to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them”), cited with approval in United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1464 (D.C.Cir.1995). The Seventh Circuit’s discussion in Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir.1981), is informative. In analyzing an ex parte communication issue, the court recognized that “[t]he essence of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.” 661 F.2d at 679 (citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-14, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (observing that right to be heard “has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to appear or default, acquiesce or contest”)); see also United States v. Minor, 228 F.3d 352, 356 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Elmco Props., Inc. v. Second Nat’l Fed. Sav.
holding that an obvious joke told during an obvious comedy performance was not defamatory as a matter of law recognizing adequacy of notice as a matter of obvious constitutional magnitude holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law holding that denial of effective crossexamination is constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it