MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
were not accurate so in this agreement there's nothing in there which would provide for their scenario which you're claiming they now face and that they diminish the corporate assets and therefore that provision was not based on real numbers interested there's various cases have provided for circumstances where the minority shareholder retains shareholder status issues are being resolved between the parties termination occurred in the grimmest themselves they say that the men shall be executed by a shop who operate in determining the value of the shares at the time we just grab them r yeah so i was kind of stuck and we were kind of so well did you request that you be given that opportunity in the motion to reconsider we did to a man yes and she didn't know the motion was tonight with said that one of the issues here is really an issue of first impression it is whether this person remains a shareholder after the terminations of his employment yes so we believe these men are first impression in illinois  i don't think there's the need money when you take back money and also say the buyback provision itself the intent behind the by that provision is to come up with a reasonable calculation to to to separate from the company it doesn't take into account the reason the purpose behind it wouldn't take into account a route to get rid of assume that the calculations are going to be based on correct at that point i think i referenced the complaints and in the complaint is contained and i am sorry i didn't bring that motion in the response of the motion with me but i believe i just referenced the complaint in the complaint was attached work allegations were made as to over a million dollar variance use of assets of the corporation to pay off defendants personal obligations in itself rather as an extensive
and speak on an on the agenda since no one is rushing to the podium i'm going to say we're going to move more into unfinished business which is also next is new business and the one will it will be one of the access into this do plenty and only connection on the church on an event eventual a connection to the miller property the challenge is the street is very dramatic is this where it is seven feet from the edge of that tire to the inside of her so you know as a practical matter it's not hasa bowl the past two cars there particularly know that way but again that is that location insights that i don't think is a practical matter that's going to come into play on this place where we're talking about this you're talking smack right right mark and i have talked about this where you make it hard right there in the mornings and my wife talks about this because she that's her shortcut work every morning isn't when it freezes that's a sheet of ice entirely through there there are places where
contact and begin treatment with a local addiction  bringing you can you can per individuals you also heard for individuals families and society be in recess until twelve thirty
with the court's permission i would like to reserve five minutes republic's foreign k your honor our position in this case first of all is that the disk recorder deferred to the wrong state court opinion there is a this case is somewhere between the two yes and you're saying if if there was not a delay this person could circumstances that would give rise to waver some a passing reference this is a detailed argument so i don't think it's it's an accurate thing to the sale say to say it was you know it dog it barker there was a delay of five years i forget how much of that was attributable to the fact that in dog it was a delay of eight and a half years or so or six years was attributable to the to the prosecutor and here you've got seven and a half years and it looks like based on what the district court didn't create careful analysis is about what half years are attributable to the prosecution means dead you need to get someone try quickly for a host of reasons cited in order to get things moving through the system like it or would not they have memories become dead and where people merits of what could be a very serious crime which is what we have here so i understand the piracy concerns but it looks as if you've got a district judge your ship who's pretty concerned about what be he would be out in twenty or twenty three i mean i'm somewhat familiar with this because forty one years ago the first case i ever argued to the d c circuit was a case just like this that person had a crowd on soon or could have been out more quickly entirely different  that's the point it was it ok to turn it off more often on race so if you if you make your argument center on a legal point which is not actually relevant to the case because factually b i eighteen wasn't the tool that was context first of all in the same case saying that the defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial but said the rule even if the even if we take the word difficult it certainly didn't say impossible and the state court seems to have said even as the prejudice you would know one just would know one this under ed deference how do we say that that is an but if a state court doesn't say anything about an issue would it be to see if there's a reason basis under federal law to justify their decision are you saying that a state court if it give
now i understand or this standard the commission is due deference however i don't believe that constitutes complete deference the facts of this case clearly support the finding that the commission's decision was against the manifest w does not reference the primary care physicians records dr no doctor no treated mr blanco on five different occasions during nap time and none of those records which were admitted at the time of hearing contained complaints of back  thousand and nine the commission july upon this testimony however there was evidence through the testimony of the employer as well as the payroll records which document mr klein who was working for and not only was  maybe they shouldn't have found our sitars opinion to be persuasive or if they mean nothing and found mr blanco to be persuasive but the fact of the matter is they did in they're the ones that make the determination not us we you in in if not distribute you it's three quarters of the worker's compensation but it doesn't understand the fact that just because the commission could have decided the case in the other direction
confront the spouse and we have matter and that case when examining the individual allegations of the complaint against the defendant the spouse westfield's looked at the complaint and found that the factual to go into the children's bedroom and did nothing when one of the minors locked herself into the bathroom crown and examining have content did the court look to the innocent sure doctrine and if so how did  find here well first the court looked at the factual allegations to see whether or not the spouses conduct can have inferred intent in other words whether it can be reasonably expected or anticipated to cause harm to the minors and in their actions the court  nly so decided that it did based upon her actions approach provocation and encouraging that she had reasonably expected anticipated that her conduct would cause harm to the minors and then with respect to looking at support such a contention on it with regards to innocent shirt what the court looks to do is what the policy provisions state and in this case all state posits that the term any if we're going to whether or not she's an innocent insured and whether she falls within the policy we're looking at whether or not the policy was voided with respect to i dar contrarians is intentional conduct for her as well or did not have coverage because of the the policy ruling which and in that in that piece the court decided that the state farm policy in fact made it very clear to the policyholders that if in fact there is improper here tom would not believe that that she and it would be excluded from coverage for the improper behavior of another shirt in addition counsel brings up the matter of joining obligations cost right and that was also rejected by this court because the children obligation its causes a general declaration clause and in their particular cause it's understood that what the particular obligations of the church would be in the case about an event etc and not to abusers behavior onto it and that's the difference  case it would be found that her individual acts were analyzed on as to whether or not they were intentional they were not and therefore the conduct of the lights within the complaint on fall within your potentially within coverage and therefore it is our position that all
this piece of the pie they divide the pie among themselves to allow it to make it into a derivative action and just get the money back to give back to the corporation just allow them to divide up the money that they already  know i don't even summary judgment on an issue that is moved on we did not get summary judgment on those particular issues those issues of the facts were just to show that the allegations were incorrect well we moved  element of a rico positive action that mr gross started could not show and injury to himself in his business or his person therefore he had no standing that was the first one the second issue that we raised and the summary judgment that he was not the intended target of any criminal acts and we presented that the third one was but the statute of limitations  is that or in the complaint did not happen that they had occurred before nine hundred ninety one that was done eight years before the complaint was file rico claim but the only one that you moved on and the only one that they were in terms of him that they were compelled to answer was standing and the direct target question to and for us to rule on a ground that was never argued below zero they were asked to to present something on the substantive ground we argue in the court the street or if that's the case then we're just trying to get you to focus on specifically those narrow arguments rather than the finding everything else the district cour intended target i think it is a somewhat different argument relates more to your second of the three arguments about correct yes focusing on that for a moment our court had a decision earlier this year by on bon called the us versus them came up after the briefing so i don't i should inquire as to whether you're familiar with it because you're not i have to say it appears in that decision that our court gave up the direct target requirement as an element of pieces where there's going to be one minority shareholder affected well yes yes yes i made that argument but in this particular case all of the shareholders none of the shareholders have this court has as pointed out earlier all of the shareholders have the same rights and mr brossard should have no further rights to money through a rico cause of action doesn't have any specific distinct injury that he has been able to show
stated in that issue would be that portion that element of ninety eight eighty one would be met beyond that yes to show impairment of earnings i personally don't believe that our new can be made based on the information the record that there was not impairment of  whether he has actually suffered an impairment clearance it's not required but it is a factor and that is our intention your honor is that with all the factors in regards to his effort the fact that the fish argument that he was in financial dire straits and that's why he continued to work as a bartender which is completely understandable that it makes perfect sense however if you were making so he's only making three hundred dollars a week he testified that he made eight dollars fifty his inability to search for a job he could have done more and he could have essentially found a suitable employment which we believe under eighty one isn't is in that it states that sort of one of the very reason to mitigate weight loss if we have a specialist you take a look at all the facts look at everything look at this restrictions understands the case and she says you can make this much but you're you're settling in you're not trying and you haven't formed jobs so you haven't you haven't made an effort to really get back into the workforce i mean he testified himself that when hardship closed he didn't win the fight for another position he simply walked into the cove and was given a job working every other sunday initially he subsequently was given a job full time and you lost his position he did it to the best of his ability did you conduct a formalized job search that we did you fight a network and that's part of legitimate job search this is a gentleman sixty year old person he's term this gentleman used the skills that he had and the experience he had to try to get back to a place where you could earn wages because he needed to he had no money first seven years from there were no no wages that he there is no fight there is no requirement that you find suitable employment this cane's testimony that he did he's underemployed is is not a factor for the commission to take into account she could identify no positions which he could he could find employment at no positions that he had skills to perform he was in the law says that the wage differential you use the actual earnings not something that speculative you might on two occasions he's demonstrated that he's trying to survive and in find some wages to that's all he's been able to do he's been able to find no better job because he doesn't have the skills to do so  with respect to the eight and five seven sweep period of time t v he was in fact in a vocational rehabilitation plan but he was conducting himself he worked every other sunday one day as a trial not prevent the filing of megan's the there is there is no evidence in the record that he was actually being paid what he testified to was that he was being tried out of the commission decision the
i don't have anybody there i don't know i don't know i don't know what would happen i'm having difficulty finding anything in the record to show that she's fearful of religious persecution  many years ago i mean the one nine hundred sixty three sixty four however as early as in the eighty's the government confronted her and told her that her daughter in law who was a recent convert into the evangelical faith had to leave threat but the confrontations was to miss carey and they told her your daughter in law have to leave armenia or else she will be killed i'm not clear if that that was because of the religion or because of wasn't she turkish i believe the daughter in law yes john  injury that was that that and tension was that one incident and then there are things that happen to other people like her daughter on threat about her daughter and her husband and so on and then there was gatherings over the span of thirty years even when she worshipped in the government still managed to find her and it was during that attack that your honor noted where she broke her arm that was at a cemetery a secret meeting of secret religious gathering and evangelical church is in fact a registered church you want to give some time to your howling you only have about a minute thank you the statute kind of thing passing the discretion is really committed to the attorney general and so it's not like the national labor relations board and the f c c are most of the alphabet agencies  basically administrative to drag itself in that each rule must be promulgated based on protecting for the public so that they must give reasons basis for everything everything and in fact  at least the court when they represent the respondent the immigration judge found the petitioners treatment in armenia amounted to harassment and discrimination that did not amount to past persecution and there is no evidence in the record that compels a contrary conclu the if the incidents in the one nine hundred sixty s were so grievous that they amounted to past persecution and one of them it wouldn't matter if they were thirty years ago but in the context of this case where the worst thing that happened to her was a two day detention the threat in one nine hundred eighty eight when they threatened to kill her her daughter i did with her one thing up the way the way i read the record record of page eighty seven when i read the record her daughter was c this case for thirty or sixty days and ask you to sit down with our very competent mediators do you think it would be any point i do not know at this point the petitioner has overstayed her volunteer departure she does not have a stable
of the evidence case the way the evidence here compels an opposite decision the commission here said that there was no arson in history in the records and that simply was their word in fact a lower extremity pain with symptoms beginning sixty days ago when he followed back the second accident history and that's just within sixty days of the accident the second accident history comes the next day in january twenty sixth where unfortunately in this case and for where c will never be able to be treated the same way as other employees in other words he's treated differently and everyone else and piracy because to be believed he as pointed out sixty saying that the employer has a statutory obligation to take notice within forty five days and in the same way i think alexander should be given that chance he should be able to give notice  accident and suddenly needs surgery to his back these other pieces of evidence i think way for the for the claim even though there is this credibility finding and i point out even the whole your honor one of the setting commissioners in this case because it was a two one decision ballot he was agreed with the arbitrator and and then he was credible in that there should have been an accident found in this case so i'm certainly saying that there is other evidence beyond his credibility finding that would allow a score to reverse this case and i also think that the effect of this is an incorrect application of sixty in other words this may or will not have the benefit of forty five days notice as long as he's with wire see he's going to have to be known as the day of the accident or else he's found not credible that's that's essentially what the commission is finding in in evidence in the arbitrator's decision be reinstated we ask for the yorkshire decision be modified to work alexander is medical and benefits paid by his local seven zero five health and welfare fund which holds  privileged and there's all sorts of cases where there itself by itself is enough for the commission's thing  this they follow six c and they have no issues sixty with the rules they bought some strategy and written so there's no other way he can you know this except the day of the accident i would also point out that in his first visit to the doctor he didn't deny trauma in the in the records but if the tire memory went in for a heart condition he was more concerned with his heart condition than with his back and that is the reason this is mr alexander testif that he didn't put it right away actually he told me that he reported it but it didn't show up in the not the records but that's i think the off the record i can't remember him saying that and in his testimony is is wrong but more than that getting beyond credibility of the weight of the evidence here the way of the of the medical records allows for an opposite conclusion and i would ask this court to reverse
with a couple of years ago following her election and then before she took the oath of office for the next term at the time of her death she left just short of a million dollars in her calling witnesses and judicial review it's a complete self contained mystery resolution system i say might be two cases where the supreme court has said the township republican party and that question be honored there was nothing in the lab that permits a change to bad by any else whether it's me or mr to pay for anyone else and that request should be  those limited circumstances but certainly nothing requires firing i want to talk a little bit about the plaintiff's standing i cite dispute in this case it's the three hundred forty one dollars out the truth political committee is a separate legal entity it's created under the election code it's been registered with the illinois board of elections for over twenty five years set forth in the election code for these matters the supreme court on these two occasions in sync is it a juror has indicated the right direction court has a complete dispute resolution system that relief in the course is inappropriate until those
are right it's their relatives right and i think that's the other fundamental problem here i think it's a multifaceted defense and her view of being the first one being the one just mentioned the second one  family ties are not the associations of the first someone provide there are unfortunately multiple opinions numerous instances of retaliation but retaliation is not how to rise to the nothing on the record that day and gauging any sort of political debate in fact i think speech one fifty five off of the appendix and wish the shareholders being asked that line of question we were discussing just earlier it says that building about the case or something and then he goes to say no you know those are my political enemies so he keeps referring to the family members in order to as the real problem here and lot of family members
here defending is expressed in stating that he did not wish to testify on the record multiple times the trial judge admonished him that he was his right to testify and his decision alone he then again read that he or stated that he he was you know engaged at the trial taking notes there's nothing in the record that shows that using gauging in any way you know in front of a court that would you know say that he was unfit the documents
kalak mr martinez has medical insurance through his employer kmart where he's been employed continuously for about fifteen years that issue and whether on these facts is fair to the porter person and his family didn't if the entire record is that mr marsh has good moral character the government concedes that and the immigration judge says the whole there's a serious conflict in their testimony i think they both lack credibility they  the application for relief application for cancellation and completed all the boxes well the box there were two boxes i believe that the immigration judge had an issue with one of is that box tracked when you testified that you lack for two and a half months there's no explanation i remember i recall when i read this but lee here and he was asked whether or not everything he said in his application was true and correct and he said well i need  united states to your knowledge pardon me your knowledge did he ever leave the united states no i don't think so because because he all the time my house you know him for a long time and i continuously saw him yes he is here he is here yeah he lives here all the time yes and he believes that that testimony says if you're right and he never left and given the time period given that the time period here december the key of that application this is different from for example the bottom applications where a minor a consistency about a date that the court does the immigration judge cannot rely on but given that the key issue here is the date is the time period a discrepancy the testimony here was very brief and very to the point and given the limited nature of the testimony the fact that there was a glaring inconsistency