Search for: "In re Pohl"
Results 61 - 80
of 226
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm
You’re aware these men were tortured? [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 12:36 pm
We’re back and taking up AO 77, the defense motion to compel the funding of another defense consultant, one Dr. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 7:08 am
Pohl. [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 1:00 pm
And we’re back, with much to discuss in the wacky world of national security law. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:05 am
Judge Pohl: All we’re trying to do, in just a moment, is to establish, pursuant to Rule 505(h), what can and cannot be discussed in open session. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 12:22 pm
Nothing precludes the guards from re-seizing approved documents, even privileged ones, on whim. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 11:09 am
Judge James Pohl has set forth 23 motions for argument: a. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:18 am
“The commission is called to order,” Judge Pohl says. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 11:13 am
We’re back from lunch, with all parties present. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 8:56 am
That takes us to the motion’s disposition by the court: it leaves open the possibility of re-filing the same challenge “at an appropriate time. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 11:46 am
Aaaaand we’re back. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:31 am
We’re talking big-time unfairness here, your honor. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 9:00 am
Oftentimes we don't hear what's going in the review until we’re in court. [read post]
23 May 2017, 12:40 pm
In summarizing what happened, we’re experimenting with a new format. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 6:21 am
Radostitz asserted that her client was entitled to the presumption of innocence, despite having made a confession, citing In Re Mohammad. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 8:08 am
Even if the audio feed is cut to the press, there is potentially classified information, he says, so it has to be treated as classified until we’re sure there is no classified information in there. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 9:01 am
Aaaaaand we’re back. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:24 am
We’re in a quick recess. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 7:27 pm
He then says, “But we’re here” and that he understands there might not be a factual conflict involved. [read post]
6 May 2012, 9:17 am
I don’t know whom you’re talking about, Judge Pohl says, but the answer is also no. [read post]
