MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
made thirty six percent fewer loans than it did in two thousand and eight this is something that must be addressed and that's why i've introduced h r thirty seven twenty three the small business credit expansion and loan market stabilization act my bill will improve and enhance flagship seven a loan program it increases the maximum loan level and expands provisions in the american recovery and reinvestment act that increases the s b a loan investments will be geared towards development in manufacturing house resolution thirty seven thirty incorporate several measures to protect the tax guards include a requirement investment companies match grant requests with capital f and reform act of two thousand and nine introduced by representative griffith the businesses and homeowners touched by the catastrophe businesses and homeowners touched by catastrophe or loan programs as a financial of small firms following a disaster and preparing for a national catastrophe the work is never done because when it comes to disaster loans primary task is to remain vigilant house resolution thirty seven forty three
it was transferred by a local rule two to down to the downtown of the first municipal district as provided by rule et that point there was litigation and four marriage marriage ceremony between these two individuals in the state of california he clearly because he was still married to a woman in the philippines that he says in his in this case knowing that he was still married to an individual in the philippines has a solid marriage ceremony and state of california  people lived together i thought as husband and wife for many many years if these two wonderful children for property but the marriage fell apart like many many marriages do in this country and in this county for judgment on the pleadings why don't we do that because it's the main purpose one of the one of the main purposes other than to dissolve marriages we wanted to hear the farmer who made  of five thirteen i didn't get her the question whether she the fact that she eventually declared the marriage or do you think that had anything to do with her interpretation of the st saying is that receiving the green degree and in any given day doesn't cut off the obligation or expenses that were incurred prior to the degree even though the suit that may be filed in order to force t well first it then it's too late i but that's where we i really disagree i do not believe that the interpretation of five thirty eight to when i is there a straightforward problem the statute really doesn't answer i agree i mean i think at all and we want to strongly disagree with any theory that five thirty eight two is in his self thirteen college contributions to different petition jurisdiction for purposes of section five thirteen there are who are it was raised at april twenty six of twenty and where there was both a petition for
s you know so so i mean regardless of what happened it's a void judgment because it's in violation of an automatic injunction of the federal courts why what should have happened was someone should have went and i and i argue where the requirements that are set by a group that oversees all fans are somehow dress suggestions in fact the court went on to say that these are not suggestions we take of these rules seriously  documents attached to it and taking undisputed facts when there were then there was sworn testimony had to answer to and he did not have complete control that he had before so and asked god he had control in our but he didn't have control on the revenue people calling the shots there was a more you fellows before and now there is a this is a case where peavey's trying to have its cake and eat it's to eat it too in terms of the bankruptcy aspect of it on the one hand they're arguing that are going after the same on the other hand you know they're getting a judgment against against our boy and you can't  the medicare and medicaid numbers that mr gilman testified were transferred pursuit of these operations transfer agreement between he asked and the corresponding orbit and its in their summary judgment response to extend lines of credit under the existing ownership therefore the are the enemies we contend were simply a change in form of ownership not in substance in fact before the circuit court during world argument only worker is that correct and mr gilman said gilman responded well there was from what i understand there was some changes in the members who were with the manager michael gilman remain the same and three of them and one of them manager  fact under chapter forty ten section four twenty four point five five zero a of the code of federal regulations as a general rule in provider a supplier of medicare or medicaid services is prohibited from selling its medicare for the first time want to appeal the complaint in this case did not attach any invoices or documentary proof as to how again ph d apply it's and again we think that's a red herring because under our position the arbet in the evidence is being i mean it was a game of the prior one case in illinois and it went through basically the same analysis that i just described in terms of attached to the affidavit that supported that it's a foundation issue on paragraph eight on of the affidavit it says the accounts for the other aunties were stablish months after p and g learned of the transfer of operations cat again is that it's the whole burden of production argument that that i'm arguing is that we didn't have to say anything that as long as they don't meet the burden of production on and they didn't because they didn't have any affidavit that doesn't attach the documents in violation of
say they didn't give us a lot of us well i don't plan to keep things one there were two counts charges against the defendant and the jury acquitted on one of the count as a demonstration of the functioning yury speaking this read back it wasn't a one word read back or so the line and then heard in fact what happened next was the jury had an additional question and the judge even said on the record to the lawyers i'm surprised because obviously they weren't really troubled by this point i think it has taken a long time it's well over an hour before this jury comes back when the verdict which on one count exonerated the defendant so some of the harms identified by the court
the fetus for allegedly killing the fetus by taking drugs smoking you know all the nasty would not because he's sad as that there's a rental unit in the situations if it involves statute legislature has a right to create a cause of action they did create a cause of action and they didn't exhibit any of these other things right when they created because our actions but then there's also community doctrine that has been created
done because from what you're telling this court he shouldn't done nothing because he was true stiction the second the moment that your client received the en apparently he should have done something and if he should have done something what was it that he should have done that he didn't do pay real estate taxes he should pay each of the televisa if the stock market is crashing public guardian could not do anything more with this reason visits without the court approval then the case all the way through this that the the extra litigation was caused by mr public causations and never placed before guardianship court and the guardianship corners and other areas to address that point now even if that were not the case the letters of office are not as simple as motion voluntarily dismissed that case that motion has been resisted by the guardian so that's the only reason that case is still alive the public guardian asserted and in that case the exclusive jurisdiction l
on in the diaper bag where it was if the jury believed there was a crime clear at that point why would it be necessary to go any further with that school is the name of the witnesses who said it said that because i can't think of the fact that she could have been he so often i was very sure of that but then there was evidence that he did the question is why wasn't she called that's when you don't believe the one
would have a financial impact to the city the third option would be to charge a fee for this service program with the fee is i ran some numbers could be forty dollars with that we could provide full service lateral program regards to the city would still take the responsibility of doing the first half of the program anything in the second half we would pay a license everything that is for their services broken has an assuringly bad reaction there most people i would say by far the majority of people are not aware of the fact that they are responsible for that
circumstances surrounding those inferences are very important if you were to ask the same boy would you like to sell your bicycle and the reply was i was still a whore you cannot imply that he was self bicycle and that was the constructed in addition onto his house which was significantly closer to the roof way than he would have built it you know otherwise when asked to remove the property soon followed in the court also when dealing with the public body and startle there must be an affirmative enact on the part of the public body this is what referenced earlier this cannot be an act of a ministerial office or
water i don't think there was any prejudice offered respectfully by your side and the reason i can tell you that is produce fifteen affidavits hundreds of documents and one story and it's in my opposition the first thing i that he would have been good for us or came in and said that he would have been you know the other testimony i don't even think it was really that relevant and that's why i keep saying look at the same passion for what i'm saying is let's just look at what the sanctions stopped
even disease or disorder recognized in the d s m four but nothing nothing that would indicate that he was incapable of representing himself or knowing what understanding the proceedings were going on around him and i think that examination pressure on it and i believe that's one of the paramount concern no i don't i don't i don't really don't have any questions about that the government expressed concern over the compensate of the defendant to stand trial and as i pointed to time under eighteen u s c i think it's forty to forty five it district court judge order question but that is the whole purpose of what's the what's the government raised a concern that it it triggered it triggered an obligation to conduct an inquiry your concern your claim is that once the government expressed concern of the just a court had to go all the suffered as a child would suffer indicate a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder i can see that readily just from based on the some of my other clients problems the psychologist diagnosed me now that's the concern that i have i believe any counsel had read any ability arrived at the right dissolves the facts which are specially undisputed show that the defendant had in the words of this court some minimal understanding of the proceedings that is required to be competent instead of defending you see that i've seen before and it seems to me that they need the evaluator and using the same standards as an adequate capacity  you know there's at least the first off the determination whether or not a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial obviously there has to be a critical stage of the proceeding there's numerous cases i don't have in front of the but it's well settled that arrangements are critical same increase the same level of competence required to represent yourself as it is to stand trial but if you can stand trial then presumably you could also you could also represent yourself if you chose to if the subject was found to be c proceeding if the defendant has the right to represent himself and wants to insist on it and the judge says just because the prosecutor has a question i'm not going to let you represent yourself through the next few days  life ninety days would he have and we wouldn't have an argument that his parental rights were violated by imposing counsel on what he doesn't want to i believe that we have to be determined on a case by case basis well here's the case here's the case and i don't believe there would be any error or any problem with that because  this particular case the question had to rose the government had secured as i've got a question ok so the judge is going to deprive him of his right of self representation because the government says we have a question of what the judge did was have a psychologist
the court denied the claim so severely it found that it was the proper venue to raise claims where is that then i'm looking at the docket entry i don't see any mention made of it being where mr tapley is former drug use was irrelevant to the charges that were both brought against him the charges of aggravated battery and similarly the remaining claims also have the potential of establishing ineffective assistan hold an evidentiary hearing on whose trial came with ineffective assistance of counsel it's that required where the defendant mais unsupported claims that are based on factual allegations that are not on the record they should be ruled on if they are raised in this ported b by retained counsel who is an officer of the court and who signed a motion and the fear of the rest of the cases relied on by the state or all of those division cases and as we know the postcondition here and that does require david's brandon
a little ambiguous to me but i think it that it's primarily had an adverse credibility determination so my question to you there is a question here if we conclude as you have argued that the credibility determination cannot be i think that  increasing with possibility it's not it's not the treatment of somebody who is being attacked because they're jewish the the report also the state that report also in the case of the government is credibly making an effort to reduce  there wasn't any effort on their part to protect us she went to the same police station for the same people they said each time their reaction was the same  today we're really tired of me i would just you again just get lost it was the third or fourth time that she went there and i'm sure they couldn't do anything about it well that sounds like the government was unable to i also mentioned i wasn't the first one with a complaint like that but they don't because they don't have the force of capability to react to each case when things like that happen things like what that she works for but the people that have the power of the police and thank you couldn't apparently did have a very different attitude they don't treasure or they don't see your work and they appear to have
minor there's a seventh circuit case vargas kartika that happens to be dealing with the same california statute two sixty one point three and it says it sexual abuse of a minor and we have  what bothers me about this and i'm not sure i want looking further through looking through here for what i think is not there what bothers me is that it does not appear that mr trouble knew or his lawyer at the time clarity of the record was not sufficient for us to take account of what we have to look at is what the valerie's of the statute are unless some formal document such as a guilty plea or judgment in the criminal case or cites facts that would be more specific know no problem there and here's here's the issue that i'm focusing on under the statute a person could be guilty of the cr even where the age spread was much narrower than the fourteen year old girl twenty year old boy spreading this means and i'm wondering whether we're compelled to treat this as the facts in this case the fourteen year old the twenty year old but i understood your answer to be that we can and we should
reversal by the number one there is no polling provision and number two suspects that the appeal there's nothing him doing that is to say there is this period of time where there is nothing there and the number two and here  of timely appeal may seventh circuit that what it said and said reconsider and that the district court did what it did and that i'm  we're assuming that everything was timely there is there anything in this record and is there any case that you can cite that would indicate that in determining its own procedure reviled in the state jurisdiction with them a time starting from the initial dismissal whether you're successful with federal appeal or not or whether you decide not to
commute which is similar to the to the california community just mentioned it's not a reasonable kind of job for this person to have so you need to look at all these factual questions when you go back to the second faster which is the faster i want to argue of this issue who gets to decide whether a hundred won or not for eight hundred thousand or another or whether it's reasonable to drive to santa barbara congressmen every day is not for the commissioners attorney to make that decision it is not for the district court to make that decision it's a finding of fact that must be made and the agency level by the ala jade was the finder of fact and  there and make that decision today this would be the case again because one hundred one jobs out of four million people in the state of oregon is really not by any stretch of the imagination  the country so it is down there i just want to present it to you i'm saying that i remain on the basis of cherry is the clearest proof here for for remedy and the other thing that i would like to mention also is that the commissioners arguments about whether this is a factual issue or an issue of law i'm not really clear exactly where she's landing on that unfortunately i was not the attorney blow so i can't tell you what was in that attorney's mind at any point in time however she did not raise vocational arguments again his opening brief the commissioners to respond they took these dogs off the table thereby creating the issue she's right in that you arguments were not raised but the issue was raised a lot of the arguments don't need to be raised the issue itself which was created by the commission was a journey and i would not be standing here today if she had not created that issue certainly the court yes this court has the discretion to hear these arguments there are cases that i can cite you know that were not in my brief which i'll be happy to write supplemental that means that there are no jobs in the regional economy i actually would like to refocus the court's attention on some avoiding this question i don't think it's relative to the very narrow issue here of who decides the cherry issue i this is a broader reading for twenty three would suggest that other reasonable factors could injury and i'm not asking this court to to do that i really do not think that our if that is the argument here i think it will be the argument when we go back if we go back at that level and it would be there you know possibly they will be here another day arguing those issues today the issue is who is going to make these factual determination while one i don't care what the numbers are it could be twelve million telephone solicitors he never made that determination of that job sitting alone on the table he made that determination in concert with five other jobs
they were here a minute ago when you pardon me your honor i'll be right back you general ban we use try to be a little more quiet on the court of law will you please step forward no no no prepare yourself for the witness box say you know the case
trial three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and sentenced to a total term of forty five years prison i know we have time constraints today so for the purposes of today's argument i would like to focus on the issues relating to  detail of each and every instance where defense counsel bill to protect his client defense counsel effectively made no objections to any of the improper evidence and probably insinuations and finally i know from motion all preserved no issues for review confess i know to the very old and with help from the prosecutors and no help from defense counsel must also misrepresented at trial what mr branch actually said during the videotaped interrogation usted claimed that the record be corrected to show that in fact no that statement was never made he turned it into a credibility issue between him and the detective and not an issue of false testimony being presented to the jury t significant because one it was presented in a manner that made it seem like a new mission by the defendant when that in fact never happened and two i think it's important to consider that have the jury defendant said to him when he was told it was under arrest i guess she found my d n a on there girl which conveniently was the only incriminating statement alleged incriminating statement of the defendant that wasn't recorded so the i think this court should should look at that with a huge grain of salt first of all there are so many different instances when the prosecutor refers to this it was one of the key points of her opening statement and her examination her witnesses and cross examination of the defense witnesses it was purposely elicited it was to from the record that what defense counsel was using was a transcript from the videotape interrogation and i want to remind the board this transcript had been prepared by the state itself and think it may have even been this one through a transcript because there were several continuances where the defense was waiting for the preparations transcript this is a case where the defendant was being charged with three classics and this is six year minimum he's got a forty five year sentence on this very serious charges very serious allegations to think that the prosecutor relying on something she's treating it as a mission would not take the time to go through the transfer if you yourself appear in order to look at the thirty minute video that was there and not discover that the statement and one instance actually defense counsel was the one who brought in process a witness is opinion that he was credible the state failed to perfect impeachment when disputing mr branch just claimed that he had made a report to d counsel apparently tracked down the written statement might have been the twelve page handwritten single spaced statement the defendant said was a statement about fusion that's in the record now supplement to the record also was defense counsel then was incompetent for not telling the jury or asking the jury the advice that this statement did that it actually exists because it appears he was actually using the transcript of the been videotaped interrogations when he was
is yes i was treated in compensated for the left hip but because it altered the way moved the way i walk my gait it subsequently directly ended up causing a problem with the right fit so what is wrong with  you know what you make it a very good logical point but let me ask you this does the claimant have to know the day to day the effect of this adjustment overcompensation put it what it's doing to other hip i mean you seem to be saying w law they made a mistake why did they make a mistake and get a truth what is wrong with dome's opinion from the standpoint of expertise he testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty argument would certainly have supported the commission if the commission head decided the case based on walsh's opinion as opposed to domes no question about it but they didn't and they're the ones that get to pick and choose as to which often expert medical testimony they're going to credit it's their job now marjah we may not have decided it that way we have be we all recognize the competing theories how do you respond to his argument if you choose to do so that experion mysterious that if thirty injured the left tipper was talking about it she received those we've been to no complaints  prior to the surgery  recovery which is not one hundred percent by the way i think in the medical literature that there is the potential for aggravating an opposition party or anything o included in the opinion of dr don't