MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
drawl talk mighty big against an empty holster mr i suppose now you're talking about bigger against my empty gun i did my talking and acting two years ago when we put you away in the papers county jail and i did my talking when i swore that when my time was up took man of your breach and to build and mold this good old west that's right and it's going to take the souls of the blue and the gray to hold the fact you came a little too soon we were just leaving oh yeah you stay away from town and i mean miss meadows so that's why you got alibi me out here in this blistering heat after me doing what i did to be kind of the  as he treated me so friendly up in good ways know all about you are just dyin degrading the morning gentleman good morning and the same deal ma'am my name hello joe i thought you were dead and you can see for yourself your reports are greatly exaggerated star left a plant on the hill well as long as i think i'm dead i reckon i'll stay that way makes our job a little easier same that gave you this that's my badge all right i tell you i don't know what you're talking about
now armstrong testify she's cooperated with graves when he attacked and shared her so the state wants to discredit armstrong by convincing the jury that when graves brought her to the jail she did not have any injuries on her body and toward that the state presented jail was a game and choices and written by correctional officers stating that not have an opportunity to cross examine the jury did not have the opportunity to observe and evaluate and when you remember the context in which they were written it is quite clear that they were written with an eye toward litigation the litigation leading the prosecution of armstrong for aggravated battery qualify under the business records exception or mission being created with litigation and mine did headley testified to marks and the like of marks on and on and on direct yes and there was no cross i don't
to tell me why we are increasing our market share it's says there's no statements covered by the rest of the market share with his discloses that to get to the president is the president of the company that is not a very large company that we're talking about
the patent office and signed onto it separate occasions and he didn't do it he didn't make the disclosure under those circumstances this is the most reasonable inference is it intended to deceive but no we did of what you are if there's there is speculation i don't believe that somebody who is reasonably and without explanation delay the prosecution should benefit by speculating and saying things may not have turned out the way we expect them to turn out
responsibility to raise the bar i would think so i believe that what happened in this case is that nobody appears to have been aware of the fact that the statute changed during this time period that was  d in the indictment and the problem that we think this presents is that regardless of whether she was told that he could receive year that he would receive a sense of the actual life the actual basis for the is available with this was a please remove the state negotiated for a lower sentence in exchange for the defendants agreement to be subject to to be a tory life term so if there's any relief we can't just grant partial the loft and see whether or not just from the the plea but from any proceedings that took place that are part of the record in this case well here's the question would be a legal question would be whether the record which i that was prepared in november of two thousand and nine which is before the police here and there he told the person is ready to report that he began abusing to start a maci was ten years old that would be two thousand far from arch of two thousand and five and was prepared by between county adult court services and it was prepared in february of twenty ten after he was convicted something that the state nothing about comparative until after he had  and has apparently decided to improve the story a bit from his point of view in that you know rather sexually abusing a ten year old he has himself sexually abusing a twelve year old basis between march second two thousand and three in march first of two thousand and eight the defendant police's piece in the john with us that was my original point there's that you have that was relevant to the to the charge whereas here we have ten counts of it based on ten separate and distinct and so that's why we have the ambiguity and why it's different from the
an evaluating interview ever bars the titian that was filed is there a substantive difference between the two interviews does not are correct and to be clear there's nothing in the statute that says that the state is barred from using its own expert witness the point here is to do a fact finding determination of about the possibility that of whether or not respond his medical condition affected his likelihood to be a man and she explained that he even people who have suffered much worse medical
eight if we do this is it's been suggested as a precondition to suit doesn't sovereign immunity playing pretty heavily the government government not having consented to twenty six thirty six the says the act the claim is barbaric unless brought how do you construe that language is anything other than a precondition  there seems to be dealing with the identical issue  you're going to have some software that is for direct sales for manufacturing specifications and so forth which will lead to questions down the line on it like that so the to accept the judgment in computer has already been addressed by square to the court that have that type of analysis you're reading the supreme court law pretty narrowly that they have to address each statute one by one all the way through to whether they're jurisdiction understanding your thoughts of sovereign immunity argument correctly tell me help me out here is sovereign immunity pertinent only to when the government can be sued or suppose there's actually no question the government consented to suit  particular case but only a question over whether the damages should be one hundred dollars or five hundred dollars not matter of statutory interpretation would you say principles of sovereign immunity suggest the government should only pay one hundred dollars because you know waivers into play with regard to application of the relevant statute in all evidence liability damages everywhere and trying to figure out where are you sovereign immunity as a principle that weighs in favor of the government and where i stopped using it that way and just actually landscape because now we have a new policy that was laid and so that's why the department of justice requested about what credence should we give to the trial court's judgment on prevailing status here merits so that there are some judicial him prime mature on the prevailing issue we don't know otherwise it's just a question of timing the court happens
multiple times that i was this of discussion i'm her colleagues about whether whether this is something that should wait until the p c stage because typically and effective assistance is it requires see but i know it does talk about not having to do a lot of investigation to see that not giving this instruction is there's no reason that tourney's were effect in effect of where they did not enter an accomplice witness instruction in our breeze of people of knowledge that under the test outlined by our supreme court lance radcliffe the people's key witness was an accomplice to the crimes charged in this case but the fact that reckless was an accomplice does not show that defendants to attorneys had been ineffective or they did not tender the witness e commerce witness instruction prosecutors and the defense attorneys both brought out a trial that in exchange for his testimony read live would not be charged in this case the prosecutor and defense attorneys proved in arguing that ratliff had been giving conflicting statements t and of course it all hands it centers on the facts of the individual cases some cases go one way some cases will go another in the holding depending on the facts of the of those particular ca even at the defense strategy in this case not the tender recount as witnesses stretching could be considered error it did not prejudiced defendant and it was harmless error because in this case there is no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the convictions and what the strategy was and such and people believe is fairly clear that they were saying that the defendant in this case was completely innocent so we believe that if they gave that instruction that the count was with this instruction th could potentially put in the jury's mind that rachleff was involved in the case and he was accomplice with defendant it may be a little bit of a stretch but jurors often take things that we don't expect defendant was prejudiced by not giving instructions and people still in the brief are all of their argument we asked this court to affirm defend this convictions
feel like contempt again numerous times there was evidence that he had not disclosed proceeds from the stock sale or house of brokerage account he and basically what you  dollars of income just from this a d c star in trials for a loan and now all of sudden we are in a situation where through his own devices he has something that you can they were getting this money when they were still married before the war so this was not a change in circumstances that molly was not ceding this morning because she was here you know all we have to make sure we split apart and to some extent the issue of trials poor maintenance judge all seemed to see jast there this money was being painted but he was referring to hand you referring about even if that is true that she was painting some now that monies are new quezon but he still basically said that she was making money but she couldn't possibly name the mine going forward if it wasn't there because of the twenty two thousand dollars a year average there was know it's been reduced has to do with whether the reverse stock sale or rather purchase were removed proces constitute income or property and then whether there was following this for is whether there was something that had in his parents well were as were there i think the person who won her was earning fifteen thousand dollars a year and he had or need five thousand dollars a year it gives each year western standard review we don't think your near misses most readers because clearly needs proceeds have to be considered in the overall picture of maintenance child support also if you know again i come back to
after court title applies when you convey something you don't own correct and then later a quark correct then it's reform to include what you earlier conveyed because you acquired it later but here  the defendant never conveyed this subsequently acquired property in the mortgage correct correct so the doctor did after a court panel has no application is has nothing to do with the doctrine of after acquired property does it the reformation it does your own reading from your brief it says the doctrine of after court and title provides that if a person so conveys to another in a state in a land
she has ten years of using the same taxicabs she's experienced the customer service they provide she has been able to use their web site this brand and she's been able to add these things in the course of ten years into her perspective as to whether they provide safe how to engage with customers don't talk about certain critical issues stay away from issues of sex with their customers through the eyes respond to customer complaints so you have a taxicab passenger complained about the service you received from driver is able to engage in their day to day activities the driver is free the drivers are not able to get a car if they don't go through three o three the drivers can be denied a car if they agency relationship because the names evidence is required that they had this new uniform presentation and then we take from the holy and jacob says look you took voluntary action to pick out the color that you chose to trick three did all these things without being mandated and three or three at no at no point made an effort to indicate to their passengers that they were sending independent contractors to pick up their passengers want to focus completely on three  three so if i may be there to plan transportation similarly ban transportation control the activities directly control the activities as well as have the right to terminate their drivers just like three or three days and in fact plain transportation is a vice president states that he made the decision to terminate the taxi cab driver in this case is implying that once he found out about the allegations there is no agency relationship that is the exception but you know speaking it is a question of wrong and fact that should be reserved for the jury upon proper instruction and here we have provided a number of that john demonstrated the relationship in contracts between the driver and three or three and this was never produced so yes the application was prior to the complaint that was discovered after drivers on a day to day basis the drivers that received instruction from good grand transportation representatives took their problems to grand transportation representatives so the fact that she has no knowledge of them  agency relationship between the international company and the regional company and really control measure a company to go through that company and direct the day to day activities of the individual employee that
tsa becomes part of the rest at the department
information to make a finding that was an abuse of discretion the order reflects that the motion for fees was brought forward and the evidence regarding the claim respect to the circuit court rule isn't the first time you raised this issue of the necessity of the motion being in writing pursuant to local circuit court rule wasn't that raise for the first time in your reply brief and therefore  she had responsibilities for the day in the management account and one hundred percent of the funds that were trying to debra represent proceeds with and utilize to subsidize the family's living expenses so the marital stake  counsel i had another question with regard to the point that was raised on the request to admit yes sure if mr preston was truly unaware of the contract for the purchase of buckley  thousand dollars check from the joint account would it be wrong or at least an equitable to not allow him to alter his response to that first request to admit given the importance of the facts alleged in that request so the question is to direct examination by his own attorney what do you do for a living he went on for about fifteen or twenty minutes until mr brando asked for permission to ask leading questions and just wallace finally turned to and said how do you make money us a witness who testified in this goldstein who testified in a manner that randall considered to be adverse to him and he attempted to intonate that witness to his facial gestures that was observed by the sheriff was there testimony that he was present when the contract was money where you to wonder how to decide which part of the money came out of versus another part of the money is an impossibility if you have several million dollars sitting in a bank account to one they say well i think we just pulled out of the five million dollars  to the one you can never get me a legal conclusion the legal conclusion there would be that it was an inheritance by their own admission in their groups it wasn't an inheritance this she bought the property they say she didn't have the money  thirty three dollars and seventy eight cents represents the earnings they were allocated to the sale proceeds and this is detailed in another guy often and in the clear because you also states in another  was at the time of the transaction in this course almost crying because you have to look at that moment in time and he stated very clearly he didn't know what it was to be a bad one time and that it must be a miracle because
is up i think frankly i think the court has asked me the questions which were really the most critical which was the effect all these things were going on in a transaction which is really no different than most commercial transactions which the city of chicago or the state of illinois every day work parties are documenting and transmitting and going back and forth and agreement and the july twenty fourth agreement which by the way amended complaint if a complaint refers to that second transaction as the july twenty fourth agreement for now they're saying no no no it's all they want agreement perhaps any evidence any any allegations of agreements that are not in the four corners of the lease itself they are accused of well or should look at the guarantee it says it's attached to the  lease in his capacity in this case because of his relationship with the tent and finally we have an issue a public policy which underlies integration was the courts have been saying i don't like this i realize they don't have it we're back to the amended complaint really i don't like this deal i made i really wanted to get on t v it isn't in the least give me one and so are allegedly they negotiated  that and the refusal to take but if it was just one transaction once the lease was signed which clearly was on the twentieth lease was binding already they made the deal he couldn't refuse the security deposit and try to use that as form case there the from day one on the guarantee and it was all one transaction here they left me amended complaint that there were two transactions and so again they cannot contradict that by now alleging that it was one contradicting the integration clause if they didn't plead around the integration clause and so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in in denying bringing it to six fifty that's correct now i want to point thank you thank you i don't think anybody needed a case to decide some of the batter's that were left in our brief and they were very straightforward very clear and i don't believe that the lawyers waived waive arguments b
or shooting an amazon lavatory shooting it first in maple street emerson lavatory will pick up some i mean the voices of the distance same principle as used in boats and it works it's really worth getting excited about that i'd say it will revolutionize the science of communications do away with wires cables trying to work oh yeah do it this way cop instead of a reporter any time she wants to be a cop i've got a job want to plan a crime like that have mean i haven't got all my well don't tell me you have an exclusive on another murder oh no shame are where's the carbs this time in the back of our car if you don't remove it mr day we're going to deliver it to the editor of our paper let's go take a look at it it's free you know we saw on every news stand from the police station here now you had to better tell me the proof twenty i think i've been dreaming up fairy tales very fantastic alibi only i don't happen to believe in pixies if i in the same group of my own eyes i wouldn't believe it myself mine i'll do it myself thank you oh well he means we we don't exactly have a job that is we want to have one if you don't give us a story when i say at the present time the city editor considers us expendable you know what i mean  car i know it was the guy that killed him of course i don't mind him listen professor i'm in this thing up to my neck and i'm getting deeper all the time that's why i came to you i thought maybe you could help me with this this  looks like everybody went to bed but the i just can't seem to remember don't know why i was called in this time this isn't a homicide listen my friend it's a development of the griffith case and that word is a murder yeah i think i'll go and have a talk with foster but i'll see you two relate nothing quite as funny as a nice juicy market i don't like you i think he needs a little attention i think you're right never did think you were clever but i still didn't think you were an intellectual washout what do you mean you're going to stand around with your finger in your mouth while heads are being bashed in and bodies being snatched get out your own throat cut because you know the net there's a killer on the loose i'll admit things are getting screwy about a minute but i don't see just what i and listen any more that i'm getting out of here right now place and i tell you nobody's leaving money i'm afraid i'll have to put you under a re
made and there is no article three controversy once the the case is clearly moot if nothing else had happened after the district court entered its judgment saying these parties had no for the dispute it would have been dead and you've got to do something to revive it well under denied he he also granted they're mostly just set aside the prior days and with the other there was an order in that particular was not raised by the queen to be termed by the convention the defendant raised the convention pointed out to the court back in twenty fourteen that the court had on the day after judge or life entered a judgment confirming our patrol board and they did some quick procedural background of the party settled after the arbitration early december meanwhile but it was to us a the amount your client had to pay but it would do so by cutting out entirely the assignee interest the lawyers that's when you your next filing to the district were stated one right so i did i mean you  court may have had original jurisdiction to get to decide some very limited issues for example whether or not brough since proposed claim against c n n was arbiter hold or whether or not it related to the arbitration but ultimately that's a and final judgment prior to yes after the court entering or not dismissing the case on the basis of the sound right the motions that they filed after that or something case was not moot at the time that they found the gro original argument is second point that he indicated he would get to assess why we should render here in his favor so i want to give you a moment to explain why even if the jurisdictional point is different there are fact questions that would have to be resolved answer with we are in a tough difficult situation because their attorney passed away and we're trying to analyze that let them make you take complete leave of your senses no it doesn't your honor but ultimately in the arbitration which we were aware of not arbitration award we didn't know that your and you knew that it had to result from let a geisha and he knew that we knew it resulted from the arbitration ok and did you did you know anything else about it did you know about the agreement be considered there is no mention anywhere in the record about any sort of fee agreement here either grounds but but the record hasn't been developed about what was said and happened on december eighth when the phone call heard between that has never been anywhere into that's never been a part into but i've seen the emails between the parties yeah but that conversation didn't take place but ultimately i think this discussion is what highlights that ultimately what is your evidence that they have knowledge of your interest in the award because mr pepper told the attorney of record that he had a contingency fee and you know the in the the malaysian counsel for four aging art which had absolutely nothing to do with the united states or c and they knew this because a j there was never any malaysian authorities involved and they absolutely