subsection c mandatory detention without an individual hearing is written as then exception to subsection a. to all the consequences is the hearing. so the bad ones as justice breyer said they will be detained. >> but congress did not trust those hearings for certain classes my understanding. correct me if i'm wrong but congress was concerned that those hearings were not working in a way that congress wewanted and therefore for certain class of criminal terrorist or aliens they said no more. >> that's right. but the question is what is the class. congress wrote the statute to say take them into custody when released. otherwise except as provided in paragraph c or subsection c. so i want to point out the bipartisan group the former ins council said they agree with our reading of the statute and they say detention under 1226 a. >> but every other circuit disagrees. >> some of the circuits your honor deferred that the government asked to defer to and partly not because they disagreed with paragraph one but not with paragraph two. in the fourth circuit actually read the decision incorrectly a

changes to subsection d1, d2 and d3 would clarify that every owner and financial interest holder must provide accurate information within the application and apply as mandatory grounds for denial to all owners within an application if false ?ftion provided. not just the applicant. provision d4 makes it clear that any person discovered can never receive a cannabis permit in the city and county of san francisco to show the importance we're placing on compliance. and then section 1622, oops. i went past it. on page 22 and then 23, and actually 24, 25, b12 provides discretion of the office of cannabis to set delivery limits as changing acknowledges that the ever changing knowledge of these rules on the state's end. 1628 -- 1622. >> ok. so, you added on page 24, it says number seven. did you -- .7. did you -- >> yep. let's go back. section seven. >> that is, i think, the same issue. is that right? >> quantities of cannabis or cannabis products ahow for delivery under state law. >> yep. this is aligning this provision locally with what is allowed by state law. >> do you still have the area

to subsection a. so the only consequence is you get a hearing. and so the bad ones as justice breyer said, the baddies will be detained is there. >> the problem is that congress did not trust those hearings for is a certain class -- is my understanding -- and correct me if i'm wrong about that. but congress was concerned the hearings were not working in the way that congress wanted, and therefore for a certain class of criminal or terrorist aliens said, no more. >> that's right. but the question here is, what's the class? what's the class? congress wrote the statute to say take them into custody when released. otherwise except as prid in paragraph c, subsection c so the hearing. and i wanted to point out the bipartisan group, the former ins and dhs general counsel said at page 0 of the brief they agree with our reading of the statute and they say detention under section 1226 a is not meaningfully more burdensome for the government. >> every other circuit for them -- four of them and equally divided fi

then the person gets a hearing under subsection a.that is the only consequences that justice breyer noted. >> okay, you have changed a lot of the language. and have told us to ignore what happened after 1996 and then went back to the language of when the alien is released. we focus on the language, that is a phrase you say it limits the class of aliens that are involved. aliens a noun. adverbs usually do not modify a noun. they usually modify verbs. and the verb here is, shall take into custody.so, why is it that the duty shall take into custody, is modified by the adverb, when the alien is released. okay? and so the governments obligation begins at that moment. we know that is when shall take into custody duty starts. but the class of aliens, the who, now, has nothing to do with the adverb. that is the question my fifth grade grammar teacher would ask. all right? so i pose that to you. >> i think i am also. sometimes adverbial phrases do describe a noun. just as they do in the statute. so first, for all the reasons i've already said,

subsection b. then says it's not the federal government and by the way it's not today's employer -- the employer says any person and 20 or more people, 20 or more employees and then it goes on and subtract the federal government and state and local governments. it makes no sense to subtract them unless they were included -- >> and must you ever intended to include. >> that's certainly not the way the court has granted for the way title vii does. >> you assume that the statutes being read in two ways. you're not saying it wasn't permissible you're just saying the better reading is norway, perfect? >> that is correct but let me put it a slightly different way. i'm not just assumini not just r side hasn't disputed that there are two possible ways to read it. our position is when you take the side of statutory clues that i've only just begun to get to, the only reasonable reading is our reading. if we've already talked about the persons but there's more. i would have started with the very first signal.

thank you look at 699-12-a-1, subsection a, there, it specifies that requests for formal opinions need to be in writing, right, but for informal advice, there's no requirement that the request for formal advice must be in writing, as well? so i don't read that as just being restricted to e-mail advice. >> i would imagine that there would be multiple scenarios of people coming to the commission and seeking both written advice by e-mail, clarifying questions about a filing, or, you know, what documentation would need to be submitted for a public' financing qualification request and also questions that would come up over the phone, when do i need to file my 460? those -- i think those two scenarios would be encompassed by the formal advice section. >> so if i may, just to describe in brief some of the protocol in the office, having seen it firsthand, what pat is setting forth here in these regulations concerns two categories that the charter itself creates, opinions and advice. those two things that the charter creates, and which we now need to clarify by regulation because the charter le

. >> vice chair kopp: okay, anything of substance in that subsection change? >> i don't believe so, chair. i guess public comment should be taken, but please don't repeat points made before. i mean i can't stop you from repeating but i will enforce the 3-minute rule without beneficial treatment. commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: i had two others i talked about that didn't get picked up. you had said we can change the requirements for requesting informal advice to just make it clear that all we need to know is how to get to somebody. so we need their email address or their mailing address or their telephone number so i would like to recommend we make that change so how do we answer that question. i would also, as you had pointed out, i wanted to make the change to say that after a commission adopts an opinion that the executive director will send it to the district attorney and the city attorney within three days and there's no need for any extensions. so if you can include that in your litany, then we are ready to go. thank you. >> vice chair kopp

in subsection c, where it says upon receipt the executive director or other staff shall prepare a draft opinion that addresses the questions posed in the request period. we could add something in their language like what you just said. those offices may share their analysis of the issues contained in the opinion. >> vice chair kopp: wait a minute. is their opinion, is one of them going to be binding on us? >> no, whether or not the city attorney or district attorney concur. >> vice chair kopp: how much more time would that take? >> i think we can do it in the time line i have proposed in here, which is 45 days after we determine that the request for an opinion is proper and complete. >> vice chair kopp: anything else, commissioner ambrose? on that paragraph of ms. maio's letter? >> commissioner ambrose: no, thank you. >> vice chair kopp: okay. all right. let's get back to rescission. she says that shouldn't be dependent upon concurrence of city attorney and district attorney. do you agree? >> i'm not sure i understand what she is commenting on here. >> vice chair kopp: well, i think i d

the increase in hourly growth compensation and consumer price index increases specify in subsections a, b, c, d, increases under the fiscal and budgetary provisions of the charter and certfies that such funds are sufficient to pay for the increased hourly gross compensation. if the controller certifies the appropriated funds are sufficient to support a proportion of the increased hourly growth compensation rate and the consumer price index increase, then the rate shall increase by that proportion only. i would also like to thank the controller for helping us, of course, with these numbers, and agreeing to convene the non-profit working group. and everyone has a copy of the amendments. >> president cohen: thank you very much. all right. seeing there is no further discussion on the amendments, why don't we go to public comment. items 31 and 32, please come up. reminder, two minutes. soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the balance of your time. welcome, sir. >> thank you. charles minster, a member of senior disability action, retired trade union, residents of district 1. i cer

instead of and online 16 -- >> >> so it's page -- >> or following sub section e1 or an or following subsection -- >> line 15 to 16e2. it's awarded permanent under this and any time prior to december 31st, 2018. provide the medical dispensary and then on that second line, submitted a complete application permit prior to july 20th, 2017. or demonstrates the satisfaction of the director it operated a cannabis, blah, blah, blah. remainder of that sentence. can we do that? >> can you make a motion to make that amendment today. keep the language in and replace the end with an or. >> i would be more comfortable if we did that today and adjust it later at the next hearing on this. i would feel better doing that. would you be open to that supervisor mandelman? >> my preference would be to leave in -- to take the amendment as we wrote it with the language delated and then add it back in later because then it facilitates going forward. if we're not going to do that i would rather just leave it as it was and negotiate over that section going forward. >> this is being proposed today to strike it. it wasn't

should be extended for such project for the duration of the litigation for the purposes of the subsection b, the date of approval shall be the date of any administrative appeal to the relevant board. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, supervisor kim. so you have a motion to that effect, and we can do that without objection then. we'll do that without objection. all right, colleagues. and as amended, do we have a motion on the item? the underlying item? >> supervisor kim: i'll make a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation to the board. >> supervisor tang: okay, as amended, we'll do that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, item 7, please. >> clerk: item number 7 is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to establish 430 29th avenue special use district and affirming appropriate findings. >> supervisor tang: okay, and do we have someone from supervisor fewer's office here? okay, great, sorry. >> good afternoon, supervisors, chair tang. so we just have an issue that supervisor and planning department and the city attorney are trying to

it fires up a very specific subsection of the base. most angry resistor. >> harris: how big is that? >> that's a great question for both parties. >> jessica: i think they are big. not the biggest. it's kind of like how i felt like the burning movement was overblown, there was this narrative that that was the entire party. the one he had 25 billion -- >> it was completely overblown. >> jessica: he lost his primary by 4 million votes. >> kennedy: he was cornered out of a legitimate run by the dnc, which was actively running against him. it >> jessica: disagree about that. >> poor bernie. >> it made a part of the left-wing base, but it also does is turn off the independents, it turns off proper. what he hasn't asked for is pushing people into unmasking themselves. i think we have seen from the left is pure dysfunction, pure chaos, a party that is willing to do absolutely anything, even destroy an innocent man for political power. that's exactly what we saw. >> harris: we lets here for a drug from the present pride will come back back. >>

delegation's provision itself which talks about categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with subsection b. so both comprehensiveness as moderated by some feasibility constraint seems in the statute as long as you're taking the statute as a whole. >> so there are a few problems with reading it that way. to start with the fact that in j.w. hampton, the court emphasized that the intelligible principle had to be clear from the legislative act itself, so to the extent that the court is looking -- >> legislative act itself meaning only from the delegation provision? >> from a legislative act. >> this is the legislative act. these are all parts of the statute. >> that's right. and the court rejected the idea if there was a narrow delegation provision that did not contain any standards, that that could then be governed and given content by the general preamble to the act which is exactly the argument the government is making here. >> when we are thinking about nondelegation it's essentially a statutory interpretation question, which it seems should be governed by the same rules as statutory int

that is ten-month survival advantage of this subsection of women with triple-negative breast cancer whiche unless you're the one that gets the extra ten months but when i heard that i thought i wish it was longer but you say ten months is a big deal. >> the average survival was 15 months and bringing that up to 25 months and that means we'll get better at doing it all. that i'm an optimist. 10 months buys you ten more months of hope for more research which are literally coming every few months. >> what is triple negative breast cancer? >> you always bring us back to earth. >> reality, unfortunately. >> breast cancer, many types have a particular molecule, the estrogen receptor, the progesterone receptor or her-2. this is a cancer that has none of them. so it's about 15% to 20% of breast cancer but 40% of breast cancer deaths so there's nothing to target so the outcome is pretty -- it's an aggressive outcome with a poor outcome to the patient but this changes it. we've seen advances in many types of breast cancer and finally we're seeing one in triple negative. >> and just to remind people

but unfortunately, under section 92, subsection four requires that it has totally in flight for the ukhe police in spain. regrettably, ryanair staff, cabin crew, are under a lot of pressure to get aircraft into the sky, and i suspect that's the reason they failed to do theirjob properly. but i think this person is going to get away with this scot—free as a result of ryanair‘s failure. ryanair says they operate strict guidelines for disruptive passengers and that they won't tolerate unruly behaviour like this. given what you've said, what do you think should happen to ryanair now? ryanair have tolerated criminal behaviour. this is not unruly behaviour, this is crying, this was a section five public order, racially aggravated, committed, on an aircraft, which is a public place. —— this is a crime. this woman was assaulted by this individual. he was putting his finger towards her. he was making immediate threats of violence to her. he committed a section 39 common assault. the problem is, he won't be prosecuted, in my view, for those offences because the plane was not in flight heading to