What do the lawyers say about the judge’s ruling?

Lawyers say that it’s hard to tell what exactly the judge said in his ruling, and that it would be better if it was redacted, but they say he was right about what was said.

One of the lawyers, Paul C. Neely, who has been representing the plaintiffs in the case, said that if the judge had gone on to rule that the plaintiffs had a legal right to be compensated, it would have created a precedent for similar litigation.

“The question of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be treated like other people and not like a criminal defendant would have been settled long ago,” he said.

Nollie said that while he had not heard the full ruling, he was confident that the judge was right.

He said he is pleased that the decision was reversed, but that it could have been avoided.

He also said that the ruling was “a major blow to the public’s trust in the legal system.”

The attorneys say that they believe that the law needs to be changed to allow people to file civil lawsuits when they are victims of criminal behavior.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, David Dolan, said in a statement that the outcome of the case has made a mockery of the judicial system and is the latest example of how the courts are failing to protect citizens.

“This case illustrates that it is impossible to build an effective criminal justice system without first protecting citizens from criminal conduct,” Dolan said.

“There is a clear need for reform in the way the courts handle civil litigation and this ruling sends a strong message that our system must be reformed to make it fair and just.”

The ruling also means that plaintiffs’ lawyers can now proceed with their civil lawsuit.

However, Dolan added that the case is still in its preliminary stages.

“Our case is pending and we expect to be able to get this lawsuit dismissed,” he told ABC News.

Nellie said in the statement that it was “disappointing” that the court would allow the case to proceed.

“It was clearly inadmissible under the federal constitution to try to force a case on people who had no criminal record,” he added.

“We are grateful that this court recognized that the plaintiff in this case had a civil right to sue and that the trial judge was wrong to deny the plaintiffs their right to participate in the trial.”

The judge’s decision is also a setback for the lawsuit, which was filed in April.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case in March, arguing that the state had no legal obligation to compensate the plaintiffs.

The attorneys also asked for a temporary restraining order barring the state from enforcing the civil rights law.

However that motion was denied, and a judge on Tuesday ordered that the suit be allowed to proceed without a temporary order.

Nello also said in an interview that the attorneys for the victims have agreed to accept $5,000 in damages and attorney’s fees from the state.

The case has been scheduled for a trial in February.

Nelli said that this is not the first time that the federal government has attempted to take away the right of a person to sue for civil rights violations.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 2003 case that it violated the First Amendment to take steps to remove restrictions on the rights of people to express their views.

The decision allowed the government to regulate speech to protect against racial animus and to restrict First Amendment rights.

Nelling also said the government’s case was “more like a political persecution of plaintiffs than a case of a civil rights violation.”

He added that this ruling “is an important step in the right direction” in helping to prevent future cases like this one.

Nelly also said he was hopeful that the lawsuit would be resolved soon.

“Hopefully it won’t be too long before this case is dismissed, but we want to get it over with as quickly as possible,” he wrote.

“What’s important is to protect our right to free speech and have it respected.”

The case was originally filed in 2011.