0:04
we
0:05
represented um in a preliminary
0:09
injunction case as it related to voting
0:12
machines KY Lake down in
0:16
Arizona and she happened to be a
0:20
candidate at the time so she was a
0:22
plaintiff and was willing to and and
0:24
interested in being a
0:26
plaintiff uh to challenge whether voting
0:30
machines violate individuals
0:32
constitutional rights because they
0:34
cannot be counted
0:36
on uh to provide an accurate vote count
0:41
and of course the machine companies
0:43
greatly dispute that the governments
0:45
that hired these machine companies to
0:48
count the vote greatly dispute that but
0:51
there are a lot of Voters who
0:54
don’t have confidence in this
0:58
system so and representing Cary Lake
1:01
that case became quite contentious the
1:04
court dismissed it uh after our
1:07
complaint was filed
1:09
the ninth circuit affirmed the
1:13
dismissal uh we are preparing a petition
1:16
to the Supreme Court to see whether they
1:19
will hear the case the reason for the
1:21
dismissal was based on one legal theory
1:25
in principle and that is called standing
1:28
whether there was a concrete injur
1:29
injury to these two candidates who were
1:33
the plaintiffs in the case and
1:35
ultimately the court determined that
1:39
whether or not the vote count was
1:40
reliable or challenging the reliability
1:42
of the vote count was uh uh speculative
1:47
and conjectural and it wasn’t concrete
1:50
enough and therefore the case could not
1:53
go forward we disagree with that we
1:56
continue to disagree with that but the
1:58
ninth circuit affirmed it that’s another
2:00
interesting case uh I represent Brian
2:03
lipshultz in the B Auto Bremer trust
2:06
case uh which is one of the biggest
2:08
cases in the state of Minnesota right
2:10
now uh I don’t know whether that’s you
2:13
know we we just we went up on appeal and
2:15
he was removed as a trustee of the otob
2:18
Bremer trust by a district court judge
2:20
in Ramsey County we appealed it to the
2:23
court of appeals lost they affirmed the
2:26
removal we appealed it to the Supreme
2:28
Court the Supreme Court agreed to hear
2:30
the case and it was heard and recently
2:33
uh ruled to affirm his removal so that
2:38
case has been
2:39
resolved uh it’s a difficult standard
2:42
it’s an abuse of discretion
2:45
standard that the court of appeals and
2:47
Supreme Court applied and so they just
2:51
acques to The District Court conclusions
2:54
in that regard but that that’s a very
2:57
interesting case and a big case the
2:59
other
3:00
set of cases that we uh we’ve become
3:04
very involved with um our lanoma cases
3:09
theft of trade dress or trademark one
3:13
company against another or an
3:15
individual and we have an
3:18
interesting uh case
3:20
involving a company that sells cigars in
3:25
a tube with
3:28
humidification uh uh that keeps the
3:31
cigar humidified for up to a year and
3:35
Beyond even in the tube and so you don’t
3:39
have dried out cigars and they sell them
3:41
to golf
3:43
courses uh which has quite a clientele
3:47
for this product and has for many
3:50
years what our complaint in that case
3:53
alleges is that when this company was
3:57
sold one of the potential buyers who
3:59
ultimately did not uh get the bid to
4:03
purchase the company took all of the
4:05
information provided to them on due
4:08
diligence which they had signed a
4:10
non-disclosure agreement took all that
4:12
information went across the street and
4:14
started up their own single tube cigar
4:20
humidification uh sales
4:23
company and uh so claims have been
4:27
brought and uh that is in litigation now