condition precedent to the contract. what that means is the airline has agreed to carefully transport your baggage from one location to another and get it to you on time. the fact that the line did not do that means they have reached an agreement. if i was that person if i have my garment bag not delivered to me on time for the day, not only good going to sue for the fee i paid but if i have to buy clothing in another suit and tie to come on fox, i m going after the airlines for the cost of that clothing. i bet anything i could recover it. patti ann: on me that happens quite a lot, interesting question. emily, could the airline end up on the hook for all kinds of delayed baggage if this is a being successful? you could argue that. the nature of this case, it is a procedural decision. for viewers, moving forward what is important to know is you can suit airlines under state law and really, it would be at the
longer than a cough. so i cannot imagine now that we live in a society where you go to a legislative proceeding now, you even make any kind of remark, you are now prosecuted for a crime? this is not an ongoing disruptive proceeding. i picked to fit with emily on one point. this woman did not go there wanting to disrupt things. it is only when they came to get her aunt were dragging her out of there proceeding that she became disruptive. i think it is a waste of taxpayer money. patti ann: interesting, we will see where it all goes paid we have to move on to our second topic. a federal court has revived a lawsuit accusing u.s. airways now part of american airlines out refusing to refund the passengers baggage fee even though her bag arrived a day late. you say this is a straight breach of contract, explain. absolutely. when you pay a fee to have your baggage carried on an airline, there is what is called a
ku klux klan members. they all faced up to a year in jail, one protester says her attorney will file a motion to have that verdict dismissed. joining us now with more on this, brian claypool, criminal defense attorney and emily, former federal attorney and former criminal defense attorney, thank you both for joining us. so emily, where is the line drawn between lawful protests in disrupting a proceeding? speak of this specific statute, destructive and disorderly is what is known as a catchall, so it means that it is a whole host of unruly or obnoxious behavior can fall into that category. for example, one of the protesters said, it wasn t an audible gasp, a mere laugh, i could not help myself. clearly, that was discrete duty not construed disruptive because the guard approached her then she became quite audibly disruptive when she was being brought out so the nature of the statute is that there is a whole host of behavior that falls under it. more importantly, it speaks to