cannot answer this question i can't answer this question registered voters michel can't you can't answer this question secretary of state cannot answer this question nor can you change wilkinson this question who is qualified to answer this question only the computer law as the certifying official for the accuracy and reliability of voting machines made the certification that this type of equipment was acceptable that that is  question my question is really a pretty simple one i think what you're asking us to do is to say to the secretary of state you were wrong to certify this much screen system because it's not accurate or are so many many people involved in this versus the ones they are trying to protect have you distinguish the language in bertie that says that strict scrutiny does not always apply to the various determinations as  one in the voting card right and then two in the actual hardware of the machine itself it's stored dunaway and what happens is that information is stored and every single ballot can be reproduced individually by by the pushing voter verify to make sure that the ballot is that voter has asked is actually that instead is received by the computer rather than the computerized tallying process it is receiving the paper ballot in about the exact problem solved by the fact that you can produce and printed hard  doesn't suffice but you need to have a piece of paper to look at and make sure that the computer registered what you  and the counties in their judgment can exercise their values about the pros and cons of each system let's appropriate that screening systems at particular advantages that are particularly helpful where there are voters with number of the changes to touch me system but she does have one point mr with and if i understand it correctly if you compare it with the punch card the voter can simply take the card after they have used the stylus and see whether or not the hole was actually punched in the card for the box that they checked whereas with the computer system as i understand ms weber's concern you can request  printer now which will give you a paper record of an electronic file but there isn't any other way as i understand her argument to verify that what's in that electronic overlapping and secure responsibilities they're responsible for putting together the ballot definitions locally and the secretary of state's office there are people at the vendors responsible for making sure it all works and there are checks and would want to implement the addition of a printer that would that would create a litter verified paper value would need more space at the point place you need more space in the warehouse you need more battery power to cover the additional drop incorrect information that was made about the accuracy a computer can be accurately wrong and it can be actually correct a computer only repeats what it's been told to do is just a machine in this case is not about machine matter on calendar  it's yeah but i think for my case i think this the stronger argument really comes out of the fact that the reasonable statutory basis corpus statutes that say that if you depart and you are no longer in custody then we lose jurisdiction purposes of maintaining a claim of continuous residence that's that's an exception that really isn't applicable here it is to prevent the poor alien who's trying to establish seven or ten years of residence from losing that credit bit by making a brief casual and innocent trip to feel wanted to go shopping it seems to me this is a different case this is a case where the defendant is alleged to be at an aggravated convicted felon he's ordered deported on that basis and during the pendency of this challenge to that deportation order he deports himself and there's a regulation that says when that happens we treat that as an abandon of your challenge and now your deportation is finally complete you're gone and we can't like you back again because you're an aggravated convicted felon you're no longer eligible to remain in the end of the attorney general i have to say cannot do it the statute prevents the executive has told us that people who have aggravated felony convictions cannot remain in the united states but congress also says by definition a legal permanent resident may not be stripped of his ri legal permanent resident and the supreme court looked at this and said hey as much as we don't like homosexuals and as much as we don't like what this gentleman did not intend to the california law as it applies to the situation we're not trying to push beyond even if it could be pushed on those two areas we are six negligence according to a condition in st paul's ninety two policy which was a claims made policy in the condition was that where the where the act the magazine act for they didn't think they had to until they actually suffered at first and the other well until i had a claim and there also the second reason is there was no application process so unlike our let's call them at the outset when the original policy of insurance was procured and presumably the insurer through its broker was asked whether it had knowledge of any displays my ignorance of claims made insurance law i thought people in the industry know that under a claims made policy you better give your insurer immediate notice if you think that you might be suffering a potential claim in order to make sure that you're going to have an insurance coverage determination in your favor that you could this possibly that's why the policy is so bad communicated with st paul in one nine hundred ninety six when this whole thing started said goes we think there may be a claim here we really think we'll prevail because this is a fraud and we think we'll be able to go to court in california and  because our principal would never lose we were surprised in that respect because we got dismissed in the district court here so we never had a chance but that didn't make any difference what i thought doesn't make any difference what i told st paul when this policy took effect according to st paul that's evergreen renewed every year we had reasonably reasonable we could have reasonably foreseen it would be a  ballpark you're saying that because the claim the act in the claim did not appear and occur in the same year i think that once you have knowledge of a potential  i don't want to go overboard with this we think it's ridiculous but point but the fact but it's also true let's let's look at it from another perspective during this period of time you're negotiating redactions and your premium several contracts that's true but there's only one policy and i think we've made it clear in the brief what policy means there is for the word policy in this coverage wouldn't have done it because i would consider it an ethical but i had no idea that it was of the least importance because we never dreamed of paying premiums for seven years we could be at the mercy i said that was i thought we were going to clobber these people in a california district court because even their own customer said it was a joke we got in  think because everybody knew that these containers came in and they were delivered so they the claim was a joke what they want to taiwan were our principle ships call and they got somebody to give them a judgment once they application and brought the policy the first time you were under the gun if you didn't tell him something and later on there's a claim and they find out that there was something that you could have reasonably current's policy that it's a matter of when the current occurred the incident occurred so long as there was coverage during that year then whenever i make the claim doesn't matter well that's the way coverage be  insurer did have the obligation to report awareness of circumstances that could lead to a claim not simply to report actual claims the policy anticipates that there is even a  that let's assume that a line had given written notice in one thousand nine hundred sixty we've got a problem with these containers now the claim comes in in one nine hundred ninety eight and as i read this language and be at that point the insured had knowledge or could have reasonably for seem that that prior incident could give rise to a claim and yet the year in which been given notice even the policy form the circumstances would be you would charge them higher premium understand that but how would the circumstances have been different with regard to the coverage or well either this issue of policy of insurance we're talking about a contract and i contract of course is a bundle of rights and obligations it's a almost a legal entity unto itself but also for the party sometimes as the physical document but in bodies case involved the specific issue was coverage under an employee dishonesty coverage but that coverage was only one section of the general commercial liability policy and in the statement faction i think it's made clear they did not have a stand alone delegate bond or something that issue this was in fact a general i believe policy just had different coverage sections and the courts has the  interest in proving a continuous contract that could be another circumstance where they have quite the other interest in the court's not going to say well we'll see what you should watch and that's what would give him so i think those cases are on point and then we need to look at the evidence in the record and what you want this point to the fact that yes there was one policy number there was one physical policy issue but there's no evidence that explains the significan of those two facts are what we have yours and if so your five a policy written very infrequently and there's no evidence in the record that would meet this clear and convincing standard that somehow there's a practice in the industry that you he usually issue separate survived at that point then under oath under oath in other words if despite having been given notice st paul the site issued the same policy then it may be true that under the policy they would not have coverage but having been found that those conditions were valid enforceable the fact that they were not very advantageous to be sure it did not mean the court was going to rewrite the contract to give them better terms so why she came before this court i believe it was the the courts have been very clear that we don't think these policies are very well written and obviously insured with well suited to look for a different type of policy but they weren't going to rewrite the contract and that's our position here  circumstances that various points in far but he then spent five minutes i think kind of arguing that point and making various representatives about his state of mind in the advance and so forth i believe the issue is not presented for appeal it was not briefed it should not be disturbed if the court disagrees you can certainly review all the three things in that in the case below but i'm not going through my limited time try to try to address all those arguments f done for us that's not what we're talking about in this case we're talking about one thing here that is the interpretation of the nineteen ninety two piece of paper and it has to be all nineteen ninety