MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
under half the people of the state of illinois circumstances there predominate use this to address issues which are brought to our attention in the context of petitions for leave to appeal but which do not want full briefing oral arguments and issu opinion the most typical example of this is when a new opinion is released by this court the supreme court of the united states which appears to be dispositive of other cases leave to appeal so in this particular case the first thing that they did was take order that the petition for leave to appeal is today that they asked us well they told us rather to vacate our judgment  reports have indicated that the pattern of practice torture was not readily available to many of the defendants that were in there were made allegations of torture and so this court on several occasions now yes indicated that in those cases the cause has been established because the information that is continually coming out and new regarding patterns and practice of use were not available at the time that the claims were made and in addition the recent supreme court case defining prejudice has indicated that that expound upon false prejudice nicholas's one of them there are multiple cases however i don't think that those cases are and the outlook is to this case at all there is no claim in this case regarding any worse than edwards case that we are supposed to look at when the last time we got israel edwards was the case that said cause under the actual innocence we have three substantive requirements and then a fourth you know procedural requirements with the new we discover this that's what i'm trying to focus on how do we and then she says really told us that he knew petitioner was in prison for a crime petitioner did not commit really said he knew petitioner was innocent statements were never made shortly and we're talking years later these statements were never made to a friend or a family member or they were actually made to friends family of actual innocence under the case law in other words that it established that the evidence was new that it was material that it was not and it was likely to change the outcome based upon a review of the evidence trial i would certainly be of the opinion that this would warrant but i believe that we do need to examine the success of petition and stuff it would be so simple it would be for every single defendant to have a family member or friend say someone else and that's to me if that were simply the test then every single case that's ever been only members and friends years after he bends and say that another person i don't even know his last name willing let's all be willing he told me he committed and after the ritchie said the defendant was not involved in the planning commission of this excess and she had nothing to do with it and the supreme court said that good enough because heat the government should be allowed the court should allow the cross examination of mr may god who actually told people within a day of the murder that he actually shot the sheriff i don't
which the fire caused damages that's an issue which is in another case not usually here nonetheless in this group there is a fire which causes the place to not be usable and requires cleanup so after the fire the mr lease and when the premises was initially least corner to thirty least eight empty shell basically the testimony reflects an empty shell with no power no water any any of the things that need to be added in there so your original initial at minimum at least they had an obligation a bit rance from january through the date of the decision that was entered by the trial court but nonetheless on that it's reasonable for them to have not paid rent or who to it or to have defrayed around to whether it was reasonable for foreigners to thirty two with all these promises and mind you he was looking at it was it reasonable for c to thirty to believe that mr revenue or is agent's demolished just premises outside the scope of this fire
consideration however i would make two points response to that firstly i believe based on the arguments that were being asserted it was clear what our intention was although we did cite the wrong statute section but more power to order these and second is that the district court correctly deny mr johnson who fifty nine in which he asked for the first time that this lawsuit be transferred to the circuit first of all with  the knowledge of the have to see what occurred here was that the seventh so the motion reconsider the sanctions order was not valid to i believe december twenty two of twenty fifteen so that was after the case after this case or even how the bankruptcy of that but when was the
stall with his attorney it's also going to come into play for collateral kills down the line and so it's not just simply a final it's not a completed transaction is as some of the cases ha bill to the second stat and the second step there is a bit of disagreement on the courts about what the second step actually is the supreme court in a recent case and i'm sorry this came out december i did not specifically state zero principles to the defendant since those did not occur in that case the to this defendant argued that the case should be have a whole new trial that there would be prejudice that when you file then it was not did not harm the defendant but it would have been prejudicial if the correct language was not unused and that  the certificate so although for say we're not supposed to look at harmless error here in every partial compliance and everything like that i think an r v could be made that the prejudice is the defect because it's not certain it's purpose later on down the says not rocket science the supreme court has laid it out in so many words all you have to do is print it out put it in there and certify obviously that you have complied with those things but this is not a large burden to put on defense counsel it certainly and you can file your stupid get in say you know i didn't the first time i filed the role as it was but i didn't do these things isn't that really the proper way to handle th of the third district should be
investigation in the sense that they didn't go after the yellow cab black and waited instead of the white cadillac so i i think the record it's clear that called the deal for a package where she said things like bill you can hear the man who sold him crack the drug dealer say does anybody know where hill is called kill the guilt cadillac calls are also asking for a person named gil he indicated or he said something to the effect of i'm looking for cra seat belt violation and i i find it incredible that taking pictures of a person for a seatbelt violation and searching him in the passenger doesn't raise suspicions when looking at this money would  so i would also point this court to people versus jura and in that case it didn't come up in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim however the court defined reversible error in that case three officers but i do think that the laws purges us to give some sort of extra protection to these defendants who have little legal knowledge when they're making these pleadings and i think that's why the shells from the margins are so important here  almost to me like it could have been a way to identify and sure that their use of the brother father is present in the street language is pretty different prevalent and it may even be kind of innocuous so i relevant when the defendant was charged with two counts of ethnic intimidation and i think the hypothetical helps to show this is we have my defendant charged with a racially motivated crime and he was accused of saying those black this is about whether somebody dealt back breaking plays no part and i think it's an arbitrary injection of race into the trial which is just simply not relevant and if it were just telling his testimony we might not be there are things but again like the he
the record and i don't want you to be through their views because of some state's attorney who wanted to be here on in here not him and you're now her self we don't want to hurt you in this case
explain why we actually pled bad on february first of two thousand and eleven but still got an inch of snow that was removed on february first according to their knock on february second two thousand he's got something specific that you want to talk about that allegation is simply not enough if you don't want a problem
my friends think they can keep me from getting caught and they do not realize the power of  keep you from getting into any trouble my way to the airport i'll get the car delayed on his way to the airport now gentlemen your bed my secretary story it's startling proof that we are menaced by a master criminal but true but as long as bateson gets there and of them we have nothing to worry about
he did help me with a few things whenever i asked them as they asked for help if he would he would help them with things at the at their business  the other argument that the defendant has made is that just give it to him and say you can have forever you know it's our crane we can take it back why and that is basically what happened and he says basically you gave me a grant you know you made an agreement with me
humiliation south and secondly based on the photographs that we've submitted it's it's a i think it's a kind of a commonsense thing that a juror look at those and they can say well this condition doesn't happen overnight and i mean i've done this i've been successful with this in many different circumstances whether it be fighting a summary judgment or even getting a jury trial verdict against city of cases like this specifically dealing it's two aspects that i've said is that the law does not require it requires to prove that the defective condition which is the unnatural cumulation that was present here of the stairs came from a defective fact that we need in order somebody just like that there's a material issue affect that remains in this case and that there wasn't a good grounds not to prance reconsideration thank you he didn't take the suit case
the testimony so that twenty five thousand hours just for the whole  knowledge that the boat was going to be conveyed now the boat was not being conveyed it was held in the name of amity investments it was a stock purchase that was going to take place but i ask you the problem is when do you have to tell the insurance company three separate issues  other certainly material in most other contexts than insurance whether or not anyone takes an interest on the boat because the fact is for example on an executor a contract how does one who does one compensate well that would have to be determined i sat and mean that's that's counsel statement that there was testimony regarding a number of issues there are not statements in the record and evidence in the record regarding a number of the issues there is to as found in the very detailed findings of fact  how do we know whether that's material for thirty to forty thousand dollars in repairs to the hall there is no testimony notwithstanding counsel representation of the fact there is no testimony regarding the idea that would cost twenty five thousand dollars the testimony in the court was fine  fact that there was an admission that there was thirty to forty thousand dollars worth of work to be do you take away one work too long as you have all three are three were made based on detailed findings based on the record there's nothing clearly erroneous about any of those findings there's been no presentation of any evidence in the record
be actual agreement between national park service and the state agency there are two sets of agreements your honor there is a contract between the national park service and the state agency and a separate project agreement that is signed between the state agency and they are ebay and the state agency by regulation is the enforcement agency that is to oversee all the posts completion responsibilities and make inspections and see if there are the national park service lack statutory authority to make changes to the section six at the area after close out and this is an issue raised by the district court in the form of residual authority to correct mistakes group review all the information that it was required to at the time of this june two thousand and fourteen letter because it didn't take into account all the information in the state's fire which was the enforcement agency and also the same person then brings the action yes in the court in that action have to determine is a matter of fact is this property subject to the act or not yes but that's i don't i can't that well doesn't help that these grand started in one nine hundred sixty five before the internet so a lot of things are on old yellow pieces of paper like what i have in front of me the point of our argument is that  supported your position yes your honor they have already pointed out or filed ever had obtained a copy of the state's file so they had when they needed them to your point it is true that they did not have the depositions and so on that we ended up taking in discovery but felt they were denied due process or that certain arguments had been made or there were additional documents they wanted to show they could have asked they could have said wait a second can we have a meeting with here they didn't and less than a month they walked
explicit findings or conclusions on the issue the second is is this issue in this case regarding b identity of the restitution recipient is it not only relevant on the mainland and that's one question  incentive to make all of those arguments at that time to truly is concerned with the fairness  to make an argument at the time there was no reason for counsel to make the argument that's vastly different from this situation i  it just seems to me there is nothing unfair and this situation and telling you that you don't get a second i will and i guess this inconsistent with what you're trying to do now it's not inconsistent your honor because it is a mandatory prerequisite to determine the correct restitution as it is and again the district court made this provision zero and in a related case i mean what the court should have done to say this is provisional and instead of putting t w in the final judgment the court should have said they don't to be determined and i think that actually happened in a related sense of their work as a final chairman nation by the district court as to the amount owed but again it made very clear that it's still provisional as to the rest i only have a minute  the court on behalf of the united states mr people whose arguments are precluded by and inconsistent with this court's prior decision in this case but in any event if i were to support it i would logic were the law argued to us the first time around unless we went hunting through the record to try to discover an issue we would have known any of this and doesn't that raise the specter of sandbagging of appellate courts isn't really what the order a payment schedule and the government also as far as the merits the government mentioned materiality insofar as the trial and good ones the court
account versus the industrial commission the guy was drinking but he was wrong and we hope it was compensable because he wasn't taken out of service and point it was still doing his job  jesus mason reverses the industrial commission in that particular case he failed the fall of the safety regulations and was injured on when he came when he came down i think he was loading employment and he's not on a personal escapade he's covered this is you would like to see say improper or not having a license proper license that will allow you to perform a duty while in the workplace is like a
that latter section not sure that it makes any difference in terms of the ultimate outcome of this case for the noticed in both parties briefs reference was made to acquire a bit of order to be admissible under that section
which is an amendment to the washington industrial insurance act singles out the united states its facilities and contractors for unique is favored treatment it does not be construed to be a waiver for governmental unity well your honor i would respectfully disagree because in their view this statute and the statutes that you federal workers compensation systems and that the case yes you're but we're only talk we're talking about the employees of federal contractors and this is that the supreme court and discord recognize that they are based essentially saying that the phrase same sense somehow has a now discrimination principle inherently in it in those other cases we found that that wasn't true so i just i mean from a kind of we're not going to be responsible for again you know what the problem with that well the problem is that the united states shouldn't have to because the state shouldn't base is not allowed to enact a statute like this in the st place the the dangerous substances and the statute kicks in for somebody who's worked a single eight hour shift so i come back to the question what's the rational basis for saying that the federal government's going to pony up the money well this presumption here no your honor we absolutely do not agree that disagree strongly that rational basis here this is not a rational basis gased this the case about singling out united states or just just a minute while we go to the next argument thank you thank you
position in a particular area providing services to like trying to win it and suddenly she was removed from her position despite her supervisors desire and indication to the forth the requirements and qualifications for the job that your client was performing i asked that because the district court focused on what in this case they are not your oath of these are the three individuals involved in doing these functions are all correctional officers their functions basically are to service the need to see whatever needs rises during the course of here the duties that the current administration understands is necessary it's kind of i don't was performing these functions going to the very various prisons checking the real communication devices for several years but again this is not a specific job title this is not for example say the secretary position or janitorial position where there's a description there lead delineates all of the qualifications for the hosting suddenly decide to remove her in favor of male colleagues without providing a reason for her transfer we said we suggest that that shows probable good evidence that for a fact finder than to discern we're talking about an employee who's in a position right at the position is that of correctional officer given functions that she's been performing and you're the one of the frankest what this is that it's kind person who replaced her was not more qualified whether or not that's a requirement in the law you accepted that as your burden well you know what i submit is that that attached with a communication area in fact in her deposition she relayed it at times that she was transferred since one thousand nine hundred four to perform different duties and there was never an issue in fact in two thousand and eleven she was offered a steady shift contention that she was not replaced she was transferred and also our scan be considered outbursts employment it could be depending on the situation however she to move on to the working  i believe that weren't what the court is trying to get would be a statement that plaintiff made a statement of additional fact sixty nine recording someone else saying that he didn't want to model in the said that that statement was made with respect to her position in the commissary and by your own unique purchase which was how long had she been in that position she was offered the position in two thousand and eleven i believe it was august
says suspicion which is more than a hunch on but less than congress and it was then not probable cause so i believe that that's what the judge the judge was corrected in the judge when he made  thousand and eighteen the most really why will we want to show that the state's evidence at the suppression hearing this is our very crucial details that includes the description of mr edwards all the the they
scout project give scouts an opportunity to demonstrate leadership to build organizational skills to want to engage the writing of other scouts valued members in a service project and in the instance of this particular major fund raising part of the book by rep it's now we almost savings bank has agreed to match donations up to one hundred thousand dollars so we have the till the end of the year to raise one hundred thousand is working pretty
civility rest not in disagreement with your medical expert you just didn't put together in their decision the facts sufficient to make the case clear from the record that her job duties varied and the commission indicated in reviewing her testimony it was difficult for her to articulate a clear picture of what her day and was like on a day to day basis because it if you look at it specifically the record is it dated with documents that they produced and they went through them eight through eight and if you look at those documents in what they actually of clients or victims that she might have that date for court that detentions list is not something she typed i think that's a probably a reason why the commission had a problem with the case eight be it is a detention petition she articulate it is that in his opinion that he relied on the fact that he stated that he believed that part of coming to his conclusion that it's cause really good is the she cut back to ten hours of typing per week and therefore should her sentence count better and there is a basis of this opinion however there was never any testimony at the time trial to this taps which is one of the reasons why the commission did not go down and pain because it's fatally flawed in our opinion there's problems of that so we're not going to drop it when i get it i doubt the respondents opinion either so what are we left with her testimony regarding the facts of what she did and if it's repeated enough and that's a question  believe you are you alluded to twenty five percent of that was spent time today however other testimony shows the whole week she would spend in trial if it was a murder trial some day she would spend her her own testimony because if she actually reduce it because i believe she testified that she continued to perform the same jaggies up until the time that she had the surgery s