providers across different industries. >> host: do you think your fel

i agree with your decision to eliminate in section "e" the points that mitigate their circumstances surrounding whether or not they turned over documents or violated the sunshine ordinance. in "f," under "b," the last sentence, that you will not take further action on a complaint. i would like to see something in this about following up on the status of a recommendation such as you are going to consider in the jewelle gomez case, rather than just letting it end. and i understand that other people have spoken to this, i want to put in my support of not weighing too heavily on re adjudicating, because it may become sort of a slippery slope. where the ethics commission begins to take on the role of the appearance of overturning task force findings. that it doesn't have the authority to do. keep that in mind in the hybrid process. thank you. >> david pellpal. yes, there is a lot here. chapter 2, section 1, sub"a." filing complaints, perhaps that's not the best but hearing referrals, something of that effect. i am not sure in hearing and thinking through this, where the show-cause hearing is a quasi adjudicati

or to his mitigation? we will talk about that. you have a child, 16, he has an above-average iq. he has done very well in high school. he is involved in sporting activities and other types of social activities. one night, he is out with some friends. there is a fight. he hits another teenager in the head. he ends up in a serious coma with a head injury. justin is charged with attempted murder and use of a weapon. here is his mug shot. [laughter] the prosecution says they want to seek a sentence of a life without the possibility of parole. isn't there something about this? maybe the supreme court has talked about this? in 2009, the supreme court eliminated the sentence of life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide cases. for the first time, the supreme court sided adolescents -- cited adolescent neuroscience. a 12-year-old brain develops. you will watch its start to mature until you hit about 24 or 25. for those of you who are parents, you do not need a scan. for those of us who went to adolescence, we know it was a time of poor decision making. the supreme court used

the subtitle and inquiry into our prospect respecting the future removal or mitigation of the evils that it occasions. published in england 7098 and reprinted in the united states 893. he offered his model population not as obstruction but on geopolitics. may cause of suffering censored unrestrained reproduction as a moral evil and argues the best way to restrict one array -- runaway population growth for young men and women to delay marriage. they could spend a few more years celibate before they raised families to reduce the final numbers of children born to any given married couple and diminish the overall average size of families with in the country the chief object of the analysis was the rapidly expanding united states. to exert ever control malthus contended that america keeps increasing the indians will be pushed further back and tell the whole race is exterminated. how could the united states claim to be the strongest defender of freedom when it denied the basic rate of survival to native americans? thomas malthus declared the right of exterminating where they might starve will

think to what extent the romney bump out of that debate was going to happen, i think it was muted or mitigatedy the unemployment numbers that came out on friday. i think that was a significant kind of like wet blanket, if you will, on the republican debate and romney's performance. so kind of going into i think tonight's debate and going into the remaining debates, i think voters are going to be -- especially the ones undecided or the soft leaners, they're going to be watching the debate performances with a very critical eye. i think this is both campaigns have a chance to win this or lose it depending on what they do. >> right. absolutely. >> i agree with that. >> i think anyone would be foolish to say they know who would win this. nonetheless, i'll get both of your thoughts on this. today jobless claims, 309,000. that is down 30,000. the lowest level since february 2008. joe scarborough said this is good news here. >> there's going to be conspiracy theories, i'm sure. but, no, that's more good news on the employment front. again, it helps void the president's chances. this is going to be a r

we cannot and the risk if we cannot achieve that level of risk mitigation, as we didn't leak -- as we did in damascus or as we have done in other locations. we simply remove our personnel from there because we cannot achieve that level of risk mitigation. >> thank you very much. >> happy to do it. as a favor to the former chairman of the full committee, i ask unanimous consent he have to minutes to speak out of order. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will be very brief. i will be very brief.

for park space outside of the plan area particularly in chinatown will more than mitigate with new sunny space in new parks or changes to existing parking to increase the amount of sunshine to those more than mitigate and sur -- surpasses any present today and the benefits have been spoken about affordable housing, the new parks within the district itself, and also i think the fact that you're going to build a business center in this area which will attract a lot of new businesses there and the fact that northern california, the bay area has been the center of business technology of the world and many of these businesses have been either in san francisco or close to san francisco. i think this will allow more of these companies to locate a larger presence into san francisco and even if some of their detailed operations remain outside the city limits, almost all the support organizations for these companies such as their legal, their accounting, their advertising are located in san francisco and of course this would be another opportunity for more of a presence of companies where their workforce is, so those a

for park space outside of the plan area particularly in chinatown will more than mitigate with new sunny space in new parks or changes to existing parking to increase the amount of sunshine to those more than mitigate and sur -- surpasses any present today and the