MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
skin and that that section has two different summaries there right it's got a summary of this chapter and it's got a separate roster of players the preparation for separate summary describing the rites navigations etc really just a security deposit changes that's one of the amendments to it have the interest rate disclosure added into the fair enough but the leader in the tax this is a copy of such summary shall be attached to each written rental agreement and obviously language says each such summary really just following this the security device thing your deposit provisions i should say ended that there's really no requirement for this other entire summ which one is it you obviously say it's the one that comes at the beginning of the chapter and your partner is saying it's the one that sort of immediately preceded it but the the best argument for why we should read it not not what happened in court but  here telling us that the ordinance requires the summary and you say the artist does not require the summary is that a question of material fact does it ever come into play in it to sit back now in this ring is correct that there is actually a summary out there it's supposed to be a tax that wasn't the summary that was attached in this case and should we allow the lawgiver to repleat we're looking at this  correct grammar that there's actually a summary that actually details all of the other sections i don't see how real teel it was attached to this particular piece shouldn't he at least be allowed to eat in the first instance then you would be he would actually been citing a question of material fact in my in my opinion he did yeah he did and you're saying there is no question material back and if mr she she didn't make any payments and that's obviously with respect to progress three and thirty five and thirteen and thirty wrong but i think i may count that the leases is pretty clear that both sides need to provide sixty days notice that's that's inception right and this track that they're alleging just doesn't exist i mean it doesn't make sense that what they're up with are trying to argue is if they get sixty days notice of an intent to
that type written statement and that was something that this woman did voluntarily on her own evidently before attorney already that is took her statement those are true because he asked about  and it's alleged in the bystanders report that is state farm relies on the fact that your client gave multiple variations of the events when he had to say about that the race it's a loquitur and the bystander report says a jury could infer on the part of the defendant when questioned by the court regarding defendant's argument as to exclusive control should control in illinois back in the eighty's so your brief argues solely that they couldn't prove exclusive control and i'm just wondering why you you're briefs seem to indicate that because somebody gives a different version of the statement than has a bunch of an article isn't bought by dots that somehow that's a basis for summary judgment those are credibility determinations to be made by the for violation mr schmidt who is a well seasoned lawyer can he participated in this litigation for five years and three months before he ever raised the violation do you believe that that somehow the deceived miss understood what was going on and when her statements says she's fine with that she'd already given a type written statement of our own but you claim that with clear via his role in this matter he doesn't need to do that under the rule as not it says when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the on represented person misunderstands the lawyers role where is it that you say he we reasonably should know or know that this ring this understood his role she's the one who sought him out some evidence but you floating around this concept well somebody who's on the identified did this how is that relevant unless you can show and that mysterious misunderstanding you says she she's she reached out to him there's no no if you have some information that that occurred otherwise let's have it now because i don't see it in any of your papers she said it doesn't doesn't bother her you claim that somehow he asked leading questions which how does that apply i don't know she lost her husband she knowledge that she wasn't confused  that she somehow misunderstood the lawyers role in the process but how do you think she even knew would reach out to him just looked in the yellow pages i mean she had to
recall you are i think i made the offer proof on the record him i said he was going to testify to something of the pay for the people to be there in time and then also made some on a person's higher but you get to that only if you find it negligence or in the scheme in the first place who few well otherwise there's no point even consider contributory necklace well that's that's briefly heart flair for denial of the transcript condition argument in the jury instruction because that's what we really had we had a condition that happen i didn't find in here in this document anything about the judge talking about the evidence it's trial and waiting on the new trial motion of whether the evidence was deficient to support for the jury could have even if he was at fault for not standing where he should have been or like in this case a johns didn't properly apply the hose clamp type that doesn't bar recovery is a matter of life only serves to mitigate his damages that's why i've lived this
requirements to go here well i mean whether or not he was truthful about their i mean this is whether or not he actually is still under a legal obligation i mean i do view the day the burden has to be on the state to show that a crime actually occurred so i think you have a purpose to look the problem or innocently going in and saying i need to register can't be and then shouldn't be difficult for the state
it's called oral argument is
page three ninety one and three nights two three nights being the chinese version travel her lover and secondly when she went to the hospital she was taken physically when she was still crying by three birth control of fishes and in the hospital in the surgical room she refused to go was because i was on the floor testimony this court believes that the respondents behavior was not consistent with someone who underwent a forced abortion he's not talking about her inconsistency in her testimony he's just talking about what she did see how you can decide these immigration cases without giving them the normal attention cases get which is where we have twelve cases going to look at a normal road and some of being argued and a similar problem to the one i want to ask you but here and that is what it is you have to fear in order to get either asylum or withholding once you've had an yes if you believe her testimony she said she was not physically restrained jury the operation itself so obviously  found that physical restraint while she's on the table with her legs spread apart dilated by some kind of mechanical appliance which i'm sure you've experienced as well in your lifetime  indicate that it was voluntary rather than forced i have to think that that is incorrect in finding that it was voluntary what else is that other than forced
and to both conditions proceedings
because the seems to be kind of a novel prosecution i couldn't find a case anywhere like this throughout either illinois or any other jurisdiction that was quite the same count one in this case charge that he found her with the intent committed theft and access again twenty one hundred thousand five hundred thousand dollars found a lawsuit against her in holland seeking three hundred fifty thousand dollars in damages to which the defendant claims he was entitled as proceeds from both a life insurance plead guilty to borrowing money from someone columns under false pretenses by claiming that he was going to receive a settlement from a nonexistent lawsuit the defendant knew he was not going to file the onload leader of obtaining order protection against him and defend it was order of protection so a trial in this case the trial judge allowed the jury to be informed of this prior conviction and give a living a limiting instruction in this case the defendants present still sell me testifying under a grant of immunity stated that he wrote a to was the first step in a series of going to some defense attempts to get money from hell we've already fragile we've gotten money from or in the past and so we could have anticipated that she would give them money again when helen did not send the two hundred dollars defend she's issue in terms of whether the mere finally lawsuit can be considered attempted theft in this case involves the series of events first the illegal demand for two hundred dollars in the letter and then the filing of the the lawsuit for the money the defendant was not entitled first in your reply brief that these charges fall on the one act one crime doctrine because this argument was not raised in mean brief that argument is wait and even if the argument is not waived nearly the sending of the letter one month prior to the filing the lawsuit or part of the chain of events is still a separate act from the lawsuit itself if in it intended to obtain money from no one by sending a letter and when an effort failed he filed a lawsuit in a further attempt to get money for today for how there was in excess of one hundred thousand dollars that i'd said in an attempt at that the state's argument is really these two together it is an attempt to settle and that is charged
the statement of probable cause simply says it indicates that it was handled by somebody who had had come in contact with drugs now you're saying the thing that is scientifically all i thought your argument was that he should have qualified it but he should have done that too if you can say anything at all about he should be forced out although it is of limited significance the argument that somehow or other that statement has to be more sort of converted into a misrepresentation that somehow or other don't want somebody written off the cash i want let's suppose when they say don't put cash in the mail and i don't have a checking account or credit card or whatever and i wanted the shipper i mean one could think of an innocent explanation for they're going to disguise it because they don't want  bad but if you've included information that this person had been previously arrested for sending narcotics material through the mail and it's been and the officer correctly reported that information the mistake that i made was that it
doesn't that itself get undercut by the fact that i'm assuming janet butler is dressed as a t testimony says it was certainly well more than more or two or three there was so what is it that connects the photograph taken on july th with the defendant being in why we have to decide when he is telling the truth we know that channing butler counters or attempt to canvas the other man therefore and we know that his trial testimony which is under oath in court we are alleging or what some people think that makes it more likely to tell truth is saying the opposite and you got the problem of where the hell are the other photographs persistency counsel i know i'm skipping to another issue ineffective assistance of counsel not to acquire about and find out the other photos if there are photos on his fall of other men and he says i fair trial how do you address that because this then yet to what you were saying there was no prejudice because the logical inference was x y z there would be but without that state why couldn't jurors be asking the same questions that i may ask this perverted witness who has this odd these people testified before the jury and we don't substitute our judgment for juries we understand but some of
anything you started correctly cite the law but there are some other fundamental principles that apply as i understand in review we're supposed to be looking at them with a differential standard that is we're supposed to exercise all reasonable presumption is in favor tell what the jury is going to do if you look at the fee on this case and i know there was a question there but you if you look at it with the jury with the court ultimately says is that you know there's no real way of telling exactly what was going to happen finding a jury verdict irreconcilably inconsistent and as your honor was touching on a jury is not inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis so far is it and here there were plenty of the if is a purely subjective injury such as an increase complained of pain the jury is free to disregard it on the credibility issue and on the credibility issue then you know that you're you can pick up credibility issues from context it became clear to the jury the court to say he heard by contrast on the other reasonable hypothesis defy to suggest it could explain the verdict after hours of deliberation the jurors finally reached a compromise they're not saying more likely than not that this happened and they're saying that the ok but it sounds like this is the kind of strange a jury and probably will give them a believe that the defendant was responsible for the accident they were going to give the defendant the bass and the accident but by the same token they just didn't believe
say but the more jordi of it is immigration naturalization therefore equal rights then i'm going to use reduce troops but just as easily physical that you could parse out the parts of the statu cannot work out more than three dollars now i understand that
have can't say that i have and with the full committee thank you so very much
out the bad feed the birds actually became was favorite song and after long stressing from the studio she would often ask the sherman brothers to come into his office and playing feed the birds as a way for him to the wonderful thing the wonderful thing about taker's is stickers are wonderful things their tops are made out of rubber their bottoms are made out of springs trying to conceive oh father that's not the piece i'm doing next year is probably my favorite winnie the pooh character and i know that we all have that one that we most closely identify with so you will hear a little bit of tickers influence in this next arrangement as the pedal part is what teacher would describe as boun that i so drawn to disney movies is their story and as a musician so often those stories are told from songs that make them even better but of course these stories would be nothing without their villa are pushed aside to get the short stick for their entire life and pretty much just lash out because of that which brings us to my favorite is the villain a scar and wishes a magical gathering of disney dreams now this show unfortunately came to the end of its run back in may to be replaced with a new show and i'm more than a little sad because this was always one of those must do things whenever i visited the park on the overarching message of the show is to always stay young at heart and follow your dreams in fact one of the lines from the song goes we're all just children reaching for dreams they're shining high above us and even though it seems so far we put our faith and hope on shooting stars i included a little bit of that melody in this next to richmond as a tribute to witches i hope you  i want to thank all of you so much for coming this afternoon and i hope you have enjoyed this program if you did i would encourage you to check out my you tube channel i give you a new arrangement of additional song on the organ every month
quite clear their employers activity retaliatory activity if you want to use it while there are not unconstitutional but it's but that's off through public point cases nevertheless there are really good compelling reasons for our say to apply in this type of setting and by video to the reporter for all you know it could have been one person doing a favor for another person so he could have sued simply don't know but anyway it's interesting that pointers on point here paragraph if there is no constitutional right to do this there can be a first amendment defining issues retaliated against for doing this so i really don't know what else i would yeah other than to say
just this case i believe that the passion stems from justice are just gone rep's irritation with scott sherman's handling of this two thousand and fifteen tax for review in this particular portion of the case i don't believe that the judge was particularly impassioned i don't believe that that she was  states that why even in cases where an individual doesn't comply with the court's order if they have compelling cause justification for th based upon the fact that respondent suffered a precipitous reduction in earnings during during the pendency of this action just as a result of the lack of work this is a reason the trial court ordered it to be held well and i believe that's because of the contempt citation filed in two thousand and fifteen that was filed at the same time much of this case seems to really resolve or revolve around  garnish the amount of work by the court back in two thousand and one which was the one hundred and fifty dollars my weekly or sixty something dollars per week was the breakdown now this translated into a somehow translated into a contempt petition which was filed two months later february th teen that was predicated on the fact that scott in there are allegations but required to pay one hundred and fifty dollars per week by that were because he had taken a position that was paid weekly and that's where this entire five year odyssey of support and requests to produce documents and everything else snowball from this was the record or two that made the thousand so there was a great disparity of income with respect to the attorney fees issue she's the one dollar that supported the child she's the one thing and ended up paying for college for maintenance of th don't think they have to do there there was enough evidence presented ok his failure to comply with court orders failed to comply with discovery and she gave him a line of role in order to comply my here and after considering the financial resources of the party may order any party to pay a reasonable amount for his own or the other party often the party fees and then at the conclusion of the case observation to attorney fees reserved always except well that's a sixteen that scott had informed her of his changes and one that she was fully aware of where he worked and when he did it specifically she knew that he went off to school in two discussion we've never had one since to love it so you could find it in the record that we had a discussion regarding contributions of attorneys fees outside of her specific award for spock so my reading of back is at some point in this record there had to be some sort of discussion regarding the ability to pay or maybe there's not that's why i'm asking the question
your question the first time i saw one of these times i thought the person making the sale was somebody who was mentally ill and then i saw the ease with a couple people inside  bidder by a couple thousand dollars to be accepted but that's not really because puting before the poor is reduced the question is should my client be allowed to intervene to ask that question of whether substantial owner of the property could as the judge could allow them to intervene but that just wasn't the case here there was no money tendered from the rise and to the sound officer we would be  and to the extent that today there was discussion of the notice being improper that there was no new sale conducted off site still you know it was just the opportunity for the second highest bidder conducted according to the times of the notice and the times agreed that it was conducted and that the second highest bidder was j c s and the parties agree that the group arising was not able to provide the offered their thirty thousand dollars
wrong statute go through it's all about the wrong statute i thought the district court relied mainly on frank's violation on the statement that she initiated and communicated a report that she statute which is part of what that cost was asking about so we just ask you yes or no is he saying this was a mistake in the warrant to cite forty two o six he is now your but he has said other things in  or whatever that he had alleged that he believed that she had initiated communicated a report orally that was false and baseless and i guess the oral report was that that's not my signature i'm not sure exactly what he's talking about so he did try maybe this was in the deposition you would know that the evidence sort of seems to me we have that evidence or judge hanan had that evans before him in trying to figure out what exactly is going on here and you need to report that was in september of two thousand and thirteen that's what he says why i didn't make a mistake in using forty two zero six that's the right word but as you say just now he's now taken the opposite position well it i obvious when you look at the statutes you want you should have found them and quite frankly our point is the fact that there was a violation of law by filing a false report even don't you fall in the wrong statute it's still a fact questions of whether this was deliberate or not that was i want to thank judge jane and thought this evidence rage and it wasn't resolved yet by summary judgment evidence but you're right i don't believe that we shouldn't be looking at whether or not a subjectively take i think that should be taken apart a report from d p s this is your signature you've been telling the school district and your state and your own statement a sworn statement that it is not my signature and yet it was your signature at least the probable cause of that was your signature probable cause and if you take out that she initiated that report you still have the fact that she gave a false report to a police officer so the probable cause is still there under frankfurters delaware if you take out the erroneous information just look at the four corners
make sure we communicate you communicate with the the comm
and here to defend it was informed of the critical principle in miranda he was schooled that anything he said would be used against  consequences of his statement the argument is you know it's generally against reading the definitive couldn't have believed that after being questioned
not an indication that truly is the attorney general information that they had in hand came from those two sources no matter that it arguably was unusually hidden from view isn't the timing of  e when the complaint was far as to whether or not the public disclosure bar operates that is our position we think is irrelevant whether an individual board member knew with or didn't know the time the country signed circuit courts of course a general jurisdiction this isn't a jurisdictional issue and i'm just going to suggest of the parties here that that statement and lines township about the four inquiries that must be conducted to determine whether judgment was appropriate disregard you know that whatever possibly extraneous language was used about this being a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pressure up and down we think it squarely falls within the parameters