MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
years before believe it was within the same time frame as the case on trial you're not asking did we reverse the case all right you're asking for reversal yes or i'm sorry if i missed it you know because in your grief you just yes for all right reversal disagree with some of that ok he says it was an accident the other girl said he touched it he was playing a game on my back on the on the court rule that the testimony by a he was contact with the church regardless of how the church is subdivided so the court found that the evidence by age would be relevant based on the somewhere in ages and the fact that the defendant met them through the church so the access an opportunity because it's about the access an opportunity as well as we disagree about the access the state argues that the similarity the differences in the in the two cases the propensity case in the trial case if i may refer to them and say the state says that the differences between the propensity and the truncation are simply a matter of access and what i'm saying is easy to read done the h g the proper end testimony is there i was on the account in the living room fully clothed under cover watching television my brother and sister were in the same room and maybe my parents abuse he knew the similarities wouldn't dissimilarities so how he meant the children there are cases in here that talk about the function of his access to the children the court feel that words and i don't mean those individual letters but we're seeing the same usu today in the discussion using what is a natural born citizen as opposed to a man who was citizen these were to make a wasn't done and it sounds like it wasn't done but the court of the court did say i have to make determine the prejudice here and the court made the determination not each versus paying as much as  prejudicial in context of this case because the jury is going to be able to evaluate her credibility in addition to the similarities in addition to the similarities in addition to being able to weigh the credibility of all the credible then here the police officers and the police officers were very credible it was very interesting about the police officers get their names mixed up the one who said you know we talk testified to at trial was there i said i touched this child but she fell and again she said we were playing a game and lo and behold this is what these two girls were saying they were always playing he was always telling them this is just a game was just a game and this is how he was explaining his behavior to the police i was playing the game he did i did it but the jury the jury was able to evaluate his credibility and they had two might have impacted the verdict the state makes the argument that there was enough evidence here convict without a ged and so you should affirm the conviction that it is not the use sure but the question is whether or not
would also point out to the court that mr le chiffre are here in the courtroom today for our argument i want to start with a brief factual background so that the court has a little better understanding of what has transpired here and the legal issues i don't think those factual issues or in dispute in april of two thousand and three mr mr schieffer bar of thirty thousand dollars from the union it's the appropriation of the commercial security agreement that creates the problem that has led to this lawsuit specifically the commercial security agreement for hairs to moxon's one of which should be checked one box if you check it indicates that the collateral was pledged recently to secure repayment of a specific will the second box which can be checked is checked if you are pledging the collateral to secure commercial security agreement does not represent the remit of the parties and i think that fair creates a practical impossibility for the defendant to successfully complete its defense which should be another reason circumstances and he finds it in a place where he didn't expect a phone and he didn't expect to form this he was putting together information for purposes of giving information to his lawyer on one related mortgage foreclosures that they were join anybody here but it's interesting that you bring that up it would have been prudent for mr symbol or the collection agent of the day to go down the hallway informed our what there was about to minute ago let's keep this in context if we get to trial the plane is going to put on evidence in relation to its ownership of this equipment were it was in the shower now i'm in a big the case is going to shift to the defense knowledge of the origin and execution of the commercial security agreement that's going to support its case there are three big what it would have been for the well there are three people of the world ultimately no no there was agreement here to loan money to loan the money was a loan it was repaid and the parties were all agree that the collateral pledged under the security agreement that that relationship and what we take from that case is that the crude agreement does not trump the concept of mutualistic historically in this case in this state while i'm sorry why first point which is the platys here were our sophisticated commercial borrowers they had prior to repossession eighteen other commercial loans and i made an effort to put before eight powers that be at the syndrom it had the same integrity as jeff did we wouldn't be here and the fact that baker comes along and suggests he could figure the insurance at a lower price he would get insurance and so the borrower didn't know as fate would have it the banker did not get insurance for our herd the collateral was
provide some are seventy five thousand dollars cash and a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of other real estate in return the bank executed some of the settlement agreements that contained a covenant that's a super clause in addition what kind consideration perry booth had given the bank and didn't know what kind of consideration the bank gave to us which is a big which is the main issue in this case there is this release as well if there's at least two second reason that the banks reasoning with their arguments are wrong here is that you have a guarantee that was entered in two thousand and eight two thousand tat in two thousand and twelve there was a set another agreement entered by the bank of the principal and what the bank is trying to do is turn it into that's why i spent a lot of time being to talk about the guarantee versus off surely is because it's changing the allegation the banks trying to say you w primarily libel is a shirt and that's just not true you can't they can't change the terms of all of the allegation by saying that in this case that that what happened here is just a very straightforward commercial foreclosure the message used by the bank to release two of its guarantors is on remarkable that settlement agreement is o are trying to get her into a settlement agreement was very enjoying pouf which is the settlement agreement which is becoming exhibit that we're talking about partnership another power or the other given to ours in other words the bank is coming not to suit very proof varies wildly in the foreclosure proceedings based on the settlement agreement but i was specifically going to go after everybody else now to read into a consulate requesting you be read because for example it was consul is correct and those items are all being released like you means for the underlying principle obligation to be released it would mean that the loan documents are released continued surrender compromised brains terminated or released in other words thomas and jones specifically agreed again which is not remarkable to me but this is what the people of the pa they specifically agreed it provides that they would rise and fall together i would have to argue that i think based on the language of the getting tea that it provides that if you go down a little bit in the n t for example it provides that blemish time agrees that this guarantee shall remain in full force in effect and will not be discharged except by the complete performance of the obligation my my practice representing the banks is that but essentially it comes back to just being a straight forward ordinary commercial foreclosure case the bank quite a remarkably release to have it's going to ours and release them from their obligations under the guarantee agreements much for
way absent in other words as fake news running the risk paid to turn the guy loose on bail and still have a trial or we were in the risk of keeping him in jail and he's released period follow up to the defense and pathetic all about what if this witness that was deployed to afghanistan and then you know just employed in you know the year but then the state continued to take a sixty day
obligation to exercise due diligence and examine the tax court case to see whether or not everything is done properly publication began july fifteenth the redemption period the fire i think over a level that was not published within the three or five year period also all the fact that there was a publication that was also the description that was in the publication the description of the property that mr reagan actually got it the two was was never described in  that your client had actual notice of these proceedings and that resounds the constitutional issue is it true that she had actual notice of this no if you did not we know that she went to the court house why did you bring an action against the madison county treasurer read back on if it wasn't that because you felt that he had his agent and given that improper advice that was a min pending against but the treasurer yes there is no free will or binding in this case this is brought up on three on one other i mean if they're still unresolved an issue against one of the defendants  property was how much hundred twenty two dollars a year old total over there maybe a few dollars more than half it was over two hundred dollars or how many years that issue what did you go to reading she said repeatedly her pals and the twenty eight or so she had noticed she had received something she didn't read it should rely on that note she just knew that she needed to go pay th this where they were living next door to the property and still no notice that anyone else have interest in this property and what did they do visit to the record what they did with the property for the year what notice she actually received i think it's speculation that the notice that she received when she retained the notice was the notice for her house rather than the notices for the twenty acres and i'd like to point out that in the
your i don't know
that's correct that's revenge that's the only definition and so do you believe there is religious arbitration interest arbitration with the narrow definition of interest or tradition if the grievance be entitled to interest or between each no i don't mind because the all under section fourteen says for the categories of of the public employees that are subject are allowed interest arbitration those are peace officers paramedics firefighters conceivable only the courts can honestly can't shut down for extended periods of time at least parts of them so without predetermining the case an argument i suppose could be made that corps security officers could be at some point clear or some of them with in some different conditions in terms of who has to go back to work and who doesn't have that so then and this those employees then do have to go back to work that are enjoying from striking they then would have a right to interest arbitration go through a long way from that we're dealing here with what the statute what the case law and the concept of placing bargaining powers of third persons who are third parties is not something that is is the argument actually  doesn't exist because if you put her sons and honey is an action that how can something that doesn't have an action or reaction it actually exist so technically the fact that they put it is that they did something
a new issue that's not been resolved which they claim they cannot stack the coverage of policies which have been issued by a company which is part of the farmers insurance
absolutely no application even knew that meantime that his lawsuit had been dismissed and he had an obligation under the law to investigate further what type of investigation do you do the cause of action from the knowledge of the course the action leave a message any time within five years after the person discovers that he has all of them there is no dispute that the planet knew he had a cause of and i'm quoting the statute it could very easily say if a person liable to an action fraudulently conceals the cause of action or the identity of the wrong doer from the knowledge of the person i don't there to be act area within days of the dismissal of his lawsuit in mississippi he knew he had a cause of action for legal grounds fair say it's twenty three months this is a twenty four month statute of limitation he mr over from being named as a defendant in this case claiming plaintiff in point is proof big extensively about the de luna decision i mean it's an illinois supreme court decision and it talks about the supports this in that case in the diluted case the lawyers were prevented from filing their cause of action because of the trust and confidence they place in their lawyer as a new ship they were in constant number time remains in the applicable limitations period when the planet discovers the cause of action in section thirty two one five will not extend that period this is i'm just going to spell it out for you it's cage e i r over did exactly what the illinois who was the national responsibility say he should have done in that situation once he knows that he is potentially mention of the of the fish case that's specifically boards that were doesn't have an obligation to disclose to a client that he committed no practice and that's in essence what what the plaintiffs argument is here is that that he did have an obligation to disclose that he committed malpractise and whether you want to call him the four these are or you want to use terms by curious why ability if it's you know one thing that doesn't get this kind of interesting about the position of the statement here is that it wasn't until mr hunt came in the case and mr might realize hey there's a fee sharing agreement  there or mr over could be liable for the malpractise i don't think that the statute of limitations you know legal right this case can be the triggering point can be  maybe less now when i can't get away from the fact it regardless of whether it's angry or  are talks about is that little piece of advice that just happens to be the part where he's on the  don't hold back
and require a new trial as the united states supreme court said in the us the commodities trading the constitutional requirement to be just confirmation means compensation that is just go to the owner's property is taken into the public the must pay the not one not a trial they specifically identify factors they were asked to see that leave other factors in terms of value the carpet before the project and after the project management issues correct and none of those factors none of those alums to this specifically talk about any talk about things like now you have a major property that is divided in half now you have a regular remainders now you have not enough data to be able to develop the property not one of those three witnesses talked about and he only said i just described account the impact of the project you look at any cost the benefits you look at any potential damages and then you come up with your opinion throwing all of that information into the pot the defense appraiser said you want access to this card he is increasing tremendously if you make a specific objections from used against me the case they cite is my own loss and if you dig a specific objection can you know why don't you while you only use it for something else you can't do that now mr yes absolutely both sides vigorously and quite well this case turned on the jury felt that the property had highest use of commercial work and there were there were fifteen commercial sales put in evidence five way the government the government had the highest and best use of commercial how can you through our trial counsel maintained that he might hold witnesses on rebuttal you have a cite to the writer in the breeze where in the midst of the department's case he said he was still considering whether he would bring on evidence in the bottle what happened in this the opinion and what you're saying to me now is that the basis of the opinion changed to the extent that trial we did was through all the b c c didn't pretrial very well you know the issue is that there was need these particular
what happened with the later to go she asian and so forth are certainly not reasonable to rely a lot of these alleged statements when you have a inspection report that says all these things and you demand that you know that all these things t describing the alleged deficiencies of the board that mr ball are prepared you would think that this was some sloppy little one paper or that my client prepared in fact that's not the case at all i mean this is a very lengthy very detail report that points out a long list of problems with this i did appreciate that section of mr hurd a statement of fact where he said these license in fact it expired at the end of november instead of at the end of the year and he did not know so what occurred here was that this whole inspection was performed in the in the report repa weeks after the license to expire you know a lot of you know certainly a lot of things can be said about that was simply that for weeks later mr b licensed happened to be expired you know unknown to him or at least don't recognize by him for weeks carol so yes there's a there's a very significant proximate cause issue here and traditionally this is  you know the preeminent authority but it does really i think set up the issues in the correct analysis that there has to be a showing of proximate cause an actual they have that somehow the licensure had something to do with what  allegedly went wrong in this situation so wait a minute a lot of you know there really isn't going to be any kind of showing the proximate cause and the way i put how can there be anything just in the four weeks earlier anything different would have been done
and right to manufacture the products neatly there after a couple months thereafter there was a new non disclosure agreement entered in this year between he and slow this at all is permissive in its nature of states governing lawful loot billet the performance construction effect of the agreement will be governed by the laws of ohio in the federal laws of the united states your mind so i'm really excited to be here and i thank you for your time my point here today when i hope to do is jump in address simply the points that were made on in will quiet raise which of course because of the briefing structure i have not had a previous up to me with my ass and of course any questions that the panel may have for me i will tell you that the us statement during my and you know invite the court in the patent to really do not disclose your agreements is that they only relate to the handling of what is defined as confidential information also not accurate there are many many provisions particular jurisdiction whether or not that's the law of the state that's one part the second part is the explicit manufacturing agreement is governed by illinois law however the n b a is the non disclosure agre contracts in two thousand and fourteen and fifteen bucks but they did and because they did and because the court's job was to give the facts to the parties expressed intentions as set forth in the actual the other thing i hope want to answer your question i'm really trying to oh my goodness us loans are agreements that it should be construed against the drafter on true one the agreement say no to all to the dome in the case th don't see that there's any merits that argument you only provisional on the san diego really states otherwise the miscellaneous provision that doesn't counsel referred to you and that's just a boiler plate provision there was never a ruling being properly manufactured and frankly in this case when you look at the merits obviously there were just a point for exploring the manufacturing of the product however they didn't final anything or anything they basically said we think this is a
decisions starting with all of america in two thousand and two with the deposed decision which show was handed down this past december approximately by zation is an element of all private causes of action under the expressly required trailers to provide financial incentives to workers whose who were treated  it bad is the incentive for workers to use a new network provider because the worker would be required to pay less out of his or her own pocket in going to the network provider that's because obviously for workers offer and as i just mentioned there was nothing at all in the contract between the first album trailers there were trailers to provide financial incentives instead of the accounting trip wire trailers to engage in a statement these clearly there are individual eyes questions depended on the back pertaining to what each class member saw not what each class number knew and what each class member rel employer's on the internet and also pursuant to the contract trailers operates in twenty twenty four hour eight hundred numbers from which workers can obtain names of local network providers  but he chose to join it anyway and years later he with it through so obviously he had the choice to withdraw bemis also understood the worker's compensation law before he joined the b p oil and furthermore the first contrac do but he chose apparently not to do so so this is this the whole factual situation is similar to the actual situation in those cases signers versus michigan avenue bank that's where there was this high overdraft