MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
good morning they place the court get to the conclusion that they are the ultimate thing is i was sure no problem let me give an example if the state of illinois passed legislation imposing a five hundred dollar flat  for example i'm ok now i'm going out of my comfort zone but feel like attempted murder when there's no post well until you put the book down and then you're not really reaching attempt engage in what would be independent well lexx unless done together in order to accomplish the same b to regulate trash the states charging this much more than it cost to regulate and the reason why they're charging that much more is so that they can pay down our revenue more importantly we are certainly how to get it to replenish themselves now at the state will argue that it is set by each statute how much you have to pay doesn't matter how much money in the pot well here's why they're arguing this point e regulating the profession again based on the allegations in the complaint they pumped up the regulatory by some cases one hundred percent because it was going to take effect at the same time the budget t two thousand and seven went into effect so they would have access to money in the real estate license income so they could take it and start paying down general revenue now don't get confused about you know standing to actually see them as we can never stand by step but by way of example there is twenty four million dollars sitting there as of two thousand and twelve which would deem that's extra money but additionally there need not be only one beneficiary in this it gets from the false step so it is then that means that the feed is not have to be a one to one you pay this much because this is how much it real estate license fees they may not be the only beneficiaries of the amount that they indirectly benefit from the from the other activities that are paid for  we agree that it wasn't a particular act that increased revenue before the dam in two thousand and seven the money was stopped over here agent that allowed them to move the excess free from the real estate licensing into the general revenue fun up until that point time really had nothing to complain about because even though the fees were excessive it was still going to whole of secondary benefits how is that anyway just or constitutionally firm when they're doing it knowing that it's nothing but a tax it's an additional revenue generator for them but the
i'm not completely sure i necessarily agree that it would have been overly prejudicial but that's not what the deciding factor is the deciding factor is did the judge properly  first response was let's give a response and then you know you have everything in front of you is that sufficient because you know later stated well you know of course our preference would be goes back is that ed probably legs one of the last things that happened if not the last thing that the jury saw on thursday by which europe responds to justice works question mr fawcet argue in closing argument so the jury sees the video led last thing on thursday friday morning counsel's allowed to get up and make an extensive argument as to what the video showed in his recollection stops stopping at all traffic signals not going faster which again obviously we don't know anything how the car attendant was in growth the fact is they resemble least twelve minutes from the time to dispatch a minute or two if not more but there is absolutely no testimony so you have twelve minutes from the time dispatch you can at least another manner if you have twelve to fourteen minutes minimum which is more than pretrial identifications and even while she stated in court that she couldn't identify anybody she acknowledged that her earlier statements of death by defendant were true and the third looked out the window they trial the timing on minute video was shown the fact of the issues will be relatively minor and most importantly in this particular case the only thing even assuming the jury was allowed to view  deal it was subject to a motion to supplement the record and that motion was granted by this court however it wasn't there when the people you know prepared their file and so we could get the love but somebody well you know
foreclosure by the insured bank but was completely living on the two thousand and four was it the subject of the alleged ford release saying the would have taken clear and free title mortgage with g m mortgage which was later assigned to the bank of new york and a down time this was the first and only mortgage on the property thus giving the bank of new york priority the second back to sit in in two thousand a year later stop the longer matters what matters is that the two thousand and two george bank foreclosure did not affect the bank of new york's interest for two reasons one you cannot qualify as a bona fide purchaser in the face of a have this colloquy whether or not a few words to release could be effective for any purpose you clearly are saying in the fairness of those cases perhaps fortunately for your side it is the list pendants notice your notice of foreclosure was best because recently prudent person would have conducted something like judge with texas suggested a lower court which is a credit check if they had done a simple credit check in this case and in order to use that on no known or they should have done something
establishes here that he
time on the first skull it's my understanding
we haven't been through here yet ok boys go to work ok
you'd only show papa a little more sympathy that if he gave a new incentive oh ridiculous i'm godfather to do things they wouldn't do anything oh sure it's easy to put all of blame on me but look at it mama if you'd only try yeah but all the ladies ready for it even if they don't want to be an undertaker maybe your mother's right i could even support going out at that fine way to make a payment on a cut them i don't see things differently if and when and right now it looks like never on this is a frozen food truck you put ten years back on my life of course you could have said you are southern pla i'll see what i can do and get in touch with you later i haven't done anything to make people vote for me that's lame if you're elected you had better start making a down payment on a cemetery plot guys make a living stopping guys like you from living why do you want me to do about three thousand bucks not to be elected it's up to you to find some way you ar i want to thank you for making a man of me good day gentleman davis no not yet i'll let you know ladies and gents we interrupt this program of things music to bring you want to put them out one of the candidates in the most unusual election campaigns in the history of this state is here with us in the studio  say it's dark in here sixty second slip one minute
which preclude
think you should talk less during the day as if everything had remained just the thing to say the rocks are just the same properties the same but the people go they've changed for the would you do me the great honor of accepting from no thank you  how much will come along with the sun just came back from america company i'm very sorry but i don't need company and you know perfectly well  i'm sure you'll find the will do well you'll see what a wonderful what do you mean by that  already you know i have the honor of asking for your daughter and in marriage my daughter to you why not don't you think i'm you wouldn't want to offend me oh no don't you know you misunderstand me i didn't quite expect this offer anyway i want to think it over i want to know what my daughter thinks of it and you were saying with our father get out because i had the honor of asking for
i thought what you did paul wilkins i'm not a citizen yet it would have been hard on me without your help and knew that from on through that's why i had gone we couldn't have talked the cop out of this you'd better get rid of  well i guess we have to get someone else to run it i wonder who could do it i don't know saying i think i've got an idea that's not not bad at all man for the job well what about going on with the  something it happened to oh
testified that the that there remarries testimony according one of the state asked was that she had met charlotte the skid through the homeless shelter and wasn't even sure how long she'd been looking there about a month or two maybe more but it wasn't until cross examination that they even get into more of that detail me thinking on actually what and the reason i ask that is it didn't seem to me correct me if i'm wrong you have a better insight it didn't seem to me that the state or the defendant was really interested in this issue until the judge after closing arguments said to the defense lawyer are you trying to raise the issue of domestic whether these folks were the mystic or household members and the defen and in this case the defendant's husband testified that the two were temporary houseguests and that they were only permitted to stay for a couple of weeks and then they just saying well i don't think even two weeks would be and i agree with him there but other than the testimony from mary her example she says she can't even remember how long she is she was there and that was it she examination are reasonable doubt examination in this case the the testimony that comes out is that it's an indefinite range both of them say that well i think the children and everything everything is right i don't know but they did how they had they had the sharing of the personal duties of the household and that and the arrangement was that they were going to do to help out with the children and there was an crediting their testimony there's no end date for this they're saving up money but it's an indefinite arrangement they can stay there as long as they can how about the children had to give back when the police officer asked the defendant if they lived if the two women lived there she said they did and for that reason he left them there he said you can't just be victim you have a good th here we have two women that are living with the defendant and her family on an indefinite basis as one is they help out with the children and everything and they are two jurors that the
but one of the critical distinguishing features is the knowledge of the prior similar injury in my opinion that is the most important factor in this case the that is the fact it distinguishes this case from exactly the question the question was do they try her best to six nineteen motion yes that part of that you six times movie which was based on the other day the testimony of dennis johnson in his deposition testimony was absolutely dressed in  frankly it's far as i'm concerned over not these we can argue with an offer i don't care it's actually probably before the court that i am serious about the main reason i raised it is because the park district has one place allegations is that we failed to district property that is so dangerous that it can't be used without injury then and children are getting hurt and they do nothing and i think they would be an option next again for experts to come in past the bottom of the hill and then through some unusual circumstances that you know minor pointers don't anticipate there are sleds make it always there and it may not be open an
the record is very incomplete of the hearing in foreclosure there was not a recording made there wasn't a court  judge i agreed to know there wasn't there was an agreement to submit certain statements of what people testified to without admitting their credibility because in fact our cameras testimony wasn't so you know mike mike my criticism and i think  pick up on is that i don't think campbell is credible in any way whatsoever and i think judge kinney if there is a rap including if i said incomplete the record is incomplete if the finding of fact suggest to you that i think the state has waived the money laundering statute they haven't in their arguments at all range how he was guilty of money money laundering and so i think they waived that and then they ask you to rely on they were pictured here so they had plenty of time to arrest them and to charge him to interview them they never did it in the state never did and and then they gave sweetheart deals to everybody the test against now is to fight against burton laundromat to speak to somebody that called and then he drives to a friend's house to pick him up to go to a bar that's what the testimony was nobody in the field do that until they took the period out into custody lock them up overnight threaten him with a perjury they had a criminal conspiracy to steal this equipment that my client was not involved in let's tell me and campbell discussing stealing equipment from lu is there an inside person that left the gate open ok ok and then you and your peers yes well and who did you play i don't think necessarily comes my bird because even if i presented no evidence the judge then after not finding a directed finding could still dismiss a basis for the ruling or if it's a jury trial submissive specially when a rod to raise and ask him is this part of your decision is that part your decision that's my job if i want to win if i don't do what i can raise later but i think i guess the people don't believe the civil practice act allows you to ask for specific findings of fact i don't think it requires the judge to do that but i often do that and have often gotten around and certainly special e i think the state has abandoned their argument in the money laundering case because there is no r of them in my case i don't think of finding a denial of finding for a directed verdict and you know there's no jury in the judge can't consider my client's explanation of his guilty plea but more than that judge the guilty plea didn't cover all of the elements of the forfeiture it didn't work using his truck in the and i don't think both cases work as well did for any purpose other than hear him over at the same time and deciding them both at the same time if they were not the typical consolidated case that you know
fly faster and further any helicopter in the fleet having said german i'm a child of the sixty's i'm a soldier of the seventy's i had an opportunity nin today we're going to hear testimony it certainly surprised us and showed us that in fact this aircraft is unique and doesn't specifications maybe in the future will be essential to a but the idea that we might be buying equipment with the american people's money that could actually do to those funds makes no sense whatsoever and sorry i said we must make operations and later this year we will be ploy to afghanistan and the challenges that await us their record is not interested in airplanes for their own state we are interested in the capabilities that airplanes provide  battle space at the speed of a k c one thirty and we can do it at altitudes above the ground threat that has tragically brought down so many conventional helicopters in iraq afghanistan and elsewhere and then we can land a payload anywhere it is needed just like a survival flight profiles than any other assault support aircraft in the history military operations as we move into afghanistan later this year and we are required to cover a larger country than iraq with marines spread out even further cut off from one the object that are flying in size thirteen thousand feet out of the range of rifle fire heavy machine gun fire rocket propelled grenades and man portable air defense systems the weapons of choice for both the regular insurance and the conventional soldiers w
took the contents of the safe and then left and according to this weeks this whole thing took about half an hour and she testified that she ran to the neighbor's house five seconds she said after they left they put else the state is arguing over here that they took her to the basement that's true but taking her to the basement was entirely incidental to the robbery they had to take her to the yes that's correct and that's all the kidnapping statute says is one place to another here near how far this is that one place to another so good so from the pro to the store to behind the counter open the cash register no cash legislature intended for for o lest once she had shown where the combination was why didn't they take revenge upstairs or let her go upstairs and go too bad they concealed her there they kept her there and then when she couldn't open the safe for reasons unknown to us maybe she was nervous they could guess that here one fellow was a black man or several where i can remember and somebody else with hispanic based on skin color that she saw exposed on the legs she didn't see their faces so concealing their find any she was also confined there by her own fear of moving and was on her way that they kept you secretly confined within her home even if they had thrown the blanket over her they'd cut the phone lines and took her cell phone she was already able to communicate with the public and that element that's a dead part of the whole idea of concealment is not just you secretly confining there but you're also restricting the person's access to the public but she said is s a busy street someone comes up to me with a gun to move or going over to the alley the movie in the alley doesn't really see isn't there they take my watch and flee that's incidental to an armed robbery it's victim in the basement otherwise he wouldn't let her upstairs and get her classes otherwise he wouldn't let her leave but once they have the combination together or they were there just watering upstairs and kept her in her bedroom archie couldn't make five seconds that's how much of it i am sure it's five seconds or ten minutes or whatever it is however people perceive the amount of time but the more often secret confinement had occurred long before the blanket issue had happened it happened when they would they had a safe open and then they out to the left but they think want to hold her down there so there was something else then do we have to look at that and say well murder is charged and but it should have been something else do we have to relate the the principal to the case that is charged home invasion you know what i'm saying is murder is one of the most serious charges and that's you know the asportation in that case was part of the murder and everything that happened something left over like in some of the murder cases where they held the person for a long time before killing her this is over awful awful facts which we don't have here unless you've got something left over to a kidnapping not
and in fact was not known until two thousand and six some six years after the trial and after mr strong had completed all have his direct appeals and post conviction proceedings in the state of illinois which was conducted by the lake county police by the way tell you major crimes task force and that investigation involved was actually quite through the lake county police contacted almost every newly discovered information and no one disputes that this is newly discovered information about the identity of the victim which was not known at trial and this is information that we think would likely change the result of a the trial if we were allowed to that that offense counsel would have been able to introduce that evidence the other point judges that iran is that there is a there is a there is a heavy knowing moving to this is just so absolutely crucial to be able knowledge of this of this case and that would include mr jimmy so mr twitty we believe that we here we have more than satisfied remember that we we felt the motion for leave to file the post conviction petition and we feel that we have more  i think that we have a situation in which there is more than ample evidence to suspect that this confession is false we have the information coming from germany to release the first person in the in the in the in the police station and he makes
on reasonable systems of post convention counsel and that's when it's internal and i think that's appropriate you can't infer under these circumstances that this was an intentional withdraw all of a claim as opposed to a negligent have been outside the school because you're not cross examining you're putting on no witness and no way the rest it just got forgot and so if if the court doesn't accept the proposition that the sworn statement house is other here shows if the following its internal evolved logic that that this is something that could easily be jury by postcondition counsel either by withdraw you're missing the point i'm not talking about the underlying ineffective assistance claim here the bill turner relief then asking for is based on the reasonable assistance by post conviction counsel mr neely and not by the trial under the sixth amendment under strict the question is just did you get a reasonable level of assistance now but assuming that the you now says is at least you know parallel or analogous to the strictly analysis yes there has to be some showing a prejudice that this would have made a difference but the difference it would have made is dead there would be had being then at least a reasonable possibility that there would have been conflicting evidence on this question and who then would have been in the position of having to decide who is more believable about that question in here you know you're just going to take the other position have reached a different bird well here i think when you have no evidence at all there is a nice deep reasonable probability the head counsel done what he should have done provided an act david or had point you have an attorney you need to say he's got the burden is right and he didn't pose questions for asked but they're sort of acting in in tandem together the question if you have in effect assistance of counsel during a guilty plea hearing and then effective assistance induces you to plead guilty then that is sufficient you don't have to show that you would have wanted to trial you just have to show that you would not have you you know mr ross is you know what i'm never knew that was incorrect because this has to do with the credit statute and with the wider how much credit applied for this particular crime at this particular time and only after hearing from some jailhouse lawyer that i find out that that was wrong i knew all along he told me that but i knew that that was wrong and that's the problem
signature block of this lease if you think it is close if you think it is close the doctor about the program says strictly construe against them i don't usually do not think it's close because w same issue again and then coming up on appeal i think it is right with the probate judge him to decide whether or not this contract or lease complies with the statute of frauds what it makes no mention of the property and then i guess the collateral issue on that is was it appropriate or was it enough for you to even allow the role of evidence or proof of evidence to talk about  nice single case there is not a single case in illinois they said you could draw the contract or a lease and not mention the property the location of the property and it stands  this is one of the key issues in this case and i don't think the parties that the furnace would like to go to any good i think is in the right now this is of the proceedings due to the fact that the injunction was for the two dollars and fourteen rugger and has expired talk let's talk first about the  well there's a recent supreme court case oh within the last two months in the name escapes me on there was the oral indication of an order that would be filed in about two and a half months later they managed to get a the parties with a lot of disputed mannish to get a written order on file and the question was the point at which the time only dog we have is the least heard by them and i've never seen a document it a case that does not say anywhere anything about where the property was because again i don't think there's a case of illinois this says you can have a contract at least with property and not mention whether the property is the whole the whole suggested that the above describe
right right right right uh mhm mhm mhm