the petitioners only now have made this allusion to their complaint. they been renewed since then and the court ordinarily presumes individuals follow the law. even before this case, our practice was not to ask people to disclose past violations unless they resulted in an arrest and revocation or something like that and there's no suggestion that any petitioner has had any of those events. >> you think it's fair for you at this point to look for specific allegations in a complaint to defeat a claim of mootness that the plaintiffs had no reason whatsoever to anticipate until after we grant us or sorority . and the city decided to try to move this case. >> that just confirms the plaintiffs got everything they ask for. there's nothing, the issue . >>. >> if you say they didn't ask for a nominal damages, they didn't ask for actual damages, they didn't specifically allege that they violated the old law , they didn't allege that they wanted to make it a nondirect trip. how could any plaintiff possibly have anticipated that until you took the extraordinary st

these petitioners have been renewed, the licenses have been renewed twice. at least, since i complete was filed. do you have a way - i take it the licensing decisions are made by the office and office in the new york police department. do you have a way of communicating to that office what they are not permitted to do, given your representation? >> absolutely. we consulted that office, they are aware of this. if we communicate to them that no such consequences are to be imposed and the event the extremely unlikely and i think it's not can happen event that anyone thought that might've happened they should bring that to the attention of the law department and we will review it to make sure it's addressed. >> i want to put a slightly finer point on the lack of factual basis in any event for the claim of future consequences. the petitioners only now have made this illusion -- allusion to their complaint. they been renewed twice since then. the court ordinarily presumes individuals follow the law. even before this case our practice was not to ask people to discl

petitioners now invoke the right to bear arms outside the home. a premises license is not addressed to that purpose and a premises license is instead issued for possession in a particular place and pet igdzers never address a separate new york license which is to carry license. those questions are not properly part of this case. turning first to the issue of mootness, and i will go straight to the question of coffee stops. there are two levels to this response. first is there is no dispute on that question. the city's enforcement -- the governing standard is provided by state law here because the state enactment preempts local law. the continuous and uninterrupted language cited by my friend is not in the state law. the city acknowledges that and the city's enforcement position is that coffee stops, bathroom breaks are entirelier permissible. >> show me beyond a coffee stop or a bathroom break. suppose they had prevailed and obtained a judgement that the old law was a violation of the second amendment and suppose that after that one of the plainti

. >> i represented the petitioners in the supreme considerate today. yop if there'll be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that we're gratified that the supreme court heard the argument in today's case. this is a very important case. my clients have been litigating this case for over five years. they've been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. brian stapleton has been representing them if the very beginning of this litigation. and 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 resisted their efforts to vindicate their right at every turn and only when the supreme court granted 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 cle

petitioner's suit would dramatically undermine u.s. foreignthe relations andgove d is belied by the long history of successful torte claims against federal law enforcement officers, including in the apalon, a foreigner harmed on foreign soil, the court awarded damages and the diplomatic sky did not fall. not only was respondent standing on u.s. soil when he pulled the trigger but he could not have o known in that instant where then bullet would land, let alone the nationality of anyone it might a hit. second and asedy importantly, l petitioner's here it is bivens or nothing. neither the respondent nor the united states disputes that neither has identified any other alternative remedy for the petitioner's here as opposed to other parties in other cases. all of this goes to why this court was right when it ther explained there are powerful oners reasons tohe retain bivens as a remedy for individual instances of law enforcement pooverreach d goes to why even though sergio r wasce standing on mexican soil when shot and killed this case pre

to hear why for example the petitioners want the fact thrown out of court and why the government want to proceed with the act an implementor across india so that's where we stand right now. u.s. president donald trump has accused him of kratz of waging an open war on democracy the democratic party controlled house of representatives is expected to push ahead with impeachment when it votes in just a few hours' time that will lead to a trial in the republican dominated senate early next year at least $23.00 civilians have been killed in the latest round of russian attacks on rebel held areas of northwestern syria shelling and air strikes in it live province of escalated in recent weeks president bashar al assad's government appears to be preparing for a ground offensive to secure the main highway linking the capital damascus with the northern city of aleppo it leaves foreign minister has had talks with tribal leaders in libya aimed at ending fighting to capture the capital tripoli the u.n. says at least a 1000 libyans have been killed since warlord huffs are began his offensive on tripo

to hear why for example the petitioners want the fact thrown out of course why the government want to proceed without an implementor across india so that's where we stand right now and so given that the government are now in this procedural part of the dealings can we expect protests to continue and perhaps even intensify. indeed there is no let up julie in the way that the public feel this law discriminates against minority groups yes global attention has been of on the issue of muslims whether they are within india or whether they are migrants into india and how those 2 disparate groups would be treated by the current b.j. peter government what we are seeing going to continue to see in our peaceful protests certainly on wednesday that was the case yet it is still quite tense it can flare up at any time as we saw we didn't expect there to be clashes in the northeast of the capital on tuesday the police fired tear gas several people were injured it's more scenario these are the demonstrations popping up hoping that they don't turn violent as if they do the police are ready to react i

of supreme court hearings before the winter recess in the supreme court had a lot to hear today petitioners from. healing to the court to see if they could have the citizenship amendment thrown out as illegal but the court came back with basically a stay saying that the government now has to present to the supreme court a set of rules how this act was going to be implemented and who it would affect they want those rules within the 1st few weeks of january so that they can then invite both the government and petitioners who object to the c.a.a. to present their cases for and against the argument to get the act thrown out and made illegal that is basically what we are waiting for in terms of the new year as far as what's happening across india it still remains tense there are various protests planned we are expecting a large one in mumbai on thursday also later in the week another one is planned for delhi over the historic red fort but if you just take a look at one of the national newspaper the time of india fresh classes in delhi of course on tuesday we saw clashes in a district in the nort

of supreme court hearings before the winter recess and the supreme court had a lot to hear today petitioners from. healing to the court to see if they could have the citizenship amendment act thrown out as illegal but the court came back with basically a stay saying that the government now has to present to the supreme court a set of rules how this act was going to be implemented and who it would affect they want those rules within the 1st few weeks of january so that they can then invite both the government and petitioners who object to the c.a.a. to present their cases for and against the argument to get the act thrown out and made illegal that is basically what we are waiting for in terms of the new year as far as what's happening across india it still remains tense there are various protests planned we are expecting a large one in mumbai on thursday also later in the week another one is planned for delhi over at the historic red fort but if you just take a look at one of the national newspaper the time of india fresh classes in delhi of course on tuesday we saw clashes in a district in t

so the response from the two charter petitioners that you approved november 12th when we made the finding was to provide a matrix that outlined that comprehensive description and the way they met the requirements of law. i have to say that in the report as written i state that the description is not there and i include a list of requirements that have been enacted since 2015 and state that it is not a comprehensive list but includes some that should apply to the school. n inadvertently i did include some that apply to grade levels that are not k-5. that is a mistake. however, the list is not comprehensive and there are several that do apply that should have been listed in a matrix and presented to the district. that finding remains because instead ever responding by providing the matrix to show the charter knew about the requirements and had a plan to respond they simply said they were included somewhere in the petition. and as far as the issue of fund-raising and the budget plan going forward, i did and i stated this in the budget committee hearing, i did review the financial reports as

something i find fascinating really about this petition is that these are petitioners from the district of columbia and at this period in time, 1877, when the -- when this petition was signed, voters -- there were no voting rights in the district of columbia. something else that's really interesting about this petition is that it is signed by two of frederick douglass's children, including frederick douglass jr., at the top of the men's column, and rosetta douglass-sprague, who signs as mrs. nathan sprague, second from the top on the women's column. all of the documents that we've looked at so far in this exhibition are in the holdings of the national archives, and the national archives preserves them for future generations. and i think it's really spectacular that a petition that you send to congress today, just as these african-american petitioners did in 1877, becomes part of the national archives holdings, and we're really fortunate that we have it here today to help tell the story. so thus far on this tour, we've seen lots of petitions. and women, when they were pressing for their

supreme court hearings before the winter recess and the supreme court heard a lot to hear today petitioners from. peeling to.

advice from the city attorney regarding the following existing litigation in which the city is the petitioner and the pacific gas and pacific gas and electric company is an adverse company. >> okay, colleagues, public comment was already taken on item 53 during general public comment, so we will now convene in closed session. so members of the public, we ask that you exit the chamber and the sheriffs lock the door behind them. we will reopen the chamber once we finish with the closed session, and the public will be allowed to reenter. [closed session]

we ask for it all of the time and we get it when we ask for it from other petitioners and so do other districts in the bay area. as far as the enrollment at the school, i will just say this. the number of 85 that i mentioned last night in the curriculum committee is 85 in district, ada, and it comes from one purpose's prop 39 request for next year. they say they project 85.46 for this year, and are projecting 102 for next year. perhaps the difference is enrollment versus ada, but i don't think they would havena low of a percentage of ada to enrollment or maybe it is the total enrollment versus in district enrollment. i can say that is where i got the number from and that came from the prop 39 request. >> thank you for addressing that. that was my next question. i also asked but i don't know if you looked it up about the board's rejection of the initial charter five years ago. >> i did find the minutes of the findings and i did send that to you today. there were two findings. >> the question was why did the board reject the initial charter? >> i am looking at it. do you want me to read

number two, petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the presence -- premise. it should be noted on november 21st, 2019, the applicant agreed to the recommended conditions. >> great. it looks like we don't have any questions for you. thank you. mr. kaplan? mr. paddock? >> we are the landlord of 3060 fillmore. it is a project we have been working on for over two years. it is a combination of a san francisco first's shake shack restaurant, rumble fitness, and the brand-new custom concept partnership between center cal properties and michael mina restaurant group to bring a small format grocery store to the neighborhood. this concept will feature dairy products, eggs, milk, produce, fruit, greens, prepared and packaged foods, and custom beverages to the community. we appreciate you considering this motion and also referring the motion to the full board as a committee report for consideration for december 17th given our projected opening which is scheduled for the 1st week of january. >> great. i don't

. >> i represented the petitioners in the supreme considerate today. yop if there'll be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that we're gratified that the supreme court heard the argument in today's case. this is a very important case. my clients have been litigating this case for over five years. they've been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. brian stapleton has been representing them if the very

advice from the city attorney regarding the following existing litigation in which the city is the petitioner and the pacific gas and pacific gas and electric company is an adverse company. >> okay, colleagues, public comment was already taken on item 53 during general public comment, so we will now convene in closed session. so members of the public, we ask that you exit the chamber and the sheriffs lock the door behind them. we will reopen the chamber once we finish with the closed session, and the public will be ... >> okay. we are now back in open session. may i have a motion that the board finds that it is in the best interest of the public that the board aelect not to disclose its closed session deliberations? motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor brown. without any objection, we will not disclose your closed session deliberations. can i have a motion to continue the item? >> i would like to ask this be continued to a closed session on the 14th day of january of 2020. >> is there a second? seconded by supervisor roaning. without any objection, this item will be contin

to read the government's rules on this law other than the old petitioners and the government lawyers to fight it out of the supreme court to see whether this law stays or goes ok so he'll run and then life as a new delhi thank you very much indeed well still to come on this news are so more clear who will be lebanon's next prime minister but after a major party to coins to put forward a nominee. to heat records are broken a 2 days industry leo will have the latest on the response. and liverpool believe it relates in the carb world cup where has the action from. now the u.s. house of representatives has impeached president storm will trump the democratic party controlled house charged with abusing his power as well as obstructing congress in its investigation of those 2 articles of impeachment now go to the republican controlled senate for trial however house speaker nancy pelosi has thrown uncertainty into these next steps by refusing to say when she'll send those articles we always we would make our decision as to when was and is and when we see whether bill is on the senate side bu

those rules have been digested you might say by the supreme court judges they will then ask all the petitioners that are complaining about the new law and the government to hear their arguments in court on january the 22nd so heller from now till the ice only assuming from what we can see and the way people are talking to us that and that so there will be passionate about the fact that india's constitution india's secular could ensure olds are under threat and something has to be done and this law has to be removed so expect more demonstrations expect more public anger and a very very strong victory ali good discourse between the opposition and the government of the interior minister ahmed shah who said this law is not going to go away it's here to stay well we'll see in times for that so that says a hill rahman there reporting live from new delhi well let's say with this city chandra is assistant professor of government at georgetown university and joins us on skype from kolkata good to have you with us on the program we heard from the hill that the government is perhaps caught off guard. by t

the petitioners have gotten all the relief they other three --bers made you are asking us to opine on law that is not on the books anymore. more details on that case in a moment. comments on facebook from our needrs with mark saying we federal concealed carry reciprocity laws and federal guidelines on what is required for concealed carry and open carry. bill king says if after sandy hook nothing was done -- nothing is going to be done now. the gun lobby is too strong, it is a domestic terrorist organization. in a country where there are more guns in the hands of regular citizens than the entire population, yes, gun law changes are necessary. look at murder statistics in the name of decency. the people need to retain their ability to defend themselves. your thoughts on gun legislation. 202-748-8000 if you think gun laws should be more strict. 202-748-8001 if they should be less strict and about the same, that line is 202-748-8002. is supreme court correspondent for usa today covering this case. uses the term fizzle out. tell us about the case and why the court took it out? guest: it is

we have up to petitioners to decide how to frame their decisions terminate daca. it could have taken responsibility for a discretionary decision, rescinding the policy, that affects hundreds of thousands of lives. instead, they chose to end the policy based on the, ground that daca was unlawful. he told the public, the law deprived him of any discretion to continue., and when judge bates invited them to make a new decision, they stood by the old one. that is their prerogative. but, it has the consequences, that they have to defend that decision, based on the legal rationale they originally offered. and, that, decision is, reviewable and cannot be sustained on that basis. now, the problem with the rationale, is, yes, they don't take a serious account of the dramatic costs to daca recipients on the economy and their employers and families of terminating this policy. and,, also it is founded on the incorrect illegal premise, that dhaka is unlawful. this court can review the lack of an adequate explanation for that ground. or, the, fact that it is sound incorrect conc

we want to see that petitioner did leave brought to a much longer time.ive up some of that leave. we want to see both sets of parents have their own individual entitlement to leave. he said that you think the gender pay gap is really the sort of key element for all of this. 0nes, gap is really the sort of key element forall of this. 0nes, if thatis element forall of this. 0nes, if that is completely fixed, do you think everything flows from that?” think everything flows from that?” think there are many other issues. like the underrepresentation of women in parliament. we know that has an effect on women‘s lives and work and in society. there are policies being designed that disproportionately harm their outcomes. we know that there will be other work needed in other areas. what we really need to see is action on that gender pay gap, meaningful action. thank you. 20 migrants have arrived at the port. 0rderforce is currently dealing with small boat on the kent coast. it has worn trying to make the trip across the english channel and a small boat is incredib

>> the fifth circuit, all of these are cited in your brief, petitioner dismissed his own head be us petition and the tendency of your appeal and a very recent case from the ninth circuit it was this week where the defendant, four defendants, three reached the settlement, they filed stipulation of dismissal. they filed rule 41 notice and relying on the same cases, katrina is from the ninth circuit, all of them cited on the brief. it doesn't exercise jurisdiction, the order for rule 41 notice on the time it is filed. >> the jurisdictional question on rule 41, this is no stranger to dismissing cases, in trial - to the defendant audit. no one asks for moon us in the district court. it got rid of it. the jurisdiction is moot. all of this is moot or not and doesn't even come up. it is a narrow narrow class of cases. >> it has to be a case where the defendant will not take yes for an answer. >> do you agree the case against the president in individual capacity is moot? >> the rule 41 notice. >> whether the disappear is moot. yes or no? it is moot? >> we believe -- >> you refused to dismiss without

circuit in 1993, mcfarland versus collins, all of these are cited in our brief, where a habeas petitioner dismissed his own habeas petition in the district court during the tenancy of the appeal. there is also a very recent case from the ninth circuit, this week actually, where the , there were four defendants and three of the defendants reached a settlement so they filed a stipulation of dismissal, the other defendant refused to stipulate the dismissal so the plaintiff filed a rule 41 notice and relying on , pedro rena is the case from ninth circuit but also citing all the other ones in our brief, they said the district court does not have to exercise jurisdiction in order for a rule 41a1a1 notice to be effective on the time it is filed. question of whether this is a jurisdictional question based on rule 41 or whether it's a factual question, this court is no stranger to dismissing cases on the grounds that they are moot. we did it in a criminal case where the defendants have gone through trial and appealed against it, headed in the direction and then the president took an action on priv