MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
and let me refresh your memory repeat that it's been three years and the plaintiff still has not adequately pled or set forth the terms of the oral agreements that elation that entered into and the second point i were presumably should know the rules and regulations which govern loan transactions specifically moral transactions and how highly scrutinized well loan transaction the state so with those two points in mind motion sort of my question for you at that time we try to bring this issue in front of court over two years ago we were denied nonetheless we are here today and we do believe the trial court erred not dismissing that original complaint might but i don't believe that the pleading in front of the court the second in many complaints you propre pleading to have judgment when you're on the underlying agreement and by that i mean we have moved to dismiss the original complaint first amended complaint and  that we don't have a right in which identifies the terms of i would agree if the parties to the transaction would agree that all the remainder of the terms in the original documents apply but we don't have that here we don't know he said the allegations and that's a big question of fact which is why we feel that summary and i think that's i think that shows a lot of business is in the normal circumstance where we have a clear modification of one term and remain or indeed in the three complaints that have been filed there is not one allegation that the years we've been trying to get the plane to tell us the exact terms and we have nothing we have no more than we did in the original plans file not a single new fact is being given all that's been done the second man who complained as a plaintiff is rearrange those allegations the security for the promissory note however in illinois your insurer cannot be held liable for more than the underlying debtor and that's that's really the essence is is the underlying debtor liable here does the statute of frauds apply devorah fortunate oral agreements temporary waivers and here's the kicker or some combination thereof however it did not identify or explain which allegations constituted that's exactly what the plaintiff the suit is we try to get him to explain the terms of those oral agreements we tried to get him to clarify set forth with particularity what transpired and the response is we don't have to give you but they haven't played it and i don't think we can just ignore it i think questions all agreements in an under illinois law are questions of fact and i think that by pleading oral agreements and by putting allegations
that in fact
justified if he was justified in killing self defense and he was not guilty yet he was justified he was guilty of first degree murder something but he's in that position after thirteen hours he knows he's instructed them correctly what was he supposed to say well i i wrote down wow ok i'd like to hear are confusing myself but the last question from the jury that they are the lavender one then they start talking about you know on the first or second proposition with wood we know rapid on the third we
taking into account the kind of factors we take into account whether to appeal particular issues at the same time if this court concludes that holds that part of the secretary's decision and therefore agrees with the tribes in this those are native america r i thought to the distinction being made here what i said in judge gruber's hypothetical if that's the origin of of all people then you don't have a question of migration or visitation they lived for hundreds of years somewhere in north america but they're not necessarily biologically related and that's really not culturally related to native or native hawaiian in other words what do you define by present sort of state concepts or modern concepts and have indians in congress discarded that definition and substituted the broader definition of ultimately an active and i immediately with a reference to some legislative history because there have been some questions about whether or not congress was really focused on the issue of prehistoric remains or very ancient remains when it passed the native american great statute explaining why we don't get to
know that's correct it would depend on the context of all contextual information and you've given me the information as to the age and i would like to clarify that one documented visits by europeans to the toughness that people who live here are native american and my questions in a limit to this with go back a hundred and fifty thousand years to people they were found is not when i'm saying the burial areas not where they believe it was actually areas that area it's a road in the way and in terms of what the court did here what they were trying to do was prince there if there isn't a road  remains that are from europe and the non indigenous peoples are not covered by the ass so there is not this is not an argument that every human remains found on federal land indication that they considered under the definition of native american anything other than what we consider to be american indian that tradition from the point of view of the tribes argument is that it seems to imply that what human remains that we're talking about the native american remains are presumed to have some relationship  cultural but it just seems freaking which comes from a dictionary which is probably as good as any but he wouldn't mean something that used naturally found here which is not imported from someplace else in other words not an immigrant and one of the hawaii that's what inferior borrowed later on when they changed the definition they didn't do that in native american which strongly suggests and supports that the magistrate judge was reading this correctly indigenous to the united states
yes or no that's correct it would depend on the content all contextual information and given me the information as to the age and i would like to clarify that what insur i thought that the distinction being made here was that in judge graber hypothetical if it's the origin of of all people then you don't have a question of migration or visitation population that is known to accent populating the united states at that time and in that sense that is enough to find its native american it is not necessary to make the additional staff that the magistrate judge questions but i don't want to  hated that they were considering anything other than the american in you using that expression american and as distinguished from generic native american as we understood any indication that they considered under the definition native american anything other than what we consider to be american indian written closest and then you get to the to the level of if there is no cultural affiliation can't be determined there's a more complicated committee process what the bothers me about you go back nine thousand years it just raises the question in my mind whether congress was really aiming at that and i'm wondering if there's anything in the legislative history that sheds any light on that where are the closest thing we have his freaking which comes from a dictionary which is probably as good as any but he wouldn't mean something that used naturally found here which is not imported from someplace else in other words not an immigrant and one of the for example there is a provision in the federal age discrimination in employment act which authorizes the equal employment opportunity commission to make a policy decision about whether to examine a category of people magistrate judges ruling i don't believe they would be given the scope of the definition and i think congress will wrote words whether or not they were thinking about that particular problem but there were certainly can be extended to that because the definition is a tribe people or culture thank you your honor is like to make sort of quests points first of all and the sort of the scheme of what could congress have been thinking here in terms of a tremendous i think it's important that again to go back to the way they act structure con
served the interests of this court in my chambers with great distinction over the past eighteen months on that i formally to the admission of rajiv gupta who is a member of the bar in good standing of the highest co were ginia i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications thank you judge land your motion is granted that you please face the clerk and raise your right hand to go up  then on behalf of the judges of the choir i also would like to walk into the bar and to say we look forward to seeing you back here with regularity at a social functions only  to the anticipation yes issue yes you would and it seems to me that the district court addressed the anticipation based on the the abstract is doesn't the claim talk about the selective binding of the head the body not selective binding of the of the overall composition or the overall sarah it's the a four thirty seven which is what the district judge focused on so again it just was for getting that they claim says electively money doesn't say just bonds and what anticipation always fails to disclose but it is found necessarily present and therefore has the same effect as a disclosure  back to judge lynn's question its presence if the binders are presence in the soup why isn't there anticipation because the writer there's no indication of what the in this record is there anything in this record to suggest that the the anybody the k to anybody would not necessarily be present in the  present inherently present whether you realize it or not whether you appreciate its characteristics or properties or not it's inherently present in that in that serum if the compound claim the antibodies in there what we've been over that before it there isn't a question of whether there's disclosure to the public it's whether or not it was already in the public domain whether the public understood it or not we made that quite clear in our case law that they don't even have to know about it if an a body was there in the prior art at the abstract seems to suggest what what recourse t art if it's prior art it's in the public domain the antibody is there the any body is to the heart of this compound claim i'm still struggling what would be the  because you think selectively binds says that you only have material in that era connects to the that this era has to be exclusively the detecting the biologically active material well and from what i gather there is there's nothing in the record to suggest that that would not be the case necessarily each and every time that well that  the rabbits the claim has nothing to do with rabbits it has to do with the sequence and amino acid sequence a peptide right peptides are present in anticipate that's the question why
is something this is where you know forty to come in on summary judgment record verdicts to prevent an angry jury from entering a rick thank you for your time accounts he had because he was not in the have a retirement otherwise he is very little social security and around for a place to invest those funds and one of the things that he was looking for was the type of investment where important thing to him worse the strength of the tenant he was sixty five years old who wanted to advance the money to help a tenant do the things the tenant was supposed to do and they were supposed to receive his according to the lease six thousand dollars a a seventeen to twenty two i discuss that issue  they came to be in mr hockey's possession there's nothing the record regarding being used the bankruptcy there's nothing in the records showing how they came from the bank or whether they were you know created by mr ben zachary there's nothing in the record for them but the record has is that there are some only applies to merchandise and when it details what merchandise is its pacifically defines real estate not located in illinois and basic statutory construction vive that if it says something specifically real estate not
over the years of the eight point seven percent so that will include the cost of living increases each year for two and a quarter percent and a contract for on for three years to anywhere it first two thousand and eighteen through december thirty for regular weeks and fourteen hours for holiday weeks we've also adjusted a couple the holidays to be paid zero i double time to match to get close to matching some of the other unions in town and made sure well as you heard i'm chris roy really really excited thrilled actually are thrilled to be here you know some of the things that i think i mentioned through the interviewing substation between a contractor a subcontractor of which paul light was not a party so they decide we produce documents it's still it's a pending subpoena so that if they determine that they need additional information they can still come back to us and know with the high school project and other possible projects in town it appears that people or we may be looking at a shorter plan b possibly if i could read what you have in front of you is  adjustment and mom using this on the collapse of the mom from last year and it happened that we don't need to collect anything and we should be all sad during this year but it just the result and we want to report to work that the result
front of temperatures that idea thing you can do that about a we've been friends for a long time to love this girl i've ever know you're also the most ambitious  you know they should convince
belmont high school diploma which they will receive today is a symbol of these g while the diploma they receive today only bears the signatures of the school committee chair the superintendent of schools and the high school principal there are scores of individuals in the school system who have read it possible for these young people to complete their thirteen years of education we also need to recognize the tireless efforts of the  within the group we have an individual who is retiring she has given sixteen years of outstanding service to the belmont  teacher extraordinary to the class of two dollars and sixty for the past four years your teachers at belmont high school have been working hard to prepare you for the world beyond these walls this past year very specifically focusing on developing your skills in an area of collaboration critical thinking communication and creativity otherwise known as the four c's it is only fitting that i carry this theme to you today and making them part of your last during the process further develop your sense of curiosity walt disney once said around here we don't look backwards for very long we keep moving forward opening up new doors and doing new thing because we're serious and curiosity keeps leading us down i urge you today jordan raise your education from belmont high school and use it as an opportunity to open new doors try new things not mine pleasure to introduce at this time i'd like to  you elizabeth armstrong
fact mr levy was assuming that there were laws out there which which stated that he must do that all of the facts must be i mean if this if the standard for the court in ruling on a two to six nineteen motion is that you take all well please faxes three isn't that the way the isn't that the framework in which the attorney has to argue
and i don't know
prove it to ah general you must find a way to rescue our children yes please try everything i know how you must be we're doing our best at the present time there's no way we can get them safely returned there's one of two choices we must make choices if you take all mankind is concerned in this decision we put the problem up to the united nations and they called an emergency meeting whenever they decide that's what we'll do we'll call us at any minute  er
money was was available is not true there's or that they settled so there was nothing more available so that all they have is the one they settled with be their own insurer so they had nothing more to access is that your argument no
there are two separate statues there can be an interaction between these two we know this most clearly from rock room or a hospital versus department of human rights in that case dr rao brought a claim against the hospital he somehow meant to incorporate really other provisions rather acts that might address it and it would be a real easy thing to do after all if you were advising the now because the other is that apple is on the legislature writes an act they are soon to know what else is in the law and if they don't you sense something much in the law and there's no reason to believe that they did not mean the other law legislature already knew that is what they wrote if they didn't make an exception the statutes were not related and the legislature at the time was making the decision is at least the first decision the legislation made was of primary importance is the health and safety of patients in the state the money made in passing the whistleblower act was of significant importance just respecting them yes but there is no reason to believe that in deciding to protect the public as they made it we phrased our understanding of them in a way that we thought would most inform and lead into the arguments but the questions that are before the whole remain questions in the trial court zero five so we are particular action or in very specific purpose it says we are making some really important findings while we are not whipped to review the actions of your which itself which would have been very easy to include this all the policy you've given is indeed a strong reason why the legislature of that's what they believe should have so you know researchers on this i've never run into when i run into is this is or is the rules about legislative interpretations if the specific overcomes the general that were statues are not related they don't have to necessarily be true pret not our states run over which are funded by the state county hospitals in example one we have the various state  funded by the state not just receiving payments were but again people right if they last clause were not there at all yet and that's i'm wondering give me your interpretation of that letter qualis because if you let me be more clear it seems like the legislature intended to limit the broad scope of the you may well have i can fast i drove home million that i do i don't have and nothing i don't have the same knowledge of illinois hospital system as i do you other states but there are hospital c
court i think we can all agree on a general moral principle the parties are entitled to have their cases resolved on the merits but it tended to do that principle is the notion of complete disclosure it depends upon disclosure to resolve cases of the virus that the plaintiff give the defendant full notification fully fairly completely and timely of what he or she believes the merits of the case to be transforming the case from an the motion to remand and given the factors that the supreme court said for the no decision i think it's clear that it does not satisfy those factors so that led the board to enter a summary judgment different conclusions than before but there's nothing inherently wrong that there is a certain narrative read discretion allowed in both of the major issues before this for both the question of whether the amendment was properly offered and the question of whether a continuous was necessary under the circumstances your promise to give no rational mind could explain what was done or did the how can anyone judge indicated that he didn't have discretion he may have been saying that he did not have sufficient discretion and it's quite clear from the rule that he does whatever discretion has narrowed considerably at the time the case comes to trial there different evidence it calls for different sorts of cases it calls for different things to be said it calls for an entirely different sort of preparation then a medical negligence case we call it the party already at the time of trial to try this case on medical was deeply prejudicial to the defense and the cases are several which suggest that changing the the case in a way that calls for a substantially different evidence in the fast is the sort of prejudice that loyola has in trial or even earlier in relation to trial them the day of trial that might have raised some procedural i'm around if you will about what was going on but the fest i think instead the the fact those motions in limine were groff at the time of the trial is entirely consistent with the fact that the defense was preparing for a trial based upon a theory of medical negligence and not the one based on research law or tacit understanding are no that statement we might be inappropriate to parse it so finally as to say that he was he was denying the existence of any discretion at all and i think the notion that he was exercising their discretion said this is a page thirteen of her brief you should george if you find a case that says the complaint can be amended after the medical evidence is in then you can research and make contact and that was sort of his benediction to the parties as they left
and both of the points that they stressed in order to show that we're poles and were insistent with the prior art that they declined to that they didn't disclose to the exam and that's
asus columbia in concealing its violation of dalat delaware  hearing the case can you see how that would seem disingenuous
bought the stolen x box and a camera on the street believing them to be stolen or at least have a good idea that there were two days after the birth of the underlying burglaries the houses mr murphy upon these two items particular pawnshop