MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
formula that aeration and misappropriation of trust assets request for forensic accounting yes that was a notion for partial summary judgment but the motion for a move that renewed the request for effectively a partial summary i i verified up to this point no for that this is not just the responsibility of a trustee during the administration of a trust this is  clear that the that the discovery that ultimately rose assisted to not a good one for a full accounting of details that became very relevant he says this these are areas after if it doesn't then i didn't hear about serial saying that well it might remember it or did something wrong then i didn't know about it and i didn't do what i needed to to to substantiate that we're motion for commercial summary judgment was either reference it was with signed page two of our of our motion in the bottom line is the undisputed facts that were before the court were the defendants were trustees the plaintiff for beneficial in keep the company books indicates also there's no law in illinois that would require a corporate officer or director to perform a line by line review every company's books so he's basically saying i've had people just to briefly address the waiver issue he could've said at that point in time the trust the trustee sec has there's this provision that says the same thing and if i hire counsel and it was done properly i can't be blamed for what they tell me couldn't rely on the princip know you screw up an accounting to your beneficiaries you miss your deadline or whatever that's grounds for medical and that's to be something where you there's no there's no intent to mess up by that you just fail to do it because
a designation and then we thank him for his willingness to assist us with our calendars we would also to welcome counsel will be arguing virtually today the video technology i know we were all deemed to be present and it made me think about the st amendment context where the law seems pretty clear that publication could just be to one individual and i'm wondering why we would say  commercial advertising battles my question was about publication because it seems to me that publication can be to one individual and so i mean as i follow your argument you're sort of saying w is available in the context of advertising perhaps that audience is a little bit larger but in the context of notice it can absolutely be a one to one communication and i can give you a quick example communications between the same individuals in some contexts maybe not as as in other contexts may not you know so for example if i send a text message to my husband and say hey can you pick up normally when i read make a notice and try to make it plainly sense out of it for certain greed it doesn't even require dissemination at all not one person well it's so my question i know it's not raised in this case but i'd like to know what the government's position is on the statute if ms cox had prepared the e mail just as it was but had not sent it when she made it a notice such that she could have been charged the answer to that comes back to notice i read may very probably just the word any if it is the creation of enough of a note and so i understand it's an interesting question though because are we trying to look at this is a legal question so just that instruction should have been given if if we've got a view that notice can be one to one should the district were ever given a legal it doesn't seem like it's a factual question it's with the statute so i don't know if that presents an error here but it's an interesting way th
after receiving the works first in which nero and reversed the decision of the little work to expect to be standing here again particularly after the last paragraph instructions from that you use the word manipulator in a claim it does not amount to one twelve six trigger so that's not something for us to reach in this case the state's evidence but are you suggesting that throughout the specification in the alternating we refer g some concern for written description we are to construe claims to have their plain ordinary meaning and later the specification but usually patente and in this context would be quite nervous that if there is only right now not it's not that we're being asked to decide written description but certainly we're being asked to acknowledge that and you have yourself acknowledge that there's only one body man actually disciplines that can function as a manipulator in the context of this invention and that our that is so that leads to open to quite a strong written description in defense and usually as i said if we take that into context because one of the canons of claim construction is going to construe the claim in such a way as to preserv fire wall but they did not show protection but this was designed with a mind to prevent jam in the claim does it specify that the manipulator must have rolled it does describe precisely the exact physical body to make sure i understand your answer to strangers question he keeps asking you where in the claim it says rollers i mean i thought i understood your definition of where manipulator to be judge moore's further point we do not think that the language in accordance with the present invention constitutes necessarily a definition because that language clearly indicates that what's described
first issue we were asking for that because the defendant should have an attorney who did not have to argue his own ineffectiveness in support of the final post plea motion in this case the essence of that argument is  that the motion filed by attorney michael runs he should not have been allowed to go forward without new counsel being appointed where in claiming his own ineffectiveness mr renzi was undertaking to discharge inconsistent dut briefed and it was actually orally argued just what we can build today so i expect that this will resolve the conflict that currently exist between the decisions and travis and grace from the fifty fourth district and this court's decision in caverns which applied the strict compliance requirement to require that certificate be filed before the conclusion of a post motion this case because it's impossible to assess how roberts record has been developed to support the ineffectiveness argument when the record was me by three who have a stake in not being found in effect simply because of the conflict i also want to call in the state's argument that if it was about the people he doesn't need to know anything at all about the ramifications of his plea on his ability to challenge his sentence there's no record of whether they thought it was informed about whether that should be an option and three options to fix nine year sentence the capital twelve  possibly consider me belonging as opposed to say a cap of thirteen and a half years where the maximum is fourteen if he's tall now with the parenting act you won't be able to do anything no matter what the judge gives you attorney to represent a defendant or anything and you look at the it in terms of the nature of a guilty plea i think this court will find that what was said here was really not a claim of in fact this is this there is no conflict of interest per se or actual  counseling because it's just it's that's not to me what this is all about and that's the reason why if you have counsel it's not one who's wrong if you didn't know in jail and there's no evidence that he did that's not in drop the guilty plea being allowed and everybody going back to the bargaining table i know this is a case that fallon will try and i think there's a distinction in that communicated to the defendant that's off the record and i would just echo the comments of justice nick they say that there could be more to be sad about these communications the defendant for sure could have been put on
get very very different than imposing an obligation on the defense now to interview witnesses before you leave particularly there's another distinction and very is the witnesses and very
look looking back at the record december second you get a notification you can have medical leave if you give us seven then again december thirtieth the department says oh by the way we need from some of you make it sound like the issue here is when he puts on additional evidence at the end he be hearing that is not before been provided to the agency i thought at some level at least that's what the issue was in this case and that was what this case is about now you seem to be suggesting that everything that went to the so i guess my question is is that correct do you put out to keep it on evidence at the hearing they have not been provided to the instances i believe thirteen instances of of being a waller later in excuse there'd been two fourteen days suspensions for a wall she had served documentation right step yes ok and if she provides them which the a j from that she had my question goes to whether or not the agency has been under an obligation to tell or kno does the family medical leave act exists in its own little box in terms of whether or not the op agency is obligated to give you time or not give you time with the only requirement being the agent that clearly has discretion i agree with you  for medical documentation but i mean if there are two employees and i've had the worst attendance record in the universe and generators have the best and we both ask for medical and family medical leave and our requests are essentially t capricious that's all i'm saying that i don't think it's a revolutionary concept where is this requirement for written an explanation it is and it's only in the fact that it's not written you can't review and
action to the self is this or that doesn't necessarily deal with your case in particular against the lord general so that's why
so from what i understand there are already laterals that come from north strain on a different well i think if you go back to paul's prius when there's already four or five laterals it on an existing well they come to the edge of the lake anyway and those would be closer to the dam than where these laterals that they're proposing would go so i would not being an expert engine in engineering by any standard i would think that if there was going to be any issue in effect on the dam it would have occurred when those laterals were installed well just like when we executed and agree to enter the lease for the whole make the same comment i made then this is going to happen regardless of whether or not we take advantage of this opportunity i mean i think we would be bad stewards of resources if we don't take this money because let's be honest the budgets going to get tighter every year and we're going to get all the negative fallout that's going to occur as a result of this well regardless of whether or not we take the money so from my position i don't think we have a choice but to and i'll i personally don't believe that but i can tell you this you look at things and i know we hammer bunch of these in town but when you look at this i think this is a dangerous situation three hundred sixty days out of the year or the six days where you we've actually tied ribbons around those of the day it would be aware that something's happening out there and we haven't haven't received a so my intention is to go ahead with that project and interest the treasonous tree talk about this last jersey come down to the people working on the roadway the intersection to help the council and where that project is with updated estimates on its cost we also want to have a discussion with council about what it is we want to do inside the park about ways to prevent violence in schools and there's been a lot of effort in terms of putting this program together and i think it's going to be a valuable presentation to the community hiring process because i think we have a bunch of people who are interested in serving the communit
by minors persons under the age of eighteen the right of those cases which was a u s district court case out of massachusetts address to the possession of firearms by persons under the age of address individuals under twenty when that section broke with the possession of firearms by person by minors under the age of eighteen this is the second and the right to not address individuals under the age of twenty one which is the basis of  ma'am please the court my name is margaret smith and i'm going to since state's attorney representing people of the state of illinois as counsel indicated there was one act there was one gun and so there is only one conviction that at issue that can stand how that provision and people versus hillary and people versus henderson under supreme court will eighteen this court need not address the constitutionality and should not address the constitution ality of subsection three i aggravated unlawful of a weapon under twenty one because it does not have to it's not necessary to the court's resolution of this case
inquiry it may be it may be that but isn't that a question basically of state law that's already been decided by the state courts mistake courts characterized this as a dismissal for failure to prosecute didn't th it again to another question in the same line we have in some of the cases that you've cited reviewed a decision of a federal court and said that was not a proper dismissal for failure to prosecute where that should not be construed as such but do you have a case in which we have recategorized what a state court said it was doing or determined that what the state court did was either incorrect as a matter of state law or did not amount to a failure to prosecute  missal within the meaning of the state statu so to make sure i understand you're saying you're not asking us to read to revisit the fact finding the factual determination that the state court made i mean is that order says that plaintiff failed to time the security council failed to comply with discovery demands in production briefly you know we understand that the district court dismissed this action of other grounds which were rendered our disqualification argument moot but we feel that the violation of the ethical rules and the state or ders was was very obvious and very intentional and should be addressed by this court i also wrote to the court that anderson and anderson repeated this ethical violation when mr action so long as the joint sets forth on the record the specific conduct constituting neglect which conduct child demonstrate a general pattern of delays in proceeding with the litigation so really e and should delve into whether in fact the specific conduct of the georgia judge set forth on the record in our opinion rises to the level of a general pattern of you know i can i'm sure the court it's a one million with the record but the number of times in which judge branston mentions delay is spectacular as the district court noted you know she says say on that were made to the state court at a nd time and decide whether the state court got it right or wrong the next issue is that the statute also requires that the  specifically disclaims didn't even serve or they sort of dropped it in the neighborhood of a clerical employee who said that she did not have authority to accept service of process is insufficient under state law to satisfy the based upon the deed was actually entered and this is consistent with all the state law and all the federal cases considering the issue which is that the six month period starts when the when the case was finally decided and when there's nothing left for the court to do ministerial tasks like entry in the a remix to or to the to the lower court for no purpose whatsoever you know they didn't even
contracts where you have a specific option scheme available you when you are get a decision the contract walks or you go to a board of contract appeals or the court acquittal claims and then there forth and you're saying the government did that yes it did we know there's a there's an obligation of parties to a contract act in good faith and fear doing towards each other and if in fact what you said occurred it would be the of these actions like for example destroying property that one of the things you told me is that the closest you seem to get to a taking claim in my cooking now if this was a point eat but it wasn't clear from the way point it was free whether you were referring to negligent conduct by the government in digging up buried cable or intentional destruction on the very people why the government and if it's at tokay we know the building was destroyed was destroyed is that in somewhere in eight i believe it i trying to figure out you know why this can't be a take because it it that the actions the activities of the government were it was the army's decision to knock down existing housing units on four four or claim we we've moved to dismiss it i mean for and we just moved to dismiss it on that basis it was not necessary to determine whether it was a c contract or not but ordinarily i mean the government is procuring goods and services or services it would be surprising if it were authorized by the contract to the no forget about the contract if it did authorize because the power of the army to operated tone bases would allow it to be removed things that are no longer you but it would if the allegation is that it was destroyed not that it was taken for public use for the benefit of the public it was destroyed and if it w destroy it but i don't know that there's no one i can see how it might have been cut in certain places but a little hard for me at least to imagine how it in an in an entire link that was quote destroyed
who can refute the fact that there is a relationship going on an obligation to provide it first and then again address that person the only person whose name is provided in discovery or for this purpose is cat every night it was a sexual relationship all those things but there was no proof of any money chang and cooked them at my house right the only male who ate in that other than her son her grandson was named for the entire period of time you were talking about we had the same situation down a far as far as what's going on we had
got up the only thing i remember about his speeches he said you know may have heard about this new thing called ecology in the environment and our mentalism i believe they call it the radicals colony don't worry about that fifty years later i mean goodness gracious a lime everybody who's in business and anybody packs the environment knows that there is a threat of statutory regulatory our adverse regulatory changes made in crease the cost of tender markets and they their allocation of compliance cost with new regulations environmental regulations if you can  going to increase into morgan's cost you could certainly anticipate that it might increase the cost of the plants that you plan to haul the coated to the point that they would go out of this and your honor the  preceding capacity argument that even if they hadn't shipped to crimes off or even if they shipped them back your own documents admit somebody export might be testified that you couldn't comply with the matter that was never on both sides and you ought to know you've got to raise something in the adequate fashion not only that but i'm i'm not convinced some would give you a chance to convince me that the fact that the contract the clause about prejudgment interest you say puts the burden on them to negate it but it says unless such pavement is disputed in good faith in writing set forth in reasonable detail the basis of such dispute which their complaint does their complaint says here's our claims we want this money for these reasons i have no reason to believe it wasn't in good faith in writing that they were the move that they have the burden whether they've been burned on this issue or not as to the substance they have the burden on their summary judgment to show entitle in summary judgment to demonstrate an absence
we certainly felt that that that it would never allow the interests of intentional versus negligent conduct in an ordinary name which case that belief would remain for reinforced by karen berger versus rudy when the supreme court went a little bit over to terrorizing the bus for for two two and a half hours before this assault occurred certainly the jury should have been considered whether or not his conduct was foreseeable on the issue of intervening superseding us that we know that from the get go you know if that supposed to enter a judgment when it finds such a such an inconsistency so and i that i don't want to do that without pointing out that we have in montana have through the court as its notice that we have a sort of attention from the legislature in the so obviously the legislature was aware of the difference and went in and i think to me that is the clearest signal from the montana legislature there saying hey we know what the difference between a comparative negligence statutory scheme is and we know what the difference manual it is set forth that drunken unruly passengers pose a danger to the passenger i would submit they pose a danger to the bus driver and at that point  lady is supposed to do and top of that they don't provide her with any means of communicating to anybody to come and help or i think the honest dead case in montana vs pay less is really would employee of the less well if mr thank nonny would have cost that the driver and she had no means of notification of anybody knowing that knowing that something like that might happen or something was going to happen i think it's felt the same thing  the only the only evidence that was introduced as far as the communication system was is that the bus driver herself said that's greyhounds policy is that we don't not provide any onboard well i think that's pretty but not based on past is this your honor but i think that's pretty well ordinary common knowledge that if you if you're able to call somebody and get some help that your situation is going to be as dire and your any injury can be can be avoided s keeping function to make that determination and the supreme court recommended very strongly against submitting questions concerning foreseeability to the jury and specifically stated the jury should not generally question of coffee and the jury found to come thank you only applies if seven or three were to be held unconstitutional and it is the it is a statute that indicates to me and i pointed out my brief that if the legislature in montana knew the difference between a comparative