MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
seven to cromer against the department of veterans affairs if you'll can give counsel here an opportunity to get clear ok i think we're about said mr moore and you may proceed when you're ready if you need some water go ahead get yourself s says i was i suffered a need injury in the service i don't have any proof of it but if you had records there would be evidence of treatment for a knee inference oh now let me ask you this question this isn't really directly presented by this appeal i don't think it is but the board if i understand the board's rationale correctly said you had these various pieces of evidence and we don't think there's sufficient notwithstanding that the corroborating evidence of medical records were missing you didn't appeal that aspect as i understand it of the board's decision i mean i i take it from the description at least in the court of appeals for veterans claims opinion the only issue is the presumption is she didn't say how could the board say that in light of the fact this is the best the guy could do and it's pretty good well that's right and frankly i found that portion of the board's opinion a little puzzling but i also was i guess a little surprised to read from in the opinion of the the court that that aspect of the board's decision had not been challenged which is what i take away from the court's opinion it may well be i was not at all and i love the opinion but from my understanding the way  oddly enough and maybe even perversely enough there is evidence of their evidence in this case there i mean it's i have i'm i'm not sure what if your argument is the presumption not apply when there's no other evidence maybe you lose is well i mean i think you can certainly change the facts a little and i think make the rationale at least behind your conceded application of the of the presumption a pretty compelling case for it if for example mr nicholson were to direct that all the service records for all veterans be destroyed tomorrow on the theory that the government is just paying out too many benefits if we get rid of these nettle some records we won't have to pay as many benefits i think you'd agree that that would give some force to an argument for never been treated presumption in favor not only of those people happened to be in litigation at the moment but also people who came later when  on his argument is that it was latent and it's now manifested itself but it tell me if i'm misrepresenting this but my understanding was that he had his testimony and the testimony of relatives it were there was a sister or two relatives that he had in fact had this operation operation which involved drilling into his skull right and the board said well we don't have to have him examined by a v a physician because what would they what would they find i just that sounds unlikely since i would think an operation drilling into your skull would leave some kind
all but i've seen enough to convince me to getting right shall we right in and get them no not yet they're desperate bunch we'll have to work carefully besides i think riley is here cutting in on someone else's territory might be dangerous i'll take my chances you know roger talking that girl gave me a swell idea not what listen you were down the store make you change your mind i don't care how many men you got you'll play my way or not at all see about that well i guess i better give you a little time to think my proposition over in the morning nice work right just take care of this going back to town try bringing back a couple of ladies next time we know i suppose i'm a fool but i always say things pretty much the way i think talk pretty straight i like you right from the start and i felt that way about any other m wrong he's right behind
the thank you very much for the opportunity to share our story
program i think it is fair to say that
and you're just these guns away from us was i will take them away from you and what do you suppose they're doing with all those prisoners saying that before the last time the current gang took over this town they grabbed all branches cattle crops and even go in my i spent almost a year working a farm in my own mind i was there when tex rounded them up and right tell them what to do i want telegraph keys will be established at several of the ranches along the line you will all be talk to the sample code signal and when the hour arrives and the call comes through right to the real life station between red rock and cold mountain for final instructions many of the citizens are joining up with us but we're not we're striking our first vote a night nobody works in the mines at night so we can go ahead all of the understand looked at do we know what and know if you take the silver queen i heard somebody we'd better get a hold of shade and find out what's going on very professional we're just acting on a hunch that something's happened to a pretty good that might be best to let those that love think their plan is working perfectly it's she just a week three maybe she needs a big strong man like me to take care of it
you're just these guns away from us was i would take them away from you i want telegraph keys will be established at several of the branches along the line you will all be talk to the sample code signal and when the hour arrives when the call comes through write to the realize that action between red rock and gold mountain for final instructions many of the citizens are joining up with us but we're not we're striking our first vote tonight nobody works in the mines at night so we can go ahead of the other sad look at do we know what and no you take the silver queen i heard somebody
contradictions within the officers testimony in that he said he did it when mr hill got out of his vehicle he jumped out well he stumbled out that it was early in the morning about one thirty in the there was also and there was some law again in the state's cross examination is this was a petition to rescind the state's cross the offer stated there at home he filed a vehicle judge holden made his decision they counsel not some case law in motion to reconsider judge bolden restated his decision and in fact restated to the third time and each and every time that the police tottenham's a right to make a judgement based on his experience whether or not this person was under the influence and saw him drunk there was not only no testimony mr hale refused  that may be true however it doesn't always support the us there are cases that you all probably don't never see when it doesn't it isn't enough to support an arrest on and again the judge is making he is he's mind important when he was evaluating the officers decision i think that does make the judge's decision manifestly erroneous and i think even if given that to me it's almost like the close well i think that it in the based on what the judge said he was adding the additional condition that he took it and i think this what what i just read talks about this is that he's taking it that the officer also included in his calculus this refusal to take the field sobriety tests which it was that you don't have the field sobriety test so based on what i'm certain his failure it repeatedly appears to me and again the passage which is on page seventy seventy one of the record in which he talks about he has a perfect right to refuse the field sobriety test but when he just truncate it because again a refusal in this context it works almost as a consciousness of guilt issue and so proud of what we're talking about what the judge may his decision based on i don't think it's fair to evidence is that the refusal was based on his own quality of nature not necessarily fact it was offered in the fuse and of course refusal wasn't ever an issue in this case so whether he refused or not also look at
good thank you you too
and foremost the funding asserted that the trial of detroit will never heard evidence that the murder was committed in the course of an assault perpetrated against the victim in the defendant by the defendant's prior to or during the trial but the final believes that is at least implicit in these claims and is consistent with his assertions that counsel failed to present his evidence at trial and refused his request  court dates and then the defense was given the opportunity to talk to the public defender of peoria county and express his concerns and he did and then they came back into court and the defendant stated that he was going to continue with m finally in monish him in court that he could no longer file them with the court and then filed with the court would just be placed him in the marked pro se filings and he was to discuss this with counsel the case was then called for hearing on on the defendant's pro se post trial motions on early december and the defendant was asked to tell the court what his concerns were the defendant had filed numerous motions covering all over one hundred pages in the record and so it was assuredly difficult for the trial judge to follow into to find out what was really important to the defendant and the people have summarized in their brief what the defendant did argue at that time the judge listened to those arguments they mostly concerned attorney to present that is his testimony these are the concerns that he shared with the trial judge as the people have stated in his brief and their brief these do not raise to the level of showing a collective case nor did he ever say that he had these concerns with counsel this evidence that he had the fact that he felt that witnesses were perjuring themselves the people disputed that the defendant's claims brief and on appeal that this was implicit in what he was telling the judge he had the opportunity he was allowed to speak for quite a while and did speak for quite a while did never never told the judge that he addressed any of these concerns with his counsel so when the judge was ruling he was ruling on the on the remarks made in court and he did consider the and the judge denied the per se i was trying motion then a few days later when the case is called sentencing the defendant was able to address the matter again he had some concerns he wants his motions and suffocations heard the judge gave him the which was about pretrial times in fact this is a counsel at the time we did so or supreme court had not yet told us that those could not would not have to be considered under the same standards as baltimore hearing the judge knew what he was looking for secondly with respect to counsel's statement which it referenced earlier that the defendant did not explicitly say that he shared this information with counsel prior to trial that he wanted he actually presented a trial
why did you take that assignment can you not a chance i know how to handle those davies but saying you get his resignation oh don't be a pike all i have to do is get the goods on him and he will couldn't we use that bonus decline tell you what the word i've said honey you're the most beautiful girl i ever saw do you know what i'm talking about well yes you were saying he was talking about the well you a is really going to tackle that run through assignment yes he is why i just wanted to make sure he wasn't bluffing well that's the way you betray your newspaper is it you're too yellow to fight for decency in politics they listen well there's plenty more stories in this world a friend why should i get killed for this when i've been warned against this reform the gang not florence wants to take a chance that's history if you are more like him the press would be a newspaper we don't be proud up not afraid of anything he's our real reporting real there's nothing real about him but his luck he was born with a  didn't hear anything this is no place for love making big why any pays the right place because we tried but you didn't get his resignation did you know i was a little bit too busy but i'm going to get it right now thanks i should be going on for a while i don't know when i against a little bit ashamed of showing the white tent same thing has happened today that's what's got me worried see that bunch is not easy to lick that's only what you think it depends on all right it's just the boys so much at the window go around the back way you fellows get through the front give me the daily press ok i'll be right over and so now the business yes yes yes i suppose you insist upon my resignation very well i want it out right now a bonus i promise that i guess there's nothing more for me to say but
that justice in mobile over society automation where the corner faced a similar issue the judge said construed the claims by the lead to the jury deciding question of whether there had to be a particular relationship between construe and so first of all i don't know fake the symbols are part of the construction the words are not there stipulated to construction without but even if it was fake there was a single act and professor
that point but until this case no point it has ever attempted to to offer the kind of theory that did it before offered here that there is a third way so that all case which is cited in greece is really rather interesting because that's the case it involves a license from from canada and involves close call all commercial use of   you're either going to you're either going to be in a lobby application in which case we're the owner we're the ass in the in the lottery or you're going to be charitable or you're going to be in day the territorial point may i may i close very briefly on on one other so another reason for the structure of this case and it goes to to remedy our viewpoint use that this license as initially granted was a naked hunting license that is critical to what the court's decision should be we have a limited litigation and we changed nothing on the ground it did not allow this licensee to do anything else that it could not have done on the original asset purchase agreement yet simply took some language of this course case law and try to cure a standing problem and under those circumstances i
any other amendments to the bill
many cases possibly said from the perspective of the court all generate appeals because there's somebody issues and there's a lot of money involved and so the rate case appeals involve things like  if you change the formal rules i think this is when you have to read these hundred two hundred page orders to figure out why did the formula change what was the reason for that if you handle bed in a separate area called a case it's a claim let's talk about the standard review you're suggesting that somehow this is just the novo review we're looking at stance you him we don't really you reference the philip morris case right in the end we actually had differing testimony did they not there but please keep in mind they were testifying about the particular issue in the formula to change the depreciation expense issue as well as this issue and from our point of and the commission and the commission acted outside the scope and stared straight the way that's one of the grounds the commission issued finding to violate the state or federal constitution or law where the proceedings or the manner in which the commission reach just findings violates state or federal agency charged with the administration of statute is entitle to to substantial deference and such instruction should be and is normally persuasive is that is it meanders statement or not i don't see how they can be case in the stitches here actually describes the standard of review there is a statutory guideline so to take some other type of administrative review case and say that this is in conflict with the at how a structure or their schedules up and disease and work papers then to the extent that the routine adjustments that need to be made in the annual rate update case under their position you know if there's a dispute arises specific so sure it's important that they provide better information to us but what we said was that's not material that's in the target in this case we said that's not the right structure the way structure is as position this is not an issue that just came up or immerse big testified about it in the first case in the commission made a decision that shows the problem of changes of the family are being made in the updates as opposed to separately with the supposed to be
mandatory sentence for life without parole in juvenile is the fourth place then it left open the possibility that there could be discretionary life without parole sentence in this case was imposed without consideration of the miller factor and this is no insult to the judge alito seen for his sentencing hearing e if he had it except for his age if he had been able through the sister's attorneys he might have said attorney please point out to the judge that this happened when i was to start with miller vs alabama miller says alabama hell that a mandatory life sentence without parole impose on juveniles who had committed homicide juvenile and homicide and homicide cases and so david do you agree that it's a requirement the court under miller because miller almost requires that you know you'd be considered and the real crux of miller is the power to meet to consider alternatives sentences the opportunity to consider you for that not just to be stripped that's really the crux of the miller
a texas then under the command of detect and commando john birch beat him during the interrogation such that he was an involuntary confession to the crimes of which he was a suspect he made a pretrial motion to into evidence at trial and mr nicholas was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses i just had a question i think it's pretty clear that the church presiding over the current post conviction petition was not by detectives at eeriest two and there is three under the command of john birch and that the particular detectives who participated in mr nicholas those interrogation have court in march and we've decided the case in march of twenty thirteen so far and a half years ago and at that time in considering this case at this school consider pretty much all of the issues significant detail one compared with other similar abuse claims inlands considerable considerable quantity of weight to the defendant's claim does it tell you one thing about whether  believed i allegations made and a post conviction petition that really bothered by the record and i found cases where it was used and took the but i have now found a case where it's actually been down or said it could be done and i'm sure you have found one that it was done after an and it would have been physically impossible unless for any abuse to have taken place unless the assistant state's attorneys were not present with the defendant  you at least admit that there would raise the question as to whether the judges prejudge the situation may or may not  he had from a family member of someone who was a victim in one of these look at the still it's closing argument at the conclusion of the suppression hearing this is on page t t ten at the track record and here's the state some nation mr necrosis testimony it is true he said that detective dry and hit him with a statistical chest and three other detectives repeatedly kicked him and punched him so the state everybody at the trial knew that mr lucas was talking about the text of that brian when he was talking about who knocked him out of the chair
involved in this case there's a tension between the police power and constitutional rights of property touchstone for our purposes really due process  moreover in this case even if the summons and complaint was in the complaint would be sufficient notice to the owner it would be sufficient notice to the lead holders it's fairly clear what language you point to that would indicate that notice before the action is filers precondition to suit well there's there's two main supports for them one is the scheduled self which they distinguish the statute eleven thirty one one from other ordinances and in statutes from other jurisdictions other states had rules of statutes unconstitutional if the owner trial were supported by the evidence from the trial court to make that determination there has to be expert testimony to support a finding of a dangerous defect the trial court testified testified that they were saying to the facts and describing in what manner they were safety talking among danger to the public but about danger to somebody that lives there or enters the building that's sufficient  s your honor i don't believe it is the structures on occupied currently so someone who lives there is not it's that's not in your personal view no consideration needs to be given to incompatible with the character of the districts in which they are we are located including without being limited there are two who visions small see for the elimination of such clothes and structures where they are destroyed or damage defects and demolition when can a property be demolished if there are public safety effects the public safety defects have to be clearly supported by the evidence in this case the ordinance applies  which and that is one of the public safety effects what's the cost to repair of those effects and compare that with the value of the building in term and whether repair is reasonable so there's no the owner if they had the ability to repair that was the hardest over this case whether or not the station afforded the owner's illinois whole property sufficient opportunity to repair property before it could be demolished stokers court found that it did the statute was sufficient but because that was the fifteen day prior notice advise the owner that they had the opportunity to make their property safe  no quantitative threshold no fifty percent threshold which is what the ordinance supply the countryside case did not hold that that could be done the countryside case merely reciting the fact that that's what happened below nobody challenge the gun people so it wasn't before the court that case predates rulers as meyer it's not clear that it's eleven thirty one one that's the issue in that case and it's and that's what i was just referring to that there is no president for this supposed interplay between the two the ordinance deals with whether it can be rebuilt and  structure as i don't believe that there is an authority for chris subcategory building and in this case the owner had the property fully insured and she stands ready willing and able so how can it be unreasonable for
what that is for us to do because i think they've given some explanation to be not a model i was in your opinion i couldn't continue and i do understand your question and here is part of the problem that we have with th question here but i think before that i think we need to look at what some of what the trial court was doing with the public policy and how it comes into play in ruling on a woman through the motion i think in the public policy  guess would be some down time and once again we don't know exactly everything that's happening but the world's the hiring of the new council and we we serve the finances at the same address and i think that minnesota it's we're not trying to serve someone here in illinois which would probably be a little easier i think this case really with respect to anything automotive what it really turns on is th attempt at service and their refusal whether it be a mistake or and burns on the part of the fan i am not sure what it is but i don't think the plaintiff should be held to a higher game where both sides of the penalty and all these all said what the game go on i think the same thing can be said here i think both sides have their issues on their case but the public policy and i believe the trial her problem is thinking the same his burden of proof