So many foods are always in the news because some new piece of research is saying it's good and then it's bad. Now one of those commonly consumed items is coffee. For a lot of people they drink a cup of coffee or two or three cups of coffee every single day. So it's a bit alarming if a piece of research comes out that says coffee is not good for this condition. In this video I want to talk about from a Chinese medicine point of view is coffee good for you or bad for you. Hey guys Dr. Alex Hain author of the health book master today doctor of Chinese medicine and acupuncturist. So before we jump into this video two very important links. Right below this video there are two links and the first is if you want to become a patient of mine in my private practice in Los Angeles you can contact the link below which has a link to my private practice to contact me or to reach out to someone at my office. The second is for a free guide which is four daily rituals that potentially help you out years to your life with Chinese medicine. So before we jump into talking about coffee specifically the definition of health in Chinese medicine is a little bit different than traditional medicine. You know if you ask your doctor what is healthy they will probably say something like a healthy BMI your blood work your labs look good but I have a lot of patients I see probably 30% of my patients have normal labs they don't feel well and they're not well they're sick from a Chinese medicine point of view on top of the fact that they feel sick so how could that be true on its own. Well I think Chinese medicine is a bit more of a nuanced description and I want to quote a chapter from our most ancient medical book the Yellow Emperors Inner Classic and the very first chapter talks about longevity and health so some of these terms are a bit archaic but I want to explain this after reading it. So the first chapter says in comparison to why people in ancient times they talked about people who follow the Tao live a long life versus modern people who are old by the time they're 50 he says now when the sages of high antiquity taught those below they always spoke to them about the following they talked about quiet peacefulness absolute emptiness that the true chi follows these states when essence and spirit are guarded internally where could a disease come from hence the mind is relaxed and one has few desires the heart is at peace and one is not in fear the physical appearance is taxed but it's not tired now there are more chapters in this book that talk about the free flow of chi I like to use the word circulation function in these organs as being the definition of health so let's talk about the idea of coffee because everything we put into our body has an effect on what's called the chi dynamic in chinese medicine now the chi dynamic may be on a very material level as a synonym for physiology right healthy functioning chi dynamic is healthy physiology the opposite is pathology when we talk about the chi dynamic healthy physiological flow is for example eating food you digest the food without much discomfort and you pass it in a bowel movement also without much discomfort obviously there are many places that can go wrong because I see so many patients for gi problems and I've struggled with them lifelong myself but let's give an example so a study may say that there's a direct correlation between how much coffee you drink and your longevity that it's good for circulation or that it has antioxidants but let's say you as an individual you drink coffee and you get a lot of indigestion or you get full-on acid reflux or you get heart palpitations or insomnia or light sleep or anxiety do you trust the study that says drinking more coffee is better for you or do you trust your body which says coffee sure as hell is not a health food for me this is definitely increasing pathology because if I don't have coffee I don't have acid reflux when I do have it I get a lot of indigestion and acid reflux so what do you trust in my opinion if you're having gastrointestinal upset if you're having nervous system issues palpitations anxiety and insomnia from coffee coffee is not a health food for you regardless of what a study says or 500,000 sample size population says for this study on coffee if coffee is causing now much upset to your physiology to us in chinese medicine the chi dynamic it is not something that's going to help you live a long healthy life clearly but I'm often surprised by the fact that sometimes people will trust the study over their own body so they will say the study says this my doctor says this when they are full of pathology and illness so from a physiological perspective and a pathological perspective is coffee good for you or bad for you if you're more of a sensitive type that coffee gives you indigestion it gives you reflux probably shouldn't drink it or should be careful of the dosage because I think as apocrates said apocrates are paracelsus the dose makes the poison so maybe like me you can only have coffee every couple days or a couple times a week maybe you're someone who tolerates coffee really well and you can even drink it before bed and you're out like a light and you sleep well and you have good energy if that's the case maybe coffee is fine maybe you're someone that gets constipated easily even though you eat a decent diet maybe you eat a crap diet but coffee helps you stay regular with no other ill effects then maybe coffee is a very therapeutic agent for you because the lack of constipation right having a healthy bowel movement will be better than missing a day or two or three and if the coffee has no other ill effects on your body maybe it is a medicine so thinking about is this more medicine or more poison based on the effect it has on my body it's really high level medicine and I think we need to get back to the spot where we are trusting ourselves and not just relying on a study even though we do that and we don't feel that well so keep in mind common sense is coffee good or bad for you the answer is always it depends and bad for who who is drinking coffee it's not about the substance coffee necessarily it's not straight poison it's not arsenic or it's not mercury it's a food substance but can be quite strong and can have side effects so who is it for is it more medicine more poison and at what dose I think that's something really important to think about because I don't think a lot of people do so my two cents on coffee and the effect it has on the body the physiology in Chinese medicine before you guys go don't forget those two links right below this video to reach out to contact my private practice or to download that free guide and otherwise I have two related videos for you right there


Everybody forced here ripping 2022 top stripple threads baseball hobby nine box case number 43 We're gonna get started here. Thanks again everybody for joining links and chat as well And you can always find on the site scroll down to the bottom if you're on the website lane sports cards calm results quick link Another option use the search bar find some results. That's a good way to do it Let's get started that's what's up That's awesome Sean Yeah, have Blake learn in the bigs Pretty bad face masks actually raiders aren't not in it You need a quick score though Yeah, just deep all the atoms just doing if you would have thought that touchdown earlier it would be 21 Yeah, three plays in a row just just do that Don't even worry about the first down just worry about the end zone right now Wanda rookie to 299 Tampa Bay It's 125 posey for the Giants triple jersey rookie on-card auto pirates Rowan Z Contreras 42 of 99 And jumbo jersey twins sunny gray to 48 game used Carl how many who socks teams you go into this year? So bobby wit base rookie Rivera to 125 Yankees a younger Rivera there into 199 corey seager rangers That's really cool triple jersey Yankees Mariano Rivera Derek Jeter Andy Pettit seven of nine Game used partial pinstripe in the pettit as well Go Yankees. Congrats on that.  Um What am I what am I trying to say right now?  I wish there were some closer to Orlando Closest we have is Daytona or like this hampa area Like clear water or you know Tampa itself Kind of a shame We get spring training in Orlando, but like I want minor league baseball. You know what I mean? I want minor league baseball that disney stadium stinks They need to they need to make wide world of sports better if you ask me Ozzie Smith Cardinals number to 259 and to 299 Randy Johnson Diamondbacks Giancarlo Stanton triple game used relic to 27 Yankees 122.2 Miles per hour exit Milo. That's wild It's the ball kind of hard kind of hard Uh jembo jersey auto Patrick Corbin to 99 nationals What's up simply? Oh, yeah, Ethan. I love the Star Wars prome Star Wars prome galaxy It's great stuff I'll have some fun with those tomorrow A J rod rookie 78 of 99 mariners Nice base parallel. We got Ty Cobb to 259 Tigers A Paul Goldschmidt triple relic auto 17 of 18 cardinals now. We have a good start to this case here STL stats the MVP the nl MVP You go red birds and jembo jersey One of nine j kroner worth Padres That one's player worn. Oh, that's what's up, Carl. You got to go to a few Oh, that's probably a book that's really thick Oh, man You guys ready? Should I make everybody wait open that pack last? Maybe I should do that Maybe I should make everybody wait for the final six boxes this break to be done And that's what I'm gonna do I think that's what I'm gonna do the 299 mark McGuire a's and a 125 wander rookie for the raise Tigers triple jersey auditory scubble to 99 It's definitely been a good case so far jersey Dodgers Clayton kershaw 14 of 48 Game use kershaw. Yeah, I'm making you guys wait Sorry, but I'm not sorry The dummy thick pack is gonna have to wait here.  It's 199 Mara in a Rivera Yankees It's a 299 Ken Griffey jr. Mariners triple jersey auto giant Joey Bart to 50 future phenoms It's on card Bart and player worn jerseys Jumbo Gavin Lux Jersey to 27 Dodgers player. Uh, no game use on this one game use Yeah, look at that pack just sitting there Can't wait to open it later on I'm excited Cooler Rodriguez rookie Mariners Stot rookie Phillies at 259 And a 299 Buster Posey Giants Brandon Marsh angels rookie game use triple rallyk here fly chaser So 36 there is on the H here Uh, you can see like the die cut as little dinged I'm tagged up I'll get a boxer rapper out with that for the angels And a rookie base auto mariners Julio Rodriguez 114 of 199 Yeah, body mariners Big big hits trying to see who has them Who's got Seattle mark B? Congrats mark This does have some peel on the bottom as well Have to send a boxer rapper out with that one On car J rod rookie auto, though. That's fire Love to see it. Let me grab a couple of these here This has been a fun case, man We still have uh five boxes well five and a half boxes What was that one mariners and one?  I haven't worn it in a while though Tigers Ty Cobb to 150 Rockies Chris Bryant to 75 Triple career relic twins to 27 Island is this a island Roy island Roy? It's because from Puerto Rico, isn't it? Yelp. Oh boy. Oh boy. And jumbo jersey auto Brady singer Royals 24 of 99 I didn't forget it. Let's stay in there until we're done with all the other boxes. That's the very last thing I'm open Oh boy island Roy Just island rookie of the year It's a 299 Salvador Perez Royals and a 150 Clayton Kershaw Dodgers Now you're gonna PCM Rookie triple jersey auto Sammy long 1099 giants and a bat relic Juan Soto Nationals at 36 Island rookie of the year I know what rookie I know what ROI means but They know tops knows what they're doing and I'm putting island ROI By like some accident Dominic you have the red socks if you need to see the results you can always find them on the website I'll drop you a link right here so you can see for yourself Go and again breaks are uploaded to the youtube channel once you're done Uh, Tati's the 150 Padres and a 199 Giancarlo Stanton a Yankees Redemption Mike Trout triple threads auto relic card amber parallel that'll be to 18 Angels with a heater right there And jersey card boba shed the 27 blue jays That one is game used Let's see where are these boxes at right now 400 they've stayed at 400 since they released 399 99 Yeah, Korea should just come to the red soccer now I'm like, uh, you know like a four-year deal Maybe five year hunter green team option all the way It's 150 Nolan Ryan for the astros you got a 199 mookie bets Dodgers Blue jays matt Chapman almost perfect triple game use relic here the 36 And angels rookie auto read debt mers to 199 can't wait to open that I hope it's a huge book big time book. Come on. They'd be a deca bumper pool What position does he play again carl to 259 Nolan Ryan astros to 299 buster posie giants Triple jersey rookie auto reds Tony santi on number 250 And jumbo jersey a kuny upper Atlanta 36 and what's game used Something with his right leg, I don't know specifically what it is But it was he has a surgically repaired right leg Get it repaired when he was a prospect Um Yeah, I guess that's what's scaring teams like long term to 259 Ted Williams red sox 299 chipper jones braves triple relic a kunya game used to 18 Atlanta Another a kuny there 435 times plus 435 plus times two And redemption giants emerald parallel triple threads auto single jumbo relic mike yastremski Yeah ankle. Sorry. Yeah ankle I mean ankle is on the leg. I'm not wrong I'm not wrong. It is not I'm not as specific as I should be Yes, surgically repaired right ankle. That's what's up with korea. That's why teams are having They're hesitating on like the long term of it I don't think they're worried like right now, but it's like four years down the line What's korea gonna look like like are we given? Someone who won't be playing shortstop for a long time that kind of money Buzz you got stanton 125 yankees into 25 devours for the red sox triple jersey miggy to 36 tigers Outside the zone and jumbo jersey out of twins max kepler to 75 big pack two three things so extra hit in this one it's 199 musial for the uh For the cardinals and a 25 lindor met Ranger sweet one here triple relic auto korea seager 18 of 18 Seager stats nice hit texas jumbo jersey yankees rookie louise heal one of three Player worn rookie jersey one of three And royals at marifield jersey to 27 game used in the wit Last three mini boxes here. So we'll have that Dummy thick back. I've been making everybody wait on hope. It's worth the wait It's just gonna be like an extra Jersey relic or something Two extra base That would that would that would not be very cash money.  Maybe like an all-star game book What happened at this pack worked out 75 soto padres and a 259 bobby wit rookie for the royals, of course That's really nice some yankee legends bernie williams andy pettit. Jorge pasada triple jersey auto Rats yankees seven out of 27 bernie williams andy pettit and a hip hip or hey We'll mag that card that's sick And jumbo jersey joe adel to 27 angels Carl you love calling along. All right. Let's see what's in this thing Oh, it's a deca It's a deca I'll show this one first Uh jersey auto matt olson braves at 25 Nice olson there for atlanta There's a lindore base Okay, let's see what we got We'll move these base cards over so this is going to be for one team. There's not going to be a random here Deca relic book combo card Yeah, this is one team. It's numbered one of 10 yankees Reggie jackson don mattingly andy pettit bernie williams Roger clemens wade boggs derrick jeter mariana revera alex rodriguez and erin judge Deca relic combo book card again numbered one of 10 All game used pieces of memorabilia Again, I'll kind of go a segment by segment here now. So again reggie and donnie pettit and bernie Got clemens and boggs who belong in red socks uniforms jeter and moe And a rod and judge Sick hit yankees crushed it man last two boxer the yankees. Well, I guess that wasn't the last box Yeah, congrats yankees deca relic combo book card to 10 Holy cow. Let me take a picture of this before I put it away So we'll start to recap with that basically Yeah, we're gonna have to get that packed up Let me just get a photo of it. I don't think I can hold it and take a picture at the same time Safely anyway, I don't I don't have I have two hands. I don't trust myself with that. So I don't want I don't want to get a good picture of this. It's too. It's too many I can't get a good picture. All right. I think that'll work All right. Yeah, so that's gonna start of our uh, yeah, I'll show the numbering here too one of 10 Right on maddingly there That's sick. Yep. All game use deca relic combo book card We have one of the big ones that people all right, let's do a recap of everything else now Congrats yankees yankees crushed it. We need some really nice hits. So we'll start with um relics All right, what's up? Some victim got joe adel kyle sucker whit marifield louise heal miguel cabrera ronald a cuny jr Again, there he is God matt shatman bobeshet Juan soto as a national carlos korea twins brandon marsh gabin lux clayton kershaw jake chronoworth Jean-carlo stan triple yankees jersey here of vera jeter pettitz And sonny gray is a twin All of the autos now that matt olson atlanta Gavin sheets white socks cori seager rangers to 18 triple relic auto max cappler twins mike ish tremsky giants redemption triple threads autos single jumbo relic emerald parallel Nice one giants tony santi on reds read tetmers angels sammy long giants Got brady singer for kansas city joey bart giants trikes scubble tigers paul goldschmidt here to 18 cardinals There you go pat corbin gnats alec manoa jays contraras pirates Magd cards we had that yankees triple relic auto bernie williams andy pettitt or hey pasada game use triple jersey auto there This is top triple threads Uh triple threads auto relic card amber parallel redemption angels mike trout that'll be just like that seager and goldschmidt will be to 18 It's 18 congrats on that some monsters here man and the j rod rookie on card auto to 199 We'll point out again. There is a ding it's like peel on the bottom here gonna send a box shapper, but that is an on-card j rod Uh as far as on-card autos go does not get a whole lot bigger than that triple threads Actually, I don't I don't unless you get a lower number, but uh that'll do it another triple threads case up next. Thanks again everybody


This is C-SPAN's America and the Courts. Next, oral argument from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Orkin v. Taylor. Andrew Orkin and his siblings are appealing a lower court ruling dismissing their claim to a Vincent Van Gogh painting now in actress Elizabeth Taylor's possession. The Orkins argue that the Nazis stole the painting in the 1930s and their great-grandmother is the rightful owner. Elizabeth Taylor bought the painting in 1963 at Sotheby's auction house in London. And according to their records, the artwork belonged to another German-Jewish art dealer. The Ninth Circuit Court heard the case in Pasadena, California, last month. Mr. Hamilton. Good morning, Your Honour. May it please the Court. My name is Tom Hamilton. I represent the appellants in this proceeding were the descendants and heirs of Margaretta Mountner. Mrs. Mountner was a victim of Nazi persecution who fled Berlin, Germany in 1939 and at the age of 76 for sanctuary in South Africa. We are here today because the District Court ruled that even though Mrs. Mountner lost a Van Gogh painting in Nazi Germany as a direct and proximate consequence of Nazi persecution during the late 1930s, her heirs have no legal remedy under either federal or state law to reclaim it. The Court ruled that as a matter of law, there is no federal remedy and the remedy of the heirs to reclaim the painting expired 41 years ago under California law. The District Court's will is wrong on both counts. It repudiates a very well-reasoned, circumspect, policy-driven decision by the Intermediate Appellate Court and NASCAR versus American Numismatic Society in favor of some demonstrably flawed and confused dicta that another Intermediate Court in the Baker case lodged an a mere parenthetical footnote. More importantly, perhaps, it repudiates a comprehensive statutory scheme that Congress enacted in 1998 for the express purpose of helping Holocaust victims identify, locate, and secure the return of Nazi confiscated artworks and that allocates to the President of the United States $5 million for the express explicit purpose of helping to secure the restitution of property looted and extorted from victims of Nazi persecution. But before I discuss these two arguments, I'd like to underscore two important facts that relate to the rationale of the NASCAR decision and to the purpose of Congress in enacting this legislative scheme. The NASCAR decision makes an important distinction between property that is taken initially involuntarily from its rightful owner forcefully where there's no volitional initial conveyance or transfer and property where a commercial seller will subsidize a conditional sales contract where some owner of property will clothe voluntarily another person with indicia of title and agency. And in the former case, the NASCAR court says, the policy of California has always been that the statute of limitations does not run until the dispossessed owner of the property taken involuntarily recovers it. The facts that we plead in our second amendment... Isn't NASCAR more of a concealment case? Excuse me? Well, as we look at when the statute of limitations starts to accrue, the typical rule is when the plaintiff knew or should have known. It struck me in reading NASCAR that really it was directed toward the case in which the fraud has been concealed or the theft has been concealed. And in that respect, it's not so unusual and I'm not sure it applies necessarily as a unique rule that would apply in the circumstance. And that way you might harmonize that case with the rest of the cases where you have actual knowledge or constructive knowledge. NASCAR, you don't have any knowledge at all because... There was a fraudulent concealment in NASCAR there was, but I think the rule of accrual, the policy-driven rule of accrual that the NASCAR court discusses, two or three pages there, is that there really is an important distinction between this volitional and involitional... The unfortunate lexicon is the word stolen is one of those terms that has no precise meaning. What the NASCAR court was trying to say... I mean, stolen can mean any taking by larceny, by false pretence. What the NASCAR court was saying is that there are really two paradigms for stolen property. There's one where someone initially entrusts and they make a big deal in NASCAR about this entrustment, an ostensible agency case or a commercial entrustment, and where the property is taken initially involitionally, either by force or coercive circumstances where there's not... And there are two totally different paradigms because in the one instance, the person from whom the property is taken forcefully or involitionally hasn't bargained for anything. They haven't volitionally agreed to tender their property to someone in the consignment or to be participating in a commercial transaction and assume risk of a default. And in that former case where there's involuntary... And this is the ruling of NASCAR, I propose your honor. It meant more than fraudulent concealment. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment has its own inertia. NASCAR went out of the way to punctuate an implicit rule of accrual in the pre-1983 statute, which the Baker court didn't disagree with, did not agree with, but it's a policy-driven decision that borrows from the LaBelle case, excuse me, in New York. They cited the Salmonar Guggenheim Foundation, the LaBelle, a 1991 decision with the New York Court of Appeals that has the state with the largest art market in this country and a very considerate and well-thought-through decision formulated principles of accrual, which repudiated a constructive discovery rule and basically said the better rule gives the owner relatively greater protection and puts the burden of investigation upon the buyer. So in my opinion, the threshold question was there was a false conflict initially by the district court and framing the NASCAR decision as being, first of all, that the parenthetical footnote in Baker, which is pure dicta. We make that point, I think, very emphatically in our brief. The Baker decision had nothing to do with requiring a decision about the content of the pre-1983 statute. It simply observed that had the statute of limitations not been enacted, this claim would not have been saved. But it was, so we don't have to get to that, but we don't agree with the NASCAR court's ruling. There's a second false conflict, which is even probably more acute and it's a little more subtle and we didn't flag it in our briefs, but I'd like to flag it now. Those four commercial law cases that the so-called conflicting precedent were decided between 1880 and 1956. They are really antiquated commercial law cases. Their uniform commercial code was enacted in California in 1965. Each one of those cases, however, is very much responsive to the distinction NASCAR made between property that is taken forcefully or involitionally initially and property that is volunteered in the commercial transaction. Each of those cases, three of those cases were conditional sales contracts. The Culp case in 1956 was a conditional sales contract for the sale of jukeboxes. The State Bank case versus Thompson, National State Bank versus Thompson case in 1943 case. A bank funded a conditional sale of a quote, gas shovel, which I think is a bulldozer in today's parlance, to a local contractor assuming contractual risk. The contractor got the property defaulted immediately on the installment contract. The bank let him keep it. Of course, they want to realize the benefit of the contract, let the contractor keep the shovel. It breaks down. The bank then can monitor and police the collateral. The third case was the San Francisco credit case versus Wells. That, again, commercial sale of a piano default on the consignment contract. The piano disappears and sold at an auction. The credit agency finds the buyer and three years haven't expired so they can get it back. Then the first case, the Harpenden case, the 1880 case, a young woman mistakenly let some man access to her jewelry. He takes it to a pawn shop, pawns it, tells her some line. A couple years go by, she realizes she's been defrauded, tries to get it back, but more than three years have elapsed since the statute of limitations expired. But even in that case, which is the most felonious of all because there's an initial sort of embezzlement in terms of the false pretenses, under the uniform commercial code today, the same result would accrue under Section 2403, Commercial Law of Entrustment, makes, in order to encourage commerce, and this is, again, very important distinction, it's a volitional transaction. So when you go into a commercial context voluntarily, the law does not, you know, can impute to you some caution and care. You need to take steps when you can sign or entrust something. You take a watch to a jeweler to repair, he sells it. He can convey voidable title to the good faith purchaser, as between you and the good faith purchaser, you are the one that volunteered physical conveyance of possession of that property to the jeweler. Even though there's a larceny there, perhaps. It's not the kind of theft that the Nazca Court was trying to underscore where property is taken involuntarily initially as opposed to volitionally. So at the end of the day on all this, we have, our task is to read the tea leaves of the intermediate courts of California and predict what the California Supreme Court would do. Why shouldn't we just certify this issue? It seems to be a some import. It's very much an important question, Your Honor. I don't think there's any conflict at all. And the point I was at all in any of the Decisional Law of California to justify necessarily invoking the distinctive expertise of the California Supreme Court. And the point I wanted to make in response to that is these cases, these antiquated commercial law cases are 1,000% in all fours. And with Nazca, what both teach in a very sort of informed, slightly detached perspective is the lesson of commercial prudence. What Nazca says is if you go into a market voluntarily and want to buy something, watch out. Why? Because you may be buying stolen property. You may be buying property that was taken involuntarily from someone. And we're not going to dilute the common law rule that a thief can never convey good title to stolen property by allowing somebody in possession of that, whether in good faith or not, to raise a statute of limitations. Well, let's take the Nazca rules applied to eBay, for example. Wouldn't that bring eBay trading to a halt? No, I'm not sure that if you're saying that any time, any time that you can't rely on good title because you think you can rely on good title, the Uniform Commercial Code sure, excuse me, gives all sorts of you know, most of these four decisions today, the so-called precedent would be there are lots of protections in the UCC today to protect someone from, you know, article nine secured transactions, financing statements. If you have a superior possessory lien in property, invoke article nine in the world's unconstructive notice. And then the buyer's unnoticed, too. You know, if you can't buy something, if there's a violation of an article nine lien, you didn't know that there are article nine liens out there, that's too bad. You know, wake up and smell the coffee. If you want to buy something in the market, you need to be aware what the risks are. You can't. So Ms. Taylor buys this property in 1963 at a public auction as well advertised. What's the difference? What the difference is, there are enormous red flags in this provenance in 1963 about stolen Holocaust era property. And these are pleaded comprehensively at paragraphs 17 to 32 of the Second Amendment complaint. And that was the fact I wanted to punctuate that related to the rationale for an asker about not allowing someone in possession of this category of stolen property of forcefully taken to raise the statute of limitations. And the facts are as follows. And it's a notorious that judicial decisions that have talked about this have talked about the art markets being a risk. You go into the art market and they're stolen property, you need to exercise precaution. In 1963, Ms. Taylor was an experienced art collector, had been collecting art nearly 10 years on the international market. She bought this painting to complement other important paintings. I think she can be held reasonably to a high standard of care. But her father, who acted as her agent in this purchase, was a professional art dealer. His career coincided with the Holocaust, World War Two, and the remedial aftermath by which the State Department, both in 1946 and 51, sent to dealers, to art dealers, known art dealers, a letter that said, in essentially the following terms, Dear Mr. Taylor, please be advised of two recent historical events, the Holocaust in World War Two. Great deal of art was wrongfully taken as a result of both these events and is circulated in the art market. We admonish you to be careful because you cannot get good title to this property. 1946, 1951. Also, the remedial machinery for returning stolen property, Holocaust confiscated property within the judgment of the US government and the Allies, was still ongoing in 1963. The Berlin Restitution Courts and the German Restitution Courts were still deciding cases under military government law 59 as late as 1966. The provenance at Sotheby's was just an absolute paradigm of red flags, blaring sirens. You had a provenance that had several Jewish owners, imputed as former owners, with no dates. This is 1963, the State Department says, watch out. When did they own this property? Doesn't say. There's a 1939 Catalog Resonade entry. The Catalog Resonade is not just a casual publication. It is an authoritative compilation by a disinterested expert, in this case Bart de La Fe, who is a renowned Van Gogh authority, who knew we can demonstrate it's a historical fact he knew Mrs. Moutner personally because he thanked her in his 1928 Catalog Resonade along with other collectors thanking them for helping him with his Catalog Resonade. And it's a small circle back then of Van Gogh collectors that's centered around Berlin. Mr. Taylor's an art dealer. This is just a paradigm of a first year law school. What's negligence per se? Take a look at this hypothetical. Now let's consider something else. One thing that puzzles me from the record, and it may or may not be important, and certainly is understandable to a certain extent, but there seems to be an absence of evidence of what happened to the painting. How can we presume title in your client? I certainly agree with you. It's sort of outside the formal scope of the appeal, but there is a super abundance of evidence that circumstance that Miss Moutner lost this painting. First of all, we can prove historically that she lost two other paintings as a result of for sale in Germany, through which we've discovered through a digital investigation. There are three Catalogs Resonade that place this painting in her possession exclusively. These are judicially admissible treatises and are renowned for the reliability and authoritativeness. But other names are listed on at least some of those Catalogs Resonade. So what? I beg your pardon? Some other names are listed. Other names are listed, but the important point is this, the Catalog Resonade indicate there's a wonderfully poignant discrepancy between the 1970 Catalog Resonade and the provenance that Sotheby's published for this painting. The 1970 Catalog Resonade was compiled by the five leading Van Gogh experts in 1970 commissioned by a Dutch government. These are these are people that just live and breathe Vincent Van Gogh and they do things about Vincent Van Gogh that we would find compulsive. Their judgment was that the sale that the owner between Alfred between Margaret and Moutner sold the painting directly to Alfred Wolff. They had no indication that there was anyone named Paul Kassir or there's anyone else named Golch McGowries. And another important fact, a prototypical provenance for a Nazi confiscated painting frequently interjects fictive owners between the victim and the buyer to distance the provenance from any suggestion of Nazi tape. And if we're talking off the record here, we contacted Ernesto Wolff and I don't know, he was elderly and sick several years ago. I don't know if he's still alive. He told a third inconsistent story about this painting. He told our researcher when brought to his attention, is this provenance that you indicated Sotheby's right? He said, no, no, no, no. At first, we're off the record now, but I gather what you claim is that if if if trial were had on this case that you could prove title. We believe we could. And the other point is this, we don't have a document that says, you know, a bill of sale. But most of these cases don't have bills of sale. And look at the historical circumstances. Why would Mrs. Mountner preserve a bill of sale? She left 1939 Germany without literally fleeing for her life. She lost her art collection and a lot of other property. Military government law 59 enacted in 1947 has a standard of diminished evidentiary need that recognizes that World War II and the Holocaust destroyed a lot of documents, ruined a lot of lives. But we're still going to make restitution here based upon reasonable evidence of ownership as of the time. So I think that the federal government today with this comprehensive restitutionary scheme necessarily intends to perpetuate and bring forward the sort of remedial structure of military government law 59. If that was true in 1947, all the more strongly is that true today, 60 years later. Well, maybe that brings you to the federal act. I have considerable trouble with an act that says it's a sense of Congress that governments should do something because those are words that we usually don't see as imposing a duty on. There's an enormous excuse you're enormously more to the statutory scheme than that. It allocates $5 million to the president for the explicit purpose of restitution. Now that is textual authority that this all the textual authority, the contemplation of restitution, contemplates restitutionary proceedings will be will be had and that's the hell from the trans American mortgage case very much in that vein. Moreover, and this is vitally important, it makes requirements of disclosure of massive quantities of documents by federal agencies to assist in the restitution of artwork. The federal agencies in the Nazi war crimes disclosure act have to comb through their files, produce all this documentation. It requires that hope that the presidential commission went into an internet dialogue with the American Association of Museums which are entities with the indirect control of the United States. They're tax exempt entities that exist by Congress's legislative grace. They agreed with the commission that they would create a website and put information about provenance on. Enormous resources were devoted internationally to a conference held in Washington where 44 nations with initiatives of the State Department to open up new archives. And the point is this, at the end of the day the strongest argument for an implied remedy are the consequences that would ensue without one. What is Congress doing here? Is it just whistling Dixie with all these requirements? It's not your own sense of Congress. That's not the provision from which the claim, the cause of action derives. The completeness of everything else Congress did makes, well, the district court I think observed that. Why would they just sort of forget to give an implied right of action if they were they were not forgetting to give one? Express your right of action. They are asking, I believe, for the help of the federal judiciary in formulating an appropriate equitable remedy. And here's the point. Usually when they do that they say, usually when Congress does that, I'd say so. Well, there are lots of statutory schemes that this court and other courts have found imply private rights of action with far fewer of the court v. Ash criteria. I think this is a paradigm for court v. Ash. I think every single criteria and sub-criteria, the legislate, the people who enacted this thing just prospectively, the dear colleagues, the purpose of this legislation is to help complete the unfinished task of Holocaust art restitution and to underscore, and then we're just going to spend five million dollars for restitution. But here's my point. Clearly, a lot of documents have been made available as a result of this legislation, both nationally and internationally, at great expense, at great effort, at great time. Serious amounts of money have been spent for the expressed purpose of restitution. Holocaust victims are invited to make use of this material. This is a self-help, a self-starter program. There's no other agency or governmental official here that's going to help them carry the ball. They have to decide this is a self-starter program. So it's an invitation. Come forward. Here's the information. You'll use it. Put together your claims. And the bottom line is this. At the end of the day, what does Congress intend? Did they make use of this information clearly? Did they make the information available? Clearly. That they intend to spend money on restitution? Clearly. What happens if the Holocaust victim accepts the invitation? Spends their own time, money, energy, and resources, opportunity costs to put together a claim. And then it's told, sorry, you have no remedy here. This is what it is.  It is imputing to Congress a cruel intention, a malicious intention. Let's take one last parting shot at these people before they die. And let's just tell, let's just really yank their chains around, so to speak, in the vernacular. If we implied a right of action under the federal law, what statute of limitations would we import? That's an excellent question. And I believe what you have to do to achieve the legislative intent is to invoke the equitable doctrine of latches as the counterbalance to just open-ended liability. And the many latches, of course, is exactly in equity the statute of limitations. It's informed and animated by public policy considerations. It's informed and animated by the purpose of the legislation and the specific facts and circumstances for each claim. Why wouldn't we analogize to California state law in applying that federal doctrine to a suit founded in California, asserted in California remedies? California common law? Yes. I think the common law of several states is a distorting prism through which to refract these very important national policies. There is a very, I think, conspicuously clear integrity to this implied right. It's grounded in the remedial legislation, its comprehensive breadth, and its specific requirements. There's specific requirements here. The real benefits that have been conferred on Holocaust victims here that never existed and now allow claims to be found out in broad. But are you really saying that there is no statute if there is a federal right? There's no statute of limitations, and we only are guided by the equitable considerations of latches? I believe that's a very adequate resolution that protects the legitimate interest of persons in possession of these materials. That is the remedial scheme that the Court of Appeals of New York has found to be the most appropriate to regulate the New York art market, not just on any stolen art case. There is no statute of limitations in New York under the New York rules of demand and refusal. A cause of action... Yes, but do you have a similar federal statute? I don't think we've ever said that there's a federal statute that doesn't contain the statute of limitations. Well, you know, the statute of limitations, I think it's within the equitable authority of this Court. And it's a very broad equitable authority, as you know, when a compelling national interest of vital significance is at stake, and there's no other way to achieve that than to exercise the plenary equitable authority of the Court. It's not beyond the scope of authority of this Court to create the appropriate limitation period to protect the legitimate congressional expectations. And I think this colloquy we're having signals why Congress sort of implicitly wanted the federal judiciary to get involved. This involves some real judicial expertise to consider some questions of accrual, timeliness, countervailing equities, and how this should be done. But clearly the difficulty of that task should not impede the clear and unequivocal intent that Congress and the President have had in mind and enunciate it in the most clear language that a third grader could understand. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Steve Reese of While Gotcha on Manjies for the aptly Elizabeth Taylor. And I'd like to start by taking something out of the case, if I could. The Holocaust was a terrible, unspeakable, many atrocities occurred during the Holocaust, including the looting of a considerable amount of art. This painting was not among them. And just I think it is obviously not before the court in terms of what happened to this painting. This is not a summary judgment case where you're in a motion to dismiss. But the case is obviously of some public interest, and I think it important for the record to be absolutely categorically clear after, I don't know how many years it is now, but 40-some-odd years after the auction and after repeated requests by counsel for Miss Taylor to point to a single fact, a single fact that indicates that this painting was sold involuntarily. There's no allegation that this painting was taken by the Nazis. We said point to a single fact that shows this painting was sold under duress. And as we stand here, Your Honor, today, there is no such fact, because as best we can determine, and we did the most thorough investigation that the 60-some-odd years that have passed since Miss Mouther left Germany allowed, to the best we can determine the evidences that Miss Mouther sold this painting in the late 1920s to a Jewish art dealer who then sold it to another Jewish art dealer who then sold it to Mr. Wolf, who was a Jewish art collector who left with the painting from Germany, brought it to his house in Switzerland before 1930. That's as best we can determine. I know it's not relevant, but I think it ought to be clear. Your Honor, let me know. I did invite the question earlier. I'm sorry, Your Honor, but I do want to make sure. Now, the legal analysis in this case is actually quite straightforward. There are two questions. One was Judge Klausner correct in saying the California statute of limitations barred this action. The auction occurred in April 1963 in London. It was publicized to the point of being front page news in both New York and London. There's no question that the sale of the painting to Elizabeth Taylor was open and notorious, and there's no question that she has held the painting publicly, openly, notoriously from 1963 until the present, including as of the time the plaintiff filed suit in 2004. The planning was on public display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, attributed to Ms. Taylor in 1986 and 1987. It was the cover of a Christie's auction magazine in 1990, all attributed to Ms. Taylor. The only facts, the only facts upon which plaintiffs based their claim are that Ms. Mouther once had the painting, second that she left Germany without it, and third that Ms. Taylor now owns the painting. Those facts were readily ascertainable with absolutely no investigation in 1963. They used the catalog Resonée to indicate ownership into the 30s, I believe. I mean, I think that's part of the paper. Interestingly, Judge Canby, the 1939 catalog Resonée on which they rely by their own admission is incorrect because their allegation in their complaint is that Ms. Mouther left Germany in 1939 without the painting, the 1939 catalog Resonée attributes ownership of the painting at that time, Ms. Mouther. But so even the catalog Resonée, and that's precisely the point, Your Honor, how do we determine that right now? But the legal points, the legal analysis for this case is incredibly straightforward and demands the same solution that Judge Klausner found in the court below. It's indisputed that prior to 1983, there was no discovery rule in the California statute. Their entire argument is that the court should infer that prior to 1983, the statute limitations in fact had a discovery rule. There are two basic problems with that, maybe three. One, California law changed. It was amended in 1983 expressly to provide a discovery rule. And the legislative history of that amendment makes clear that the legislature certainly thought there was no discovery rule prior to 1983. They said we're amending this statute expressly to put in a discovery rule. So at least the legislature that expressly amended the California statute of limitations to provide for a discovery rule after 1983 said it didn't have one prior to 1983. You're just going head on against NAFTA, is that right? I'm sorry. You're just going head on against NAFTA. Well, NAFTA, I happen to think Judge Thomas is exactly right. That you can reconcile NAFTA as an effect, a concealment case. There were fake coins put in. It was almost like a fraudulent concealment case. And it's almost analogous to the matter where you say the statute runs from the time the concealment was discovered. The second reason why the legislative evidence is compelling that there was no discovery rule prior to 1983 is that California law, and we've heard a lot of arguments about policy and about what Congress should do and about what legislatures should do, the California legislature considered this. They considered all these arguments and you know what they did? They passed a statute. And they passed a statute that suspended the statute of limitations for people trying to claim Nazi Holocaust art. And you know what they did in that statute? They said, we're going to suspend the statute of limitations with respect to art held by museums and art dealers. They expressly did not suspend the statute of limitations with respect to paintings held by private people. So this has all been dealt with. It has all been considered thoroughly and legislatively by California. And they have made the decision that with respect to art dealers and museums we're going to suspend the statute of limitations until 2010. But they expressly declined to do it with respect to paintings held by private people like Ms. Taylor. Here's a third point. Even if, despite all that, you could infer that prior to 1983 there was a discovery rule in California, the discovery rule is nothing like the rule that they're advocating for today. Their discovery rule, and the court ought to be very clear about this, their discovery rule is no matter what the plaintiff does, the plaintiff could be sit on its ear, eyes, nose, hands, and feet forever. But if the plaintiff wakes up at any point and says, oh, I may have a claim to that painting, that's when the statute of limitations starts to run. And I will tell the court there is no case that says that. In fact, the plaintiffs don't even say that. If you look at paragraph 100 of their complaint, it appears on page 34 of their appendix. They phrased the discovery rule. And frankly, I'll read it because it comes right out of their complaint. Paragraph 100, the discovery rule provides that a cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers or by the exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence under the particular facts and circumstances should have discovered the facts that form the basis of the cause of action. That's their complaint. Under any basis, on any set of reading of the facts in this case, there is no way on earth that they can meet that standard. They did nothing, underlined nothing, from 1963 until 2004. They say, well, we didn't really think we had any claims until 1998 when the Holocaust legislation was passed. Well, Judge Canby, as you've pointed out, that legislation does nothing zero to create a private right of action. It doesn't even create a cause of action in the government. It creates no cause of action for anybody. There is not a shred, not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to create a private right of action to enforce what rights would be enforced. The statute gives no rights. Plaintiffs say, well, you can make it up. You guys figure it out. Well, the last I looked, the separation of powers is a problem for that, Your Honor. None of those three statutes, and I urge the court and I'm sure you've looked at them, creates any rights in anyone to do anything, yet alone implies a private right of action. So their argument is, the passage of those acts then inspired them to take a look at whether they might have a claim. That was in 1998. Assuming for the sake of argument that a private right of action was created, would it be preemptive as to state actions, state causes of action? Not without an express declaration by Congress to that effect, Judge Thomas, I think you're exactly right. Under the federalism, the way it's certainly the way the Supreme Court has looked at federalism, preemption needs to be expressed, and their argument is in... Hundreds of implied preemptions. You're right, but not where Congress is going to preempt the statutes of limitations in 50 states and create what we've just heard no statute of limitation. That Congress would simply say, you know, we're gonna override the statutes of limitations in 50 states, say there's absolutely no statute of limitations, and you know how we're gonna do it? We're not gonna say anything. Actually, I was thinking something somewhat different. I was a question of viability of their state causes of action if in fact there is a federal right of action. Well, it's certainly... Your answer is, if there is a federal right of action, then you don't think it's preemptive of anything. Well, I do not think it could be preemptive of state laws of conversion which are fairly embedded throughout the states. I think that would be a tough implied preemption argument. I think if there were a federal right of action, frankly, Your Honor, and I don't know what it would be, it would have to sit on top of state rights for conversion. We don't dispute, there's a potentially a state law of conversion here. And I don't think that their argument is that that's preemptive. I think their argument is that the federal, I'm not sure what their argument is. I think it's that somehow there's a federal overlay on those state rights and that federal overlay abrogates all state statutes of limitations sub-silential. I think that that's their position. Well, there's another that the district court did not consider and that's the fact that the sale occurred in England and any conversion occurred necessarily in England. You took the position that English law applied and vested title in your client, right? That's correct, Your Honor. And there was an affidavit Judge Thomas in the record that we submitted by Queen's Council that said under British law the statute of limitations clearly was expired by 1969 and beyond that, under British law it's not just that no claims can be brought. Under British law when the statute expires title actually vests, it affirmatively vests in the owner of the painting. Judge Klausner didn't find it necessary and there was no, by the way, there was no contesting affidavit on British law. Judge Klausner just found, look, under California law which they claim applies, the statute has long since expired. So I get that that question isn't before us because the district court didn't rule on it, but it is a rather important issue. Your Honor, I think because the district court didn't rule on it and I guess you could say if in fact the British statute should have been applied and we were in a situation where we have to go back and get a judgment to that effect, I think at this point some closure is necessary and it's necessary, Your Honor, for the very procedural history of this case shows why. There was no written demand made for this painting until 2003, I believe. And that is, by the way, the plaintiffs also claim that they couldn't really do anything until after 98 because it took them three years to get counsel until 2001 and they didn't file this complaint until I think it was, it was October 2004. So, and by the way, October 2004 is six years, more than six years after the passage of the Redress Act which was passed in February of 1998. But the point was they only filed suit, Your Honor, and as goes, I am going to answer your question, they only filed suit in October 2004 for one reason. That's because Ms. Taylor, having said to them, show me anything, anything, something, some shred of evidence that this painting was for sale and they're not having done that. There was a cloud on the title of this painting. We filed lawsuit, Your Honor. We filed a declaratory judgment in May 2004 saying enough is enough. There's no evidence that this painting was taken, stolen, or sold under any improper circumstances. We cannot go on with these allegations clouding the title. We won a declaration. We sued first. That was May 2004. It was only then, five months later, that they filed their lawsuit claiming the painting. In November of 2004, we moved to dismiss that lawsuit and this is quite important. In between November 2004 where we made all of these arguments and we said, just as I said to you today, there is not a shred of evidence that this painting was subject to a for sale and it's certainly no evidence. They don't even allege that it was taken by the Nazi regime. And that was our argument in May, I'm sorry, November 2004. They filed a response to our motion and an amended complaint in January 2005. There is not a single allegation in that amended complaint where they knew every argument we were making and make here today, there is not a single allegation that provides any more specificity with respect to this painting being taken improperly. And I urge the court, they list in paragraphs 104 to 106 of their complaint. They list the facts and I believe it's in the record and their appendix at pages 35 to 37. They list the facts they claim they could not discover until they got the assistance of counsel. I urge the court to look at every one of those facts. Every one of those facts was ascertainable with virtually no work in 1963. There is no reason if they had a claim, they should have brought it in 1964 or 1965 or 1966 when there would have been some hope to actually talk to people who might have some personal knowledge about this painting. But there was 21 years between the time Mrs. Mouther left Germany in 1939 and the sale at which Miss Taylor bought this painting in 1963. But there are more than 40 years between Miss Taylor's purchase of that painting in 1963 and their filing of this lawsuit and the only reason they filed this lawsuit is because we sued first to say enough is enough. All the reasons why statutes of limitations exist are implicated in this case. They're all here in spades. In fact, one can hardly imagine a more dramatic reason why principles of repose and statutes of limitations are in effect. How are we supposed to go back in 2007 to 1930, 1929, 1928 and explore the specifics of the transfer of this painting. They blithely stand up here and say, well, she had it, she left Germany without it, something bad must have happened. Well, we did a lot more work than that. And as best we can determine with the few witnesses who were still alive from that period, the best we can determine is the painting was sold in the late 20s to a Jewish art dealer who then sold to another Jewish art dealer in the painting left Germany before the Nazis came the power. Should we have a trial about events that occurred in 1928, 29, 30 with the witnesses dead? How are we to do that? And that's why statutes of limitations exist. That's why California, when they looked at this hard and they passed a statute, suspending statutes of limitations, didn't suspend it with respect to paintings held by private parties, only with respect to paintings held by museums and art dealers. And whatever anyone in this courtroom thinks about the wisdom of those policy choices, they were for the California legislature to make. They are quintessentially not judicial judgments whether I would reach a decision, different decision, Mr. Hammond would reach a different decision or the court would. California legislature has spoken and the Congress of the United States has spoken. They were subject to all of the emotional appeals. They were subject to intimate details about the atrocities of the Holocaust. If they wanted to create a cause of action and there was certainly enough political will to do it, this is hardly a case in which there's not a lot of sympathy for Holocaust victims. If Congress wanted to do it, they would have done it. And they would have, as Judge Canby said, they would have done it expressly. They would have said, this is a terrible thing. We're going to let people sue and we're going to suspend the statute of limitations. They did nothing of this sort. And that's the court has any further questions? Thank you, counsel. Rebuttal? I want to make it emphatically clear that this is not pleading. We didn't plead the steps we took as a result of this legislation in the Washington principles to develop our case. But I have an email from our researcher in Vienna about the archives that we went through in order to find out about Alfred Wolff and Margareta Mountner and what was going on in Switzerland and Germany. These archives weren't available until 1995, 2001. So the idea that we could have brought this claim, think about it, Margareta Mountner in Berlin, Germany. This is what the court said. Mountner knew about the claim. Mountner is an 84-year-old woman at the end of World War II in South Africa thrown out of her native land, carrying for an invalid daughter. The documents, how was she gonna go back and prove, where's she gonna find Alfred Wolff, charge hire a lawyer or go off into Argentina, where apparently he was at the time, sue under what law? Military government law 59, the remedial legislation wasn't even in place until 1947, the same year she died. We made use of documents that were responsive to the federal legislation. This is the whole purpose. Get, let's go out internationally and nationally and make this information available so that people can find out what happened to their stuff and can develop claims. But wasn't this information available in catalogs from South Bees, Christie's? Oh, no, ma'am. The Museum, New York Museum of Art? No, Your Honor. This information we're talking about has to do with records of the Nazi period in Germany. The Nazis kept meticulous records of inventories of Jewish citizens, residence records, lots of information about the activities that went on in 1930s Germany. Well, I was speaking of Ms. Mountner's interest in the history of the painting. Wasn't that available to the plaintiffs many decades ago? Yes, but they're not, I have to understand something. These people, Mrs. Mountner's an art collector. Two points, Mrs. Mountner's an art collector. Her grandchildren and great-grandchildren aren't. They just know that Grandma used to have some paintings as an art collector. They're not as sophisticated international collectors like Ms. Taylor and her father. It's a false parallel to impute to them the same constructive notice of what a catalog resume reveals than it is to a professional art dealer who makes his living in this field at this time. So I wanted to put to rest any idea that we could have recently brought this claim anytime earlier. We made use of the documents that were available in Europe as a result of this Washington Principles Initiative to put together, reconstruct the historical events of this period, which is exactly what that initiative was intended to do. This business notion that California has somehow restricted, this was the judge's opinion below, restricted rights of action, it has not. That's an erroneous interpretation of the legislation. What that legislation does, it is based upon a moral responsibility to make sure that any artwork in the possession of a California tax-exempt entity that is supported by the public will not be barred under any circumstances whatsoever until 2010. It says whatever the facts, you're going to be able to bring a claim. And it's for the argument about, they very much thought it's okay to entertain claims against these tax-exempt entities. We don't have a problem with evidence. We don't have a problem with staleness. We don't have a problem with dead witnesses against them. You can bring lawsuits. The statute of limitation contemplates a lawsuit. The legislative history of this legislation says, to the extent that, to the extent that we are extending the statute of limitations, we mean to do it. It doesn't mean that the courts will tell us. That doesn't imply a negative, in other words, we're doing this special thing against these particular defendants. I think if I'm not sure, well, if I understand your opponent is saying, look, they make a special exception and suspend the statute's limitations with regard to art dealers and museums. And the implication is that they didn't do anything to the statute of limitations otherwise. They basically did this. They basically suspended not only the statute of limitations, but any other, prints any other law to the contrary, notwithstanding. For example, an argument that you got title under the Doctrine of Adverse Possession in Mozambique would be discarded. Sure, but only as to those entities. My point is this. It's a special protection for some entities means we were gonna let everybody else deal with the judicial principles that the California courts have crafted. Another point that I wanna make here, that this is not a discovery rule that Judge Klausner applied below. In this case, the discovery rule of, in other words, it's a meat cleaver as opposed to a judicial scalpel. If you look at the Baker decision, they illuminate some of the inequitable factors that would inform a hypothetical constructive discovery rule if one existed. And it has to do, first of all, it's a fact question. Intensively constructive notice is a fact question to resolve by the trier fact. There's a reasonableness element to all this. Is it reasonable for someone to have done more? And if it's not reasonable to have done more, there's no requirement. It has a frame of reference to a particular group of people that are affected. That is part of the wisdom of Baker and LaBelle. There's not a uniform discovery rule. In fact, in New York, the Court of Appeals of New York dismissed a notion that it's possible to craft a prospective discovery rule that every theft victim would have to discharge to preserve a right to proceed after stolen property. And New York's always been different on their discovery rules in other states. They have been different. They have a distinctive- The New York law doesn't apply here. Well, they have a distinctive law of conversion up there. But they have a policy enunciated is the better rule gives the true owner of property that is forcefully taken, relatively greater protection, and switches the burden of proof to someone who volunteers a decision to buy something, to take precautions. There's a very salutary policy here. It's every commentator that's looked at the art market has been remarkably impressed by the commercial laxity of this industry. And what that does is it, and there's an excellent law review article I could recommend to the court if that's too presumptuous. Marilyn Fallon, she's a professor at the University of the William Texas Law School, a renowned authority on tax-exempt organizations, a treatise on museum law, former chair of the International Cultural Property Section, looked at this issue a number of years ago and said, scope of due diligence and obtaining title to works of art. That all the equities favor reasonable investigative precautions by somebody who goes into this market, saturated with Nazi artworks, international culture property that's been looted, stolen artworks, this Ask No Questions protocol is just absolutely, as the court in Puerto V works, a fantasy land, a market in the fine arts. There is not an equitable discovery rule that was applied to this case. We didn't plead a lot of facts because we didn't think the law entitled us to. If the court decides there's some legal principle here that we haven't properly pleaded, the appropriate disposition is to give us an opportunity to plead facts under Rule 11, responsible and accountable for those facts. But in other words, we need to prove that we couldn't have brought this case earlier because of lack of documentation. And I don't think that's the law. I don't think the court can reasonably impute to California a discovery rule, a rule of constructive discovery. I think the Nassger decision is a very well-principled, thoughtful decision. The Baker decision does not conflict with it. The earlier commercial precedent does not conflict with it. They are flip sides of the same coin of commercial precaution. Thank you, Councilor. The case just heard will be submitted and will be in recess. The Ninth Circuit Court has not issued a ruling in this case. You're watching C-SPAN's America and the Courts. Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hein versus Freedom from Religion.


Women continue to be critically underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, commonly referred to as stem careers, where they are rarely found in leadership positions compared to men. While inequality exists in every industry, this gap is most pronounced in STEM fields, where less than one third of STEM roles globally are held by women. One of the main reasons for this gender divide is the lack of encouragement and mentorship to empower girls and young women to pursue leadership roles and develop the necessary skills and networks to successfully achieve their objectives. Adressing such challenges is a priority for the international girls in ICT day. It is with pride that I noted the fact that since 2011, nearly 380,000 girls and young women have taken part in more than 11,400 international girls in ICT day celebrations in 175 countries featuring role models who inspire girls and young women to pursue STEM education and careers. In order for us not to lose momentum and to also keep our eyes on the ball, the girls in ICT day has become a global movement seeking to achieve digital gender equality. Dear friends, I am strongly convinced that change is not a title, change is a mindset, a habit. Girls can make invaluable contribution to society and deliver change capable of profoundly impacting the community they live in, especially through digital. Fostaring a greater presence of girls and women in the tech sector generates much-needed inclusivity in the design and development of digital tools and platforms. That's why the Telecommunication Development Bureau has launched numerous initiatives to encourage the participation of women and girls in ICT at all levels. Under the theme leadership, this year girls in ICT day will be celebrated on the 25th of April. I invite and encourage everyone to organize and take part in the countless different events to celebrate this special day. Feel free to get your inspiration for ideas from our website or by following us on hashtag girls in ICT. Thank you and happy international girls in ICT day.


Zva što je tudi tudi tudi izglasnosim, ki tudi da je zpronavate postupnjenje provedaj spazitvropših klasoj slučanost, kad je to zelo v blažnih in drobenih ročinje. To tudi je to slučanost, kaj je vzobjetno začunjala zdavnjenja. Vzobятся, da je stavniti vzobjetno v vratu, v potrednji način, za to, da je sločnje potranost, vzobjetno in sur sens variable, z vsej materijali, ki jih se včasno posleda, uživljajo je to vsej vsej. Vsej vsej regulatorijne sistem vsej način je spremelji, ki so načino vsej način, ki se izgleda način, način je ta vsej način površen, in vsej vsej regulatorijne sistem and which checks for toxicity on a one by one basis. So basically each of these substances is tested in isolation and for most of them, at least in our part of the world, indeed the individual compounds are below the threshold. But for many years, we and many others had hypothesized that it would actually be the Malaysian, the mixtures of these compounds that could still have a detrimental effect Even if individually each substance was below the threshold. And so we set out together with several colleagues from other European countries, Sweden, France and several others. We actually set out to undertake a longitudinal study that would combine epidemiology, so the real life of people exposed to such substances followed through many years and experimental molecular biology in order to understand whether there was such a risk and how we could actually deal with it. And the result is that the risk is there because over 2,000 pregnant women were tested for the actual levels of these substances at about the 10th week of gestation. And then the children originating from these pregnancies were followed through several years and our Swedish colleagues measured the number of words that these children spoke at 30 months of age. The number of words at 30 months of age is a very important indicator of cognitive proficiency and is also an indicator when it is decreased, so when children speak fewer words of problems that will unfold later in life, such as, for example, intellectual disability and also autism spectrum disorder. And it was possible to associate mixtures of these endocrine disruptors to a detrimental outcome in terms of language at 30 months. And so this mixture was then synthesized in vitro in the lab and we exposed this mixture to brain organoids, so to structures, to cultures in vitro that are very complex and that recapitulate over time some of the important features of how the human brain develops in vivo, including its temporal dynamics. And we could find that it was actually the mixture of the substances that had a very significant alteration on the neural cells as they did develop and this alteration included pathways that are regulated by hormones and in fact these are endocrine disruptors, so they interfere with the way in which hormones work and most importantly they actually targeted genes that we already knew on the basis of human genetic evidence to be causally implicated in autism and intellectual disability. The implication for this assessment is very profound because this study demonstrates in a rigorous way for the first time that mixtures need to be taken into account. This of course means that alongside the established systems of testing for toxicity we actually need to take mixtures into account and to update the assays, the systems through which these compounds are tested so that their toxicity is actually taking into account what happens in the real world and this study has demonstrated that the exposures of the real world that is pervasive is actually the one that needs to be confronted. One of the most significant aspects of the study is that once it was determined what were the experimental thresholds of concern, namely on the basis of the experiments that were done in VITRA, what were the thresholds of exposure to these mixtures that were of concern, we then went back to the original data from the pregnant women in Sweden and found that up to 54% of them had been exposed during their pregnancy to such levels of concern. Luckily, this did not mean that 54% of the children ended up having a retardation of language acquisition, but it is because of course there is an individual predisposition, but this really should ring a bell because it means that the way in which we produce these substances and the way in which we test them and the way in which we live is actually exposing a very significant part of the population to an interference that has very detrimental impact later on on such fundamental features of the human condition such as language and cognitive development. This research started at the European Institute of Oncology in my lab as part of this very large European project, EDC Mix Risk, funded by the European Commission, precisely as a project that had to test whether the mixtures was a relevant unit that we should take into account in order to actually protect our health. And on the basis of this result, we will now of course proceed to one technopol on a number of fronts. First of all, to actually have an even greater mechanistic understanding of how different classes of such compounds and mixtures can interfere with the neural pathways. Meanwhile, the children have been profiled for their cognitive attainment through seven years of age, so we can have an even greater granularity in the combination between the mixtures and these various neurodevelopmental outcomes. We are also very interested in how the same mixtures actually impact also the formation of the germ cells and how this impact can actually then influence also the formation of the brain in the following generation. And we are of course very interested together with our colleagues as part of another major European project called Endpoints in actually developing assays of neurodevelopmental toxicity. In other words, taking fully on board the implication of this study and making sure that we provide the community with standardized assay that can hopefully allow us all to have a healthier life and a healthier environment.


And my experiences have accumulated over the past more than 20 years and really I've been working to help both individuals and organizations really perform to their full potential and I've been doing that through the design of physical workspaces through the design of digital systems and even the design of business processes as well and Today what I'd really like to do is talk about a story that I've had with one of the top 10 global pharmaceutical companies called Eli Lilly And Eli Lilly came to foolproof and asked us hey, can you help us take eight web sites? Across eight different geographic markets Across different languages across different therapies and create one response of web portal and we said yes, of course We'd love to however we started out designing a web portal But through collaborating together with Eli Lilly we actually managed to transform their organization So to tell this story what I'd like to do is start with the industry and you might wonder why why are you just talking about the industry? This is about this is about experience design And I really think it's really important that us as designers researchers developers We truly understand the industries within which our clients or organizations are working because how can you actually design something? That's going to help the organization and help the people within that organization if you don't understand the industry within which it sits So let me tell you a little bit about the pharmaceutical industry Historically the pharmaceutical industry was making probably about 40 percent in some cases more than 40 percent profit margins And those were the highest among all industries. What will hand in hand with banking? And a lot of people were criticizing pharmaceutical industry saying how you guys you guys this is crazy, right? This is this is profiteering. What are you doing? These are crazy profit margins when there are people who need these medicines and the pharmaceutical Companies argued and said well actually we need those profits to invest in research and development And it was true if you looked at the top 10 they were investing 15 to 30 percent of their revenue and research and development However They were spending one and a half to two times more that in sales and marketing So what's that tell us well what it told me was that pharmaceuticals saw sales and marketing as a best venue to get to Best avenue to get to their their end customers the patients and the health care professionals, okay moving on to more recently The pharmaceutical industry is being disrupted anyone who works in pharma health care knows there's a lot of disruption going on And in fact what we're seeing in health care. We saw probably five to six years ago in financial services And what's happened is all that money they've spent in research and development and creating patents the patents are now coming Do when patents come to that means generics are able to get their products out to market and they can sell it much more cheaply On top of that. I think the global state of health care is really struggling So the global health care is now pushing pharmaceuticals. It's a hey, please come on sell these medicines cheap more cheaply And the end users that the patients and health care professionals are also saying wait a minute I've got these great experiences with digital, but my experiences with you is it's just it's lagging behind This is horrific So the disruption is these pricing pressures on pharmaceuticals are actually reducing the profit margins down to about 20% So that means they have half the budget for R&D and sales and marketing And what's happening is they're recognizing now that they need to do something significantly different to get a greater return on those diminishing Budgets and that was great And that's when Eli Lilly came to us and said can you help us and that's the first thing I wanted to share if you really Want to transform an organization? You have to have chaos or disruption The people running the organization has to recognize that the way they used to do business They can't keep doing it today because they're not gonna be sustainable. They're not gonna be able to compete So that was the first point. So we said great. We get to work with Lily. We're very excited We're gonna help them Better reach their customers and they brought us this brief. They said hey foolproof Can you help us create an easier to find and easier to consume basically an easier to use website? We said of course we can do that We can take all those complex systems and make one response of web portal But surely you want to get more out of that reduced budget, right? You want to do more than just make something easy to use So we went into our first meeting with them and we refrained the brief for them and we said to them Hey, we think you should stop pushing pills. That's probably politically incorrect Let me reframe that you should stop push marketing stop selling and start servicing your end users And one of the guys in the in the meeting room that really resonated with him. He goes. Yes. Yes, I get that And he was saying, you know, it's really interesting because a lot of the people we're talking to are saying that as well And so we shared we backed that up with evidence We had doctors saying gosh stop selling to me and understand my real needs And why can't you make your digital products is easy to use and help me in my job like it does in my in my Personal life so we reframed the brief and ours our client recognized that and decided yes We need to move from selling to servicing And we started talking to that group and we were also saying well, okay, so what are we gonna start to do? Let's start unpacking. Let's start looking at the data And this is where we had the senior digital a director of digital who really resonated with him He said, you know, I know for a fact our data both internally and externally is telling us that people can't use our Websites and they're constantly being sold to what was interesting in that room as we had marketing teams saying well, wait a minute People don't expect pharmaceuticals to provide a service. They don't trust and they don't want it So ah, that's your first misconception. That's not true What we found out through the research we were doing was that actually health care professionals were using websites that had older Information than the pharmaceutical websites, but the reason why they were going to those websites because it was easier to find and consume The information was packaged in a much better way So we turned that misconception around and we embarked on turning Lily from selling to servicing And that was the next point I wanted to make first you need disruption the C-suites You need to recognize they have to do something differently to compete The second one is you need a champion at the top You don't necessarily need someone in the C-suites a CEO But you do need someone who has the ears of the C-suites because you need someone to help champion and help progress the work that we're doing And our senior director of digital like us recognized that there was a bit of a problem in Lily There's full of silo departments. You had the medical team working here. You had the marketing team working here You had the IT team working here. You had legal and compliance over there And what was happening was actually there was no one was sharing information There were no systems to share what we were learning about the end users There were power struggle is goodness me the power struggles were unbelievable So with our senior director of digital he helped us create a team and we broke down those silos and we said okay We want a representative from marketing. We want a representative from medical. We want a representative from IT We want legal. We've got compliance. We brought in designers developers researchers strategists all together in one team It was a big team and this team was across the US Across the UK across Europe And it was quite a big team and it was a really great way to just break down those silos and bring us all together However with many different voices and many different moving parts gosh We realized the success of this project Hinged on having a North Star a common vision of where we want to get to so we brought all those people Together in one room face-to-face and we invested upfront in a two-day workshop to say okay Let's take all the data. We have let's take the insight. We've brought and let's understand what should be the future What is the experience vision for Lily? What is that North Star? We can all ascribe to and we did just that and what we're able to do is if you look on the left-hand side We identified what are the outcomes that Lily needs to get and on the right-hand side? What are the outcomes? Healthcare practitioners need to get and we start off with the basics because obviously people need to be able to Define the information, but what can we do to keep people on the site? What can we do people to explore and we start with very functional needs and we move up to the more emotional needs? So not only are we moving from selling to servicing we're creating Engagement we're creating a connection with end users so that by the end of this people become the advocates They start doing the marketing work for you. Huh, that's how you take that reduced marketing budget and make it go further So that that's my next point is you need to create from the very bottom, right? We were talking about people at the front line coming together Creating a vision together that we believed in and we could ascribe to and working together So the next step is we know where we need to get to let's start having some fun and doing some design and This is where we face some of the biggest barriers Surprising right you think herding cats together to come up with a vision would be hard No, this is where we face the biggest barriers So I think many of you have recognized you might look at the design double diamond It or of design process human-centered design hit how I was lovely to hear talk about ISO 9241 part 210 So really this is the design process called different things in different places What we learned was that actually at the beginning envisioning when we're coming up with that vision and where we're Going to get to that part of this process is really around certainty of the problem What is it? We're trying to solve and in that part of the process you rely on data and analytics quant At the end implementation, that's when you want certainty of the solution right? This is going to work again.  We're very comfortable at both ends very used to using big data But where we struggled was that middle bit That discovery the design and build because in that middle bit, that's where you don't need big numbers That's where you want to explore the possibilities. You want to explore the solutions? You want to go deep into understanding not what are people doing, but why are they doing it? What are their motivations? What what are their pain points? What's happening in their world because that's where you find the best solution Let me bring this story to life for you to help try and understand the difference between data and insight So we went into our first session first workshop together after the visioning and discovery and the marketing manager said Leslie Don't worry. We've got all the research. You don't need to do any more research Let's go straight into start solving some some some of these problems. Let's get into design. Come on. I'm like Okay, let's give this a go. I'll give this a go. All right. Let's come with some hypothesis So we go into the big workshop. There's all those people from all over and marketing and they brought in a management consultancy who said GPs are time poor Yes, that's a good piece of data. That's correct Okay, as you know from the workshop Mario and Val did yesterday. You have to ask why why why are they time poor? Okay, and in the workshop. We all got together and we got some more data because they have 10 minute consultations Yes, they do factual correct data, but what is that telling us? And Lily also brought in some health care experts behavioral change experts and they brought a good piece of Insight to that meeting and they said we know that patients struggle to form a real Connection with GPs and patients often say GPs don't understand me. They're not really listening to me And so someone got really excited. That's it. We are going to use digital to create a training program for consultants to have better consultations And I said I'm I'm not quite sure guys I think we I think we need to delve a bit deeper and so we asked the question. Well, what does this actually mean? What's happening in these consultations? What's happening before and after these consultations? When we ask that question the workshop no one could answer it and the marketing manager went we have been working for 120 years And pharma with patients and doctors and we can't answer this question. Oh my goodness So we did some what we call design anthropology. We went in and observed we actually followed GPs around we were in a consultations and that's when we went. Aha So what really happened? What was the true insight? Well, actually GPs only have one minute in between each consultation So that means if you have a 10-minute consultation The first five minutes that GP is spending all the time using different systems and devices with often poor Wi-Fi in the 3G To figure out what medication was this guy on again? I can't quite remember what's happened What's the medical history and then the next two minutes talking to that individual? Have you seen any other specialists? What did your nutritionist say to you? What else is going on? So then really they only have three minutes left to actually do a proper consultation and engage with patients So had we gone down the first solution of designing a digital training to teach GPs how to run better consultations. They still couldn't do it if they only had three minutes So what we realized was no guys What we needed to do is design a solution a digital solution that gives GPs back their 10 minutes And that's what we did and it was really great and the whole team got excited They understood the power and importance of qualitative research what we call design research But it still wasn't easy And I think for me this was probably the biggest thing I learned out of this this project Was what I call the emotional roller coaster in any design project. Do you do? You've got to recognize this emotional roller coaster you go through as a team So you have these moments of clarity GPs only have 10 minutes and they don't they can't connect with their patients moments of genius We need a digital training system and then we started unpacking. Oh Moments of confusion. We're learning something new moments of oh my goodness I have no idea what I'm doing to then moments of clarity and in moments of genius and I think this emotional roller coaster What I call the devil diamond coaster is really important to recognize and embrace And so we stopped and we did just that and we reminded ourselves to trust To trust and the approach that we're using and to trust and how we're going to tackle this problem Which leads me to my fourth point if you want to transform an organization if you want to really break down the traditions The traditional beliefs you have to bring that team together work from the bottom up have a vision and Take them on that journey bring them on that journey of learning and collaborating And in fact looking back on it There were two things that sort of really resonated for me about the success of doing this and how we help transform the organization And the first one was we had a marketer based in the US And she was our hardest critic goodness me after every iteration we go through of of research and design and evaluate and build She was constantly saying you're not testing with enough users You're not talking to enough people you know this isn't gonna work and we would fight and it was really difficult But after a while after about two or three or four iterations She became our strongest champion and she started championing customer experience all across Lily It was amazing and in fact the marketing department they used it in their own words That's another view of transformation of organization instead of them regurgitating what we said they said hey guys We need to stop push marketing and start creating the poll Amazing right this was their language and that's the way Lily now talks about Customer experience and of course you still need the data right and we also found Where they used to have about a thousand visitors per year. They were now getting a thousand visitors per month So our senior director of digital was pleased and it was a really really great outcome so to summarize if you really want to transform an organization and moving them from Marketing lead day to lead and really truly embracing customer experience There are four things that need to happen first the organization needs to have some sort of form of disruption chaos to recognize Actually, we have to do something different because they ain't working They also you also need a champion that could help you within the organization to facilitate the right people to bring them together You need one team coming together from the bottom up creating a vision that everyone believes in and Finally you need to bring them on that journey and the success of this collaborative working together was amazing Not only were we able to get a product the right product first time out there in a cost-effective way I think even more deeply Everyone actually genuinely personally felt rewarded by working on this project together and by everyone feeling that personal reward They were able to then tell the story to their colleagues and it grew and it continued to grow So now not only are we working with Lily for diabetes and this web portal We're also working with an animal health and it's really starting to propagate like dropping a petal in a pond that Cx that new strategy of being servicing is now across the organization. Thank you very much I think we have time for a few questions if anybody has fun have a question. So I worked on a similar project for Apollo and The same question was that they want to digitalize everything and they want doctors to Parallely write what a customer is saying or a patient is saying with all the medicines Suggesting whereas they have limited time to do so So a system how when you also say that they have ten minutes only and they have to listen also Give a suggestion also and that fill that digital website that can be reused what kind of Solution you suggest and what exactly you did to bring that three minutes to ten So yes a good question. There's two things we did So first when you look at the web portal what was happening. It was Lily like many other pharmaceuticals You remember when you you know when you open up a medication you get that massive piece of paper with a plethora of information We broke that down into usable chunks and recognize GPs need different information at different times So basically that was more around the information design and information architecture to make it easy to find and consume So that was the first thing we did in the ten minute consultation That was specifically working with a diabetes team and we worked on creating an app for patients I can't go into too much information But really the essence of that app was giving the patient more control giving them control of their life It was a big shift, right? This is something a patient is going to own so that they can go into that GP consultation and say Here's a snapshot. Here's a dashboard of me in the past six months And you can consume that in two minutes now I've got eight minutes to start thinking about do I need to change the treatment What do I need to do and how do I create a treatment plan for this individual? Well, there's a new patient they may have the app so we were looking at getting that app in places where It wasn't just through Lily It was looking at getting them involved in diabetes specific organizations So it was beyond beyond just Lily It was are getting the drug reps the doctors but thinking about diabetes specific communities talking about this app Leslie one question I have is like, you know what you are talking I can understand is from a UK or US background where you have GPS very all connected and everything has that but if I talk about from India context So I just wanted to get your thought like Everyone is not connected to a single system, but how we can try and make that connect plus that remain the GP generally go over shoot the time and the Appointments is go haywire. So how we can control that if there is anything in the lily what you're referring We didn't work at how you control that time No, it was just about having all the information in one place You're not having to look for it and again giving that control back to the patient to be able to showcase This is what's going on. This is what's important to me So the doctors has a better understanding of oh, okay This is what's gonna mode because it was really about adherence getting patients to adhere to their treatment plans So it's about making sure you create that connection and follow through sorry just to follow up question on that So, you know generally nowadays people are getting tech savvy and Sometimes they don't trust the doctor right they want to go and read about it and say how is it helping it? It's making more confusing because doctors always say oh gosh. Yeah by patient things. They know more than I do But it's a begin if you've got something that has all the information in one place and it's information They trust and they know and they know they're not looking at Wikipedia or what have you to come to them with information? But again, we didn't go into a lot of detail in that research, but The doctors trusted that the system Thank you