MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
bills and commemorative resolutions amendment is agreed to
what's the matter with you i was looking for a you know uncle sam i tell you i'm stephen naras well that's great now you just be stephen mars and i'll be highly
so long as people know that stephen norris the famous writer one never knows when one may get one's wish that's right but run along it's awfully nice knowing you drop in any time oh thank you i will certainly nice of you to look after my welfare like there's no trouble at all sorry about that you know i guess i'll take a look around outside i hope you get command sergeant we always  you'd be right if it is stephen moore you mean you didn't he go in to do my bar you better watch your diet and go step see you later you know are you going as well with the reagan i wouldn't miss it for one of them i know what you're thinking about kyoto you'd better keep your hand in your pocket you want to keep  i guess i must have had a fair dream yoyo how dare you carry firearms around me give me that gun likely looking thing isn't it it's you mean i'm joel what do you call on the phone you find out soon enough
happened cases illinois since that initial litigation and all there is a first district case which is recently came down in the summer of two thousand in the summer of two thousand and two live crew which i think is matters regarding custody educational things and so little on appeal fall to dismiss that on people the first district will that because the indian or exercise continuing exclusive jurisdiction there were two petitions filed in january and twenty ten one for college expenses which is not an issue because no registration had occurred secor act that's correct and then there's one for the bonus and that's the one that is  simply been registered in another state now the april twenty tenney will have court did modify the child support that's not at issue here but going forward all child support enforcement must now occur in ohio would you agree with that i would agree on  the ohio system that was my understanding and i believe that the danger of the at the april order of the ohio or also predates the filing of the second petition for indra civil four you've got april thirteenth decision in a court of pleas
under the severed heads that the steve grew there was a murder i believe that it was not intentional homicide that back to the baby died accidentally from suffocating on the couch court that receives at the defense and in this case what the defense is trying to do by his own argument is to provide support for the argument that ashton step was not connected to injuries that this is new accident suffocation our i don't know how the state go about rebutting that except to discuss the fact that it was an intentional and knowing  see them on many occasions he beat him let's talk one month three weeks shortly after he they've got the child back from the and uncle of the defendant scratches on his face and is very much like the scratches that enduring observes later the autopsy why did the defendant have such animosity toward this trial it was explained he did not believe this child was his and that his wife and i think and from the very beginning he had a motive to mistreat this child and did so he also on the occasion the day after the murder when she's in a bar interview she hears a black guy the defendant did heroin and he was on heroin the night that this murder and so was the mother fussy child it was hard and he was crying and she heather could not get him to stop crying and when that when that happened the defendant took ashley from her arms and shook him hard it was please the lightly over the baby's head but i do recall the testimony where when she picks him up from this occasion he's breathing hard and he's trying to catch his breath so obviously the pillow was causing take ashton downstairs and and and separate him from the defendant but the defendant would not permit it so she took a man with him down face down on the couch in the next room and covered him up to the point that she didn't hear questions the defendant didn't go and see he just ran downstairs and he did not come back and check on which women ultimately that the paramedics direction over the phone she's when he was when the paramedics arrived and you know the child was obviously gone and there would be no risk patients they got permission not to resuscitate and the defendant showed on motions to be had a  the baby's injuries told tales of his of his murder the abrasion scar that were on his face and his neck were caused by fingernails with great pressure and they indicated suffocation by
crying and shaking alice in fact two different friends asking them to contact nine one one she told her friend that her husband brought a gun to bed with them and she was not sure if he was going to do something stupid or crazy the bible in this case first rounders with regards to the wishes of the child's parents who are correctly determined in this case that both of the parents wish to be awarded custody of caylee and each parents wish list based on what he or she ten years of age so we could be are not dealing with a young and immature child he spoke to to custody evaluators and spoke to the justice department in camera interview is a desire to reside with his mother court in this case there was parental coaching it was on the part of mr lay and his witnesses joey told the court during his interview that cash is maternal grandmother promised him and box if you live with his reasoning by a child joey gave well thought out reasons for wanting to continue to live with his mom he told the board that he and his stepfather lots of things together and get along really well law testified that allison is a good mother and she does not believe that i was going to do anything particularly the only evidence in this case that honest contrary to the fact that allison is a good mother who can take care of  from the allison that about one hundred interactions at joey's school and was asked to intervene on behalf of jodie to resolve that issue the issue was she was going to the cafeteria friends and acquaintances during this custody case tells us all we need to know about allison the trauma or no or john and allison and whores and sandra's history the bottom line here is neither of the percentile forest in the seventy seven percent time that he stated that horse was better better able to support only academically emotionally stability wise and social functioning functioning the parental fitness testing
trial court's decision what is our standard of review here abuse of discretion and so how did the trial court abused its discretion in reaching it decision and denying the motion for sanctions because if the objective only unreasonable for mr freeling but find that he wrote the petition prior to the court ruling on it was unreasonable for him or for anybody to believe that he needed to do need to see court permission at all i don't have a view on that your honor that's not a part of the wall i looked up it would seem t and read the represent correctional health care companies is justice for overweight noted that this case is governed by the abuse of discretion standard accords abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would agree with its decision the question is not whether this quarter really would trial or whether the supreme court acted arbitrarily without employing conscientious judgement but attorney going to just briefly read for over three just briefly she states when the trial judge beings is decisions so we are on the same cool record this before the court review it is difficult to see why any think that this case has no basis at all in the law but for me to suggest that the a d party should i actually i lost the connection during the strong rift argument but i understood and i didn't hear a lot of it but i understand that he was going for the pages where he criticized me or the environmental and quoted from like environmental stating that there is no under one hundred and thirty seven the court does not have to explain or write any kind of opinion when they deny a motion for sanctions so i didn't do it he
not justified in the use of the firearm in that time this is confusing because that aggravated battery and lies aggravated discharge or vice versa that was the jur i think it can only mean that they're thinking that through gil as to why the last group of people just the other certainly think that's a reasonable interpretation of the other seems to me it's like man in that you know they must go to the other one must be accompanied by the other they were a child our supreme court jester was given separate guilty or murder voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter and only one combined not guilty for all three offenses that the jury was given separate guilty and not guilty forms for ar
resulted in evidence that was pretty much limited to t m story he testified in this trial and the defense trial and he also they also in the state also consented statements that he ha security already knew about the fact that there were other sex offenses correct they keep things that there was one other sex offense which happened in ninety ninety five and also the testimony of two of the defense the defense nephews there were also staying at the apartment at the time that the stuff this occurred and i believe some of the relatives just to say that they had never seen said well i don't care for the right to object to that and there was the evidence of the six year old is correct no that was he said they have in regards to the second incident the evidence of instances here of this happening of other crimes and the the second was certainly with the more gracious but that was that was problematic as well touch but when you're talking mon do you have evidence in statements of nothing except actual institution i would argue that it's not a lesson i think can ever do is wrong if they decided the other way  he never seen as it was before everything before even the victim reporting it to his parents he says it was before these one fifteen ten january sixteenth statements that's right he was using them specifically he also  asked the father said well we never saw anything graphics on this website we any show of specifics with regard to charges against him we saw that he was a sex offender who what do course that was just the fact that the child was unsure about the ages of the adults and there was no sure those one or two or three children these things yeah it's not the best impeachment but given the fact that they that china never said he was great no he said at least my recollection is he actually said what happened he didn't use the phrase to describe right now i think that at one point he said we saw that he wouldn't these other into the subsequent incident with this same victim the ninety nine fires you said had already been litigated pretrial and it was coming in so we had no reason to expect that this wouldn't come in remembering that  and so the court seemed to think that because that the defense was trying to begin then to run around the state's decision to dismiss those charges and really didn't talk about
get some extra credit for purposes of sentencing if i come in and i say i'm really sorry for what i did but my position is i didn't do it therefore it is a double whammy to both convict me for something i didn't do and then ought to be equal credit for someone who comes in and says yes i'm sorry i'm not taking the following steps to to change my life whatever versus someone who never admits the culpability for the act why shouldn't the first person get more of a break on the rehabilitation there in the sense of government is a separate entity to the extent that it did certainly is not irrational to say that rehabilitation terms to some extent on as a first step willingness to accept responsibility and proceed arguing you know we've got all of these cases that deal with this the border we only hold up one of two of specification out of four and what do we do with respect to the penalty it seems to really reading the ages opinion that there were a whole lot more factors that were weighed in terms of assessing the seriousness of conduct in the penalty than just the question three of the potations am i wrong on that i mean they talk about the seriousness of the off that and the other such as that so it seems to me we're does that leave as his position because i'm thinking trying to compare this with the criminal arena he should be penalized for asking the government to prove that he took to the drugs on the other hand part of rehabilitation is if in fact he took the drugs that he has  these cases and everybody routinely says what the douglass factors are whatever and including they discuss the potential for rehabilitation but typically in these cases that's kind of subjective judgment there's no real solid basis to predict the potential for rehabilitation so someone just makes a judgment about whether there is a there is it in this case on the other hand and on the question of potential for rehabilitation you actually have the government has put him in a program for rehabilitation which presumably the government spends a lot of money on considers worthwhile consider therapeutic and considered to have some results so it's it is it is different refuses to admit it at the hearing it's enough to say you can't be rehabilitated well as opposed to afterwards i understand it but one of the things that the judge pointed out is that none of the appellant have ever taken any responsibility for their misconduct then occurred after hearing that another guy refuse i understand the basics but i'm struggling with is basically you're saying that a guy who never admitted he even took the drug and only went and only went into the drug treatment program at the suggestion of a supervisor  should essentially get credit for it on the on the
th amendment violation and i don't believe that the counsel for the state actually argued in the lower court that the pleading was lacking in factual sufficiency if they had to basically say forfeited the argument that they're raising now which if they were going to perfect their argument they should have claimed that it was a defective pleading and force the pleading to be properly filed with sufficient facts or a person could be a suspect but not be in custody that's certainly possible but in this particular case he the officers admitted he was in custody they conceded that fact he was not allowed  is that these the information that they were supplied was the defendant by name they knew he was coming from the walker with two counts of cannabis so made a statement that you both make arguments but the bottom line is for the i'm looking at two that would seem to apply here one would be the absence of worry in the warnings the other would be let's say that was a threat ok will granted that that was a threat we're going to you know tear your car apart that's closing arguments and we have a testimony of bradbury where the senate did that distributed one hundred and six grams of cannabis so the question is is that harmless here a reasonable doubt negative the denial was right it should have been i don't know you fifty dollars i don't know you anything and so in my mind it could be said that you gave us made a pregnant when you said what you said which in contrast to dennis where dennis is bleeding and him and the officer doesn't even ask for permission to come speak with them we have we have an office that we have a defendant in custody in handcuffs yes the windows rolled down he can see what is going on and he's happier experience with officers further there is no mental abuse apart from the apartment or car but again he provided a justification for that house it was like one continuous injury here a shooting because it was only a half hour interval that passed but you keep saying that i understand ok that the information that was tame by anderson he knew that he was being pulled over for some unknown reason there was no there was no other there is no reason the only question is everything illegal is in the  but he's not told you're being pulled over for speeding you're being pulled over driving on a loquacious or being for some other reason he knows he's been pulled over because this is a spec that there's an illegal substance in the car which is the question that the officer a
when the property was constructed further mr mccormick and the run all approaches but particularly in a sales comparison approach is basically by his analysis and his judgment of all the appraisals set forth in just a sales comparison approach they do  totally applies to a real city investment trust transaction they typically trade properties of it for three groups for instance this particular breed is set up to deal with the transaction and believe the sales to do three and five and their peculiar person told him that this was a ball ball transaction with the allocated failures of the crassness court to reverse the p t a these decisions as a matter of well however for failure to follow proper methodology however press claims of press claim inappropriate methodology simply has no basis in determining taxable properties however the expert present in the leases proved pretty pretty presenting those sales had no information with regard to the leases in place at the time of sale therefore the he could not have made a determination of whether it was leased fees sale or just the simple sale coming out and the properties that are far away from the interstate are less desirable because the trucks have to travel farther some roads they can't travel on in order to get to the property so that poses a problem  reasons the expert in the armstrong case was rejected because not only did he offer comparables that were really comparable but he tried to testify that he has no effect on a part respecting you it does business we we never were able to review or cross examine you when you look at it here is how they get there and here's the mistakes they made so what if it didn't would you be earning any differently if they took one approach and came up with
why this case should come out on our favor and that if you have a statute that said it's fifteen hundred that said that if you have he might believe that he's innocent but that's not the issue a lot of my clients to leave their rooms and some of them are but that's not the point you have to have fin way to get it around a technicality and then they want it both ways course but i think that's an issue there but the issue of th case can be entertained
state saying there's nothing more then every seven years we're going to allow a creditor or maybe two or maybe three to come in and start reviving judgments where's the finality that where it was
i don't know the answer to that i couldn't find specific case law where something like this came through in the folk history have the cases that i saw they send it back for the commission to hear evidence to take circuit court didn't have jurisdiction to hear at least that portion of it that's when it should have probably been sent down but he made a ruling when he didn't have jurisdiction so at least as far as that portion of it i don't think so i'm going to say is one order i don't think you have i realize that that was something new to be brought to your attention in addition to that portion of it the award itself was completely inconsistent and it deals with the location or you have maintenance portion as well as permanen say there is is there so i guess the long the very short of it is i am objecting to the jurisdiction and because it was just one order i think it does need to be remanded back  in this case where would we get the chairman and the jurisdiction to determine that the commission never should have decided to see before you decide you will review i think you get your direction from the illinois supreme court and they are case law that indicates this is how this is supposed to have the and we understand it ok we're two minutes if there's no jurisdiction to decide yeah where do we get the jurisdiction to say now we may get it explanation or an interpretation of what happened but we have to go on the basis of what's in the rector in the order in the record we can't go into yours the record of a lot senator reckons they add up they really meant this therefore it's not a final order and you see the dilemma i'm and i
parents here the victim all testified that she was worried about the defense contacting her because she was afraid so what do you do when he got out of the bin also says he wants to contact his ex wife who has think it goes back to even if there was that did this was it visible testimony in the form that it came and since there is as i said in the beginning of my argument there there is any doubt
unit under the special circumstances test would submit differences between those two groups much less significant than the differences you could get between trains and these
in midland credit management this is an appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration however during the appeal briefing  there has been an issue raised by actually the f l e article three standing this issue was briefly  nor thank you with article three standing just to give some background on the timing here while the motion to compel arbitration was pending before the mentioned that to the district court of sars address article three stand that time kind of sat there for a little bit in the court issued its opinion  brief and that we will see any reason for that to occur at the time because the did come out on article three standing there was a request to bring it before the that and i guess one thing i want to clarify that wasn't entirely clear commitment or never tried to correct that right because he did actually under reported the amount that he owed to the credit agencies is that correct that that's correct your honor labeled a welcome letter so invents it was informative because there was a consensual place but i think also as well it was an attempt to collect that consent judgment as well  some garnishment in the michigan state court is actually a subject of another class action that's currently pending in the eastern district of michigan but that was it your honor and so it was  standing and statutory cause the baksh and in fact tried to simplify that based on the fact that it did not believe the b dispute was in the scope of the arbitration provision meaning that a consent judgment was somehow different  account but as we set forth in our in our brief we think that was certainly an error especially looking at the united states supreme court precedent this cour precedent that arbitration provisions are meant to be broadly construed really the consent judgment related to the account and there is a flaw from the circuit as well please describe how someone to tolerate who she had to pay and she has to go consult an attorney so there's a change in course of behavior in which she had which would follow your example that would provide is that there was something different that she did out of the ordinary course the changed her behavior i mean didn't the men and that's why we're seeking statutory damages  injury in the way that you're describing it i mean you've said that it an irritant was enough to constitute a concrete injury so here you're saying that she was irritated she was upset confused you tied it to an emotion right