This hearing to the call of the chair. But its my intention to have d. P. H. Back at one of our two july meetings, because i would like to have more of that detail and maybe some dollar figures attached. And i do have at least a couple of additional questions about the you know, the results of the bed study, for example, you know, how does that proposed increase in funding relate to the existing d. P. H. Budget for beds . Because my understanding is the existing budget for beds does not actually account for all of the beds we buy over the course of a year. So if were adding 10 million to a budget that already doesnt account for for the beds that we need to buy over the course of the year, im not sure thats guaranteed well be making progress toward the number of beds that we need. Anyway, maybe somebody can explain to me that aspect of the budgeting and maybe we can have craig wagner talk to us about that. And im wondering how the bed study relates to the beds we dont use. We know we ha
Honorable emmett g. Sullivan. Good morning, counsel. Well here first from ms. Powell. Good morning. This is Sidney Powell for petitioner michael flynn. Were here now to stop further intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it should all of the factors that go into that, include the provision of evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jensen who not only had ten Years Experience as an fbi agent, but ten years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr tasked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case because we have both issues of judicial of prerogatives and a clear abuse. Theres no case or controversy any longer. The government has quit, and he also has no authority to go into the re
Thank you. Mr. Hursh . Present. Lipkin present. Tavares is absent. Vice chair gee present and madame chair present. Directors, you do have a quorum. Go ahead and call the next item. Sure. Directors, the next item, item 3 is communications. Wed like to provide further instructions for the Public Comment process which has changed slightly from the last meeting. Members should dial into the published number, 408 4189388 and enter access code, 1466334383, press pound and then pound again. Listen to the meeting as they wait for Public Comment to be announced. At which time, members would have up to three minutes to provide comments on each agenda item. They would get into the queue for a particular item by pressing star 3. I will announce Public Comment on each item and or for general Public Comment. And that is when callers will dial star 3. It will show their hand is raised and theyll be added to the queue and called on. Lets see. Callers will remain muted until their line is open. Automa
Up next, live coverage as the d. C. Appeals Court Hearings argument via teleconference, will they should vote on the case of michael flynn, National Security advisor. 5143 in re michael flynn. And the honorable emma g sullivan. Good morning, well hear first from miss powell. Good morning, may it please the court. This is sydney powell for petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an if ib fbi agent, but 10 years before mr. Barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessen
Thank you, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. In 1991, congress enacted the tcpas basic restriction on the placement of automated calls to cell phones. In the years that followed lower courts consistently upheld the constitutionality of that restriction as a contact neutral restriction on the use of calling technologies consumers found particularly intrusive and annoying and the Congress Debt exception in 2015 did not introduce any constitution infirmity into the statutory scheme and that exception is limit to a narrow category of calls that intrude less on Consumer Privacy than the typical automated call and that serve an important counterveiling interest in protecting the federal fisk. Theres been a good deal back and forth in the briefs whether sponedents challenge is properly viewed as one to the exception or to the general automated call restriction. And i think in circumstances like this theres not a right way or wrong way, not a right or wrong challenge to bring, the