MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
plugged in the that when he compared the residences he didn't do anything to find out whether or not they were comparable residents in number of occupancy that sort of that's all interesting but the problem is we have procedural issues that are in this case and that's all right there we're not talking about the reasonableness of the warrant or anything like what we're talking about here are my my and roger tory questions and why they were in on them in the first place this is what i was trying to establish i had been really been conducting informal discovery in all of these cases together we had discovered that they didn't power records  they found a way of of bypassing and violating their rights as far as i was concerned in terms of how they got their power records it was crucial immaterial to the issue of his credibility in terms of human i called back i get a voicemail i never get through to them this was friday and they're hearing it then on monday so you know i don't quite know what i was supposed to do call them up and say you know gee i'm sorry probably would have created a sufficient fact question as opposed to the earlier case is and this is the one case where they didn't they didn't find any marijuana when they searched any given that fact which you know  the claim that it was to discover marijuana in the garbage if all of that residence tonight put in marijuana in the garbage and i think that would be presumably a tribal issue of fact on judicial deception as to whether the officer actually found marijuana here but he didn't do it times then we look for summary judgment and he doesn't follow decoration opposition which is really there was no other reason that would have been addressed the issue raised by the prosecution state court a court and telling them they couldn't testify the stuff without being potentially held in contempt and based on those representations i felt i had to assert it until a district court judge ruled on that issue i don't think anything that the district court judge went beyond his town discretion that he could do when presented with these facts i really don't have anything to add other than what's in the papers unless you have questions or question about this bateman issue  then you know and i lose my motion because crack on the law they don't need to do that stuff because that was that was part of my point that you don't need the power records were relevant to to this what they need to show that they were not legal opposition
other than the decision to go to trial is there any anything about your client but distinguishes him from the six other is because you're claiming that he was a marine he had a family he had a regular job for a number of years that the really from many perspectives his life wasn't so bad and similarly situated to him but it was also something that the government opposed at sentencing because they were not similar to the government pointed out to the basic fact that these other defendants had to finally accept the responsibility which is and cooperate with the united to trial is that he didn't accept responsibility not even after he was convicted at trial did he accept responsibility that's the theme in a very different position before the court as to the other defendants is that much difference between acceptance of responsibility and going to try out right i quantity they had enhanced as for leadership roles and enhancements for the money laundering us well so i believe orlando's plea agreements range with something between sixteen to eighteen years or so and correct me if i'm wrong but i think this came up earlier today had been employed at the time of sentencing for twenty three years with the puerto rico telephone company so he had to sustain his life and yet he was a trained us marine and yet he chose to join this organization because in one t
should we wait for a while to come down before we issue a decision it is that california has created a hyper technical system that would be extremely difficult for someone to figure out and comply with but since it doesn't enforce the rules anyway the ninth circuit has pretty much thrown in the towel on trying t d by the unique pro se side and that no particular question that we ask is going to be very helpful for the next case i suppose if we come up with some simple skiing such as  a year from when the california supreme court issues a postcard denial and then the word get around the prisons just keep coursing around in the lower courts and don't file anything in the california supreme
the first issue is whether or not judge silly error in refusing to apply the doctrine of ecuador stoppel on the statute of limitations and number two whether or not judge silly error dismissing intentional claims of outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress when those planes were a reef in the government's summary judgment brief in either in the in the initial brief or when they were when they were pointed out  prevent your clients from filing a timely manner statute of limitations issue the and the issue really turns on whether or not judge really was correct in determining that their failure to file timely was voluntary and the conduct of the government that prevented them from filing was twofold number you happy to go back to the place where we removed you from for your own personal safety that's the only place you can consult a private lawyer to pursue a claim against the government  respect to claims against public officials state officials they were absolutely prohibited from from discussing a claim against the government on pain of dismissal from the program and to judge silly wrong all in was a man for all seasons but in fact he wasn't my clients could not consult with alling regarding claims against the government if they did they're out of the program rely very heavily and i would suggest exclusively on the fast case as support for his opinion and this is so far removed from a guy going to the south pacific where he cannot be reached by regularly mail notices it's so far removed that you cannot compare and there if you don't agree with me that the prospect of leaving the with sec program constitutes directives or threats to your personal safety i mean i don't know what i can tell y issue that i would like to discuss briefly  the second issue that i talked about which was the failure of those of the government to move on the outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress pla think the reason it's important that it wasn't very that i didn't have an opportunity to grieve this is because there are other issues that i think what judges really was focusing on was what happened in kentucky those are the facts and but there are other facts involved in their relationship with the government and in particular and this is from the testimony of of marshall barry who had they were in his charge while they were in seattle there because they could file multiple grievances against marshall goldman in kentucky my client was reached fused child support birth business with his children if only had been promised by the marshal service but were provided and this marshals of spirits to other individuals some are similarly situated clearly intentional but quite apart from what happened in kentucky and had i had an opportunity to was that did the district court rule on their ground and i the program they filed they also got a contract with the inspector general to follow an investigation they were obviously very active in trying to pursue their rights so they haven't shown that to be true
criminal activity it only needs to be reasonable balancing the government interest against that level of
a couple of things one i seem to recall reading in the testimony that the sweat lodge was moved from h c l to n p r land and i can't find the part of the testimony now but i'll go back and find it later i was reading through the transcript that morning again and that other than when she stated that after her baby was born in may of seventy four that every morning she went to help her mother on the winter camp which was located on the partially on the holy land and partially on the navajo land i'm not aware of any contradictory evidence of her going back to that fact that you just stated of her going back and forth every day i think what she did on the o e portion of the lambs and it's not enough that her family members use the lands for either her father or brother or her other sister it is really record that she was doing anything else she had a child but it but that she wasn't there's no evidence that she was spending all of her time changing diapers though i do i don't seven months later december of seventy four when he has passed that's the limited time window we're talking about where she have to be producing evidence to carry her successor but that she was helping the family and the family recognized was forty seven years old proximately at the operative date that we're talking about michelle was eighteen so you know she's just beginning her life as an adult she knows she hasn't quite as she doesn't reach to the status of you know living as the traditional elder lifestyle as was recognized and then what and just maybe i would agree with you i think there is there is some evidence in the record that her family was carrying on activities but it's not very year so our holy well here's the weird yeah i think you know i'm not sure that that may be part of the traditional lifestyle of you know watering the the livestock and using the livestock for various purposes making preamble to the regulation that on your sitters in determining residence it's not the sole piece about ants and here it was a factor pointing toward nonresidents but it wasn't it i'm not understanding how that could be they could  so the big difference in those now is that she didn't have the supposed i'm not sure yeah i'm not sure of the council lineup i mean there are a number of these cases coming up there have been a number that have come through
the full amount of your losses up to the up to the limitations and it's a purposely high it's what the value of the losses are in a very complex damage situation where it took six months to thirty thousand dollars to establish with those losses were then he certainly two thousand dollars to get this repaired here's the belt that's easy but when you have a situation where you have a very complex situation in terms of what the damages were and how to assess them and and it takes that takes me our knowledge of experts mon and hired its own forensic accountant but it is not something that the insurance company is supposed to provide to them and if the insurance company is providing up to them they have a right to then hide the ball and say well we're not going to tell you what it is right to rely on the good face of its insurer so if the insurers thing here i'm offering you this money this is a fair settlement and they have no way to do it and what they're going to have to do is go to court and find the third battle now fight by forcing the disclosure in court when they're already defending a third party claiming they're already arguing with the insurance company seems to me that this is well beyond the heightened duties of good faith that that insurance company has and sure must get at least as much consideration to the welfare of its insured as to its own have to watch the different limitations period moreover in this case without the added compelling facts i think that they ended up both parties timex in federal and up basically on the same side being told parties in an action against another third party who  may have been responsible for the acts in the first place there's potential conflicts there and also we have california's rule against splitting costs of action well basically what we've got is a breach of contract action for both the first in the third party claims and if they brought one they would have to bring the other or if they deferred one and they would run the risk of losing that one plating well while the third party claim was told so i think that there was an inherent conflict and her problem and not being able to split their cost of action and the
because of her inconsistent testimony why did she have that revelation three days later that it wasn't him and then right at trial she's saying that it was him i believe that and again because the reason that her kids were brought up into th she was at her house she would should not have this covering over she could offer to evaluate those pictures that she was shown so i think even though she said that she wanted to give him the benefit of the now i don't believe that  jury been able to hear that they would have been able to determine it on their own with out here telling them wh d and that seems to be what in terms of the offer that was made here the proffered by defense counsel the terms of where these questions were going in terms of the subpoena it was just state of mind and that certainly doesn't indicate anything in terms also said that she was worried about losing her children well certainly that may be true she was obviously faced with oh my goodness this is about to become public i'm sorry i had a boyfriend now who they're investigating for criminal action
what is reasonable competition supposed to permit isn't it supposed to prevent the person to do all the elements of the job you're asking probably do very few high speed chases there is a general consensus now or consensus that i speak chases are unnecessary and often too dangerous so that th the run of the mind police officer the main he or she may never during their careers have to do a high speed chase or any of these things yet it's an essential element of the job why is and therefore he did not really get this case well so far and he could be an adjudication that someone is entitled to pretend to be involuntary i mean voluntary basis then it's just the city and the officer without incident he's never been in dispute but he's always done it without incident accident or anything take it doctor who is opine that he can't there are two doctors who are providing that he cannot that isn't that what we have juries for to listen to those doctors and decide which they believe imagine what a trial would look like if the plaintiff has this evidence and the defendant has this evidence and if there's a factual issue and usually if a doctor is saying and the stopping challenge found out there and he's saying he can do something say that but you cannot state where you could have it and most employees could have very different requirements for applying and deciding which applicant style hire consider as opposed to the requirements they use for who left or twenty years of service they would retain or not take we can presume those are the same in a few pointing to a state requirement that doesn't say it has anything to do with potential winds or jury required to say that that of summary judgment when i'm the two central issues what is the job requirement is a dose is high speed pursuit an essential drug requirement you've got conflicting evidence and then even if you assume it's essential you better doctor saying he can do it and so on having real difficulty understanding howell there's not something here for a jury to parse out because i suggest that th defense system the only question is there's a good you're you're not are there some fact issues that need to be worked out to decide whether the city has riot or not the jury might very well conclude that everything you say is absolutely right but when he's got a doctor saying he can do that foundation and one of the city's own job descriptions don't need to list the function jury might think it's not essential or if it's essential we agree with that but why isn't th
only any other person going to extend the rest of this crisis to passengers because we think it's unfair because a passenger doesn't interrogate the driver whether he has insurance but this is different this is a passenger now are you saying that facts contested facts that in fact are was on the public records at the time of the incident even though two years may have been at the intersection of gras
aliases he had used and he also stated that there were several there were several cases of the people he threw that were not his the courts continue the matter for two weeks along the probation department to look into the matter and when they returned for the sente after the probation department supposedly verified it we have these inconsistencies that were not resolved other than the parties saying we really can't because you know the probation department verified that vanessa patterson alias the reason for the revocation in addition to the offense that must be proven at trial people versus robertson a two robinson the two thousand and seven case that says that in essence superfoods a third or subsequent violation of eleven five zero one eight is an the issue with the pre sentence report so the people who are the people are unaware in terms of this new argument that's being brought before the court in terms of the the people to not prove at trial that there was a particular d i think there's only one sentence that just adds the point that the reason for the revocation was not given at trial and the remainder of your first point in the brief focuses on the p sentencing hearing correct but if you don't have it in front of you i do so and it appears to me that that's what the thrust of the real argument is although there is there are five lines that address what i just
known the first to admit that they probably should have known that there was something missing when they weren't paying their rent on a regular basis conversations between the parties who had the contract that she had no direct conversations with mr roberts regarding any past you ran so he had no way of reflecting it documentation regarding that they had told the bank about the arizona property and that everyone should have known about the past ransom we're not sure how that could have possible there was nothing other were housed and something that came up during the briefing that did not come up during argument was the fact that it was personal and corporate liability because this is such a close to help operation i don't know if the court wants me to go financial statements that's where the background the phone that i was not aware i've previously and that aren't really material so what we're doing if you look at the grand jury testimony what we had to answer in order to answer that we had
question i have is you know why normally you would look to see if the photos would those be a key part of your excerpt of record i mean in other words the reason i know they're not in the district court filing that we know is because we've looked but we wouldn't we did but we have access to the full while we also look heavily to the parties for their excerpt brecker so it's not clear how we would have we can see some of the things that are described about these other individuals in the lineup but let me just ask you what would happen if we can't if the photos and video can't be located i'm s and because she did see someone she can't necessarily describe in detail she has a mental image of the person that she did see and there is a there is that statement which i think you are close to finding but your finger on it anyway again after you as we've completed because of these the difficulty is that people confuse a record and exhibit and to the extent these were exhibits to the court then they might be part of the record but
and so at that point in the stage of those evil the plaintiffs in this case they're even there they are there notice of appeal was due to be directed to and it was directed to the reopening of the sta things to the family trust for for her care is that if you know there was no nothing established that she would have ever needed that money but is that a requirement in order
a commercial case it's governed by the u c c the contract that is immediately at issue here was a contract that was worth roughly eleven million dollars these are i found represent the only case where one commercial party is insistent upon using another commercial parties form a contract form which includes an arbitra separate things happened back in twenty four team which are not be the contracts that the parties are suing on here but in twenty four two there were two separate agreements that i think the court is referring to one is a supplier agreement which is sort of a misnomer  sentences that it says that the financial in the second sentence says or it says but the first sentence does say the terms of the agree with the set by purchase order i think the second sentence is a point of emphasis that they're not going to change the rules the court has a decision to marry as a matter of law even in the face of competing evidence and that question for the district court to have decided is rather there is a rating that was intended by the case started when the c r u brought a suit against side b l for almost five million dollars that was on paid out of the purchase price as part of that legal action we allege that the contract and both parties agreed it was a contract between them close to the sale of goods but that the contract was formed on hearing or eighteen of twenty seven team and that it did not contain an arbitration clause we also besides the legal action with and that's why they we didn't really ask for information about the purchase order it had nothing to do with that one page of unreadable cards now the reason those phones seven one doesn't apply it also doesn't act as conduct if there would that could be construed as an acceptance wednesday additional or different clothes being a proposal did now i know that there is a although rhode island pennsylvania law seem to be united that is that it's better arbitration clause is as a matter of law of material change denying the rule fifty a rule fifty nine motions thank you only requested a hearing before chief judge smith and then changed their mind and once v c r started to press forward jury trial frankly ideal world we were closely at section three versus section four characterize this as a section three and not a section four amount or more than we did before the trial we eliminated the any reliance on section four hence there was no section three claim recognizes that the purchase order transmitted on january twenty fourth was an offer of a new contract which they accepted thank you very much
judges entitle to place different weight and different factors in arriving at the sentence the number of years i mean he may place different weight on you know the role or the rehabilitative potential and weak if it's abuse of discretion can't put you have some other power and which to consider disparate sense even if he or she doesn't articulate all of the factors and aggravation that all of the factors in mitigation and the constitutional kramatorsk and the stance of tory mandates does consider that and if i mean it the way you are expressing the yes that there were only one or two factors maybe that the judge articulated here that account for the sentence five any trial judge knows that the sentencing in position of the fifteen versus the twenty five i mean these were two different target individuals and not even though they had different robles that doesn't necessarily mean that down and down that would account for who got the higher sentence and who got them the lower sentence with a particular crime well i think it is true that we don't always know what the judge is thinking i think in this case however the court did make extensive comments on why he was is if you a case like this one or a case like where to case where you have to do things can be just the same crime armed robbery let's say that jones ultimately some poor down the line becomes exonerated for these other crimes suddenly he