MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
unintentional but but again your honor we have intervening nicer to taze law which would address you know that has to be taken into consideration because that came out after we a which i think would be what you want us to do here i'm sure opposing counsel is going to tell us why we i would think you'd want us to send it back to that i mean the best thing of course would be for us to say you're right when it's over that's correct assuming the law doesn't let us go that far seems to be judgments based question is right on the money and that the best thing you can really ask  opposing counsel set forth there are two issues here and as to the st phase record of conviction clearly shows that you eighty eight was the underlying according to the minutes from his criminal proceeding he pleaded i under this court case law and than the order is sufficient to establish a fact a conviction and there is no evidence that as i stated there was any sort of plea agreement the details of the plea agreement should be aided in the criminal record that the judge understand what the purpose of the agreement was and here there's no indication that that language was supposed to contact with a minor for the purpose of or with intent to commit a crime under two hundred and eighty eight he stated with the required intent it's unclear if that's supposed to obscure which statute or if that is supposed to underlying can't be determined from the record and so it is opening brief he did not challenge the board's decision of the i n t and then after we pointed that out in our answer in brief the sheriff did not ra age and so the government actually asked the court to consider that in a rehearing positions and then that in the court that it didn't need to just recently about a month ago is dated it didn't need to at the board to consider that  already been to the main circuit by them so it there's almost a sphere that of there being sort of a game of ping pong with a case when there is a th circuit case on point and i believe that i'll have to go back and check but i argument as not waves and therefore they have a robust argument since we did not have the benefit of precinct the issue so if the court decides that waiver that there required four to eighty eight from that communication and agree that morale is named continue to be the law that communicating with the minor or immoral purposes or right here with the intent to commit hold on i'm right back yeah ok well st of all my client the government has the burden of i clear and convincing evidence that of what he pled chill in council just argued that the record wasn't
harm and therefore there was a specific intent demonstrated by those facts and circumstances how can you take those words and say the choice of not find specific  it seems the man to travel or clarified its misstatements on the hill at the hearing on the motion to reconsider next year i think the problem here with your argument what's your response and says i was not relying on that as an aggravating circumstance it was almost superb with this language but my thought was you need this sentence because of what you did it seems to me that you can hear you say that was some of the language of the of the indictment and i found specific intent based upon the facts and circumstances  case he says that during the motion reconsider i don't understand why there is if there is finality in what the judge said then you can never have a motion to reconsider the finality as i've rule so however i've ruled whichever side brings it up you lose you mean you're just not going to get me to reconsider instead i think swining see him now i'm saying imply only or maybe i could say it directly i should not have said found the specific intent to kill was shown by the state to exist on the facts and circumstances of this case we ignore that part completely right i think that that is not your reading of what  he's the one saying he's saying this is where i'm in a specific intent to kill was shown by the state to exist under the facts and circumstances of this case yes out of the transcript yes that's that you're drawing i thought you were going to rely just on the twice he said there could be no better case to establish specific content and then says one's purpose is pacific intent was to kill that person and that preceded the or at the very least cause great valley harm that almost sounds like a throwaway or you're going to be convicted of serious crime but here what i've said before is this specific intent to kill because he does say that there is you know that these words and i think words matter but here we have any experience trial who's trying lots of criminal cases and we know that anecdotally because we see t get it is relevant to us where somebody is it's if they're inexperienced crowd and we know that that's going to influence our ruling i don't know if he has done a lot of attempts to attempt to kill us when we get to read all of the media the steady hand lies and then we get to write out a written opinion trial judges day in day out do this from the bench and he's trying to explain his and because he simply includes a phrase which he clearly explains later had nothing to do with his rule which is preceded by a very clear description of all the facts upon which he relies in finding a specific intent to kill we now take that out of context and try to damn the judge for simply maybe speaking a little too long in but all of us are also smart enough to know that it's your job to figure so absolutely vigorously defend your client and to look for those things in the record that may be a defect or maybe anywhere that requires the action you request from from from this court so i think you stuck to your guns pretty well
was she did so well for nine months in the position so it was sort of a trial evans had been in the job and the other piece of it is also if you look at the three people who were on the technical group they all said you know it was nice that she was in the job but there were so many other reasons why we put her in our
note on nomenclature i'm going to talk about the survival claim which is held by the estate and the wrongful death claim which is held by the beneficiaries so i'll be using those terms i think it's consistent with the law law the wrongful death statute as well as the cases interpreting and now you know into district corot three or four reasons for the conclusions they reach following you because action versus wrongful death but how do you how do you reach that conclusion from the mind which of the statute is the case that holds that in massachusetts the book three tapes the nineteen thirty nine case i commend to you because it's clear that the trustee who brings the client to different claims britain in different trust capacities for the to the to  appropriate chris certification it would be simultaneous filings and i'm not sure i don't see why there wouldn't be a need to reply unless you well you know others may please the court my name is joseph desmond the teles with me as my colleague just enables that the question that you want us have asked in terms of whether or not the case could be certified neither party is that asked for stipulation of the parties we had asked uncle an injunction which judge would bar file the necessary of the right of the stipulation that it will be stayed until such time as this present issue was resolved ok thank you the most recent  look as if they correctly questioned and recognizes the truth which is there are some legal claims that are not derivative of factual claims that clearly are  twenty seven to fourteen is the is the total the runs that the minority jurisdictions in those fourteen gers directions that have found that their survival claim is independent entirely independent have created what i would consider for determining such things as collateral stoppel it cetera the court says in an action for the purposes of the treasury under the statute of repose the term court action can be seen as referring to the group of other facts that give rise for the president of the nursing home d sis in cooler know that claims for recovery rather based on personal injury wrongful death or loss of consortium are not to state but they derived from the decided against the wife and the strong dissent and that case discussed this exact issue relied upon the earlier precedents from god debt versus well i think it was justice o'connor to set it strongly saying that these are independent claims arbitration clause when arbitration under the federal act is dependent on consent not found some technical rule of distribution by consent right will to ask your primary to sit in the there was a suggestion i think i think
hearing in the noise is that was not raised at the summary judgment stage in fact that only appears for the first time in reply brief the issue about the paper for i believe a peer is after the magistrate need his ruling as well he would say it's not admissible evidence as well and then extend the time period for disclosing experts and others govern looking for basically a redo of everything and the court addressed it at that period of time and said that the court was not going to be enlarging the discovery period to allow for a lay experts that water by the magistrate was never challenge or object to the district court therefore we think it's weighed when it came time to argue a position to the motion to strike we believe the magistrate got that right correctly as he argue there was severe prejudice here to the defendants what happened was is the best out there summary judgment motion after the plaintiff never had any experts disclosed when the defense got a reply to the summary judgment motion that was the first time the plaintiffs argument is that the truck struck the car the judge also the magistrate also look at the prejudice to the court given the history of the litigation and the time it had taken to get to that point in the case and many motions that were filed after th how the accident happened the point that specifically says in his testimony he didn't see the accident he didn't see of the truck on the road in his rearview mirrors or otherwise in point in time until the vehicles came to rest later on when the plaintiff's suggests that it was the defendants that question all this evidence that's going to help their case there's nothing wrong with the defense showing the inconsistency s and the way the argument about a rear end then you have the plaintiff's complaint then you have then try to try to answer that just as the truck hit the car without describing what happened certainly defendants can point that out in their papers to show how there's no the argument because i didn't think the perfusion argument is what drives it here it's an abuse of discretion standard there's nothing that the magistrates report that would suggest that he didn't consider something there's nothing in the magistrate's report that would suggest that's enough to grant summary judgment in this case understanding that's because what remains after that struck is not correct and just sort of straight on what you think remains after that struck it has to be taken into account statement of facts that was struck there's still stuff left in the record you say he's waived the district court having to look at the remaining material you have a case that supports that argument right i believe
however the distinguishing point in that case is that the court alluded to the fact that there was continuing probable cause to search the purse here there was no indication that as soon as the monterey county district attorney's walker agrees with th how can the health dangers have an expectation of privacy in materials that are being held by the monterey county police department i don't think the expectation of privacy is  necessarily simply because there has been a valid search warrant taking possession of certain documents that under its thirty six under the fourth amendment one lose thirteen page inventory right so they went through all of the docs all of the items that were seized and then analyzed them and created this very lengthy catalog in addition
attempting to express well i think that's itself sixty different interpretations what's your interpretation if the court a partisan a no extraordinary circumstances test and the rule is that there has to because of the li and i think the standards that we had before on whether you could stay the tension well i thought one standard we had before i was pretty much of its if it's going to and if if there's going to be a limitations problem he can't do it and he should stay
opposition but when you go back through a look at the comments made by them i have to question whether or not he understands what the term forgery means because when he says i will be contacting state is to these matters and if charges are brought against the ones who voted or took part of the forty three dollars of these village documents so be it and he was talking about her three we can't beat him so we can't be too loose about this if you were accused by someone in public of having committed forgery by of forgery forging a signature on a the best i can discern here is that the defendant didn't know what forgery met because what he was describing and then saying that's the forgery the two don't match that is the case is there what is the propositional law here then is applied to make that not
several issues however in the interest of time i'd like to concentrate on to it if you go that the government feels both fit together factually and form the heart of the government's argument specifically those issues are question one that you seem to be addressing first was well there just is no power in the district court in any case to go outside of the heartland of this particular guideline because the heartland covers anything the prison contraband in prison cases which to the government doesn't and doesn't address the problem question the question is not whether the question as this court has pointed out its decisions defining the heartland is not whether or not cases were filed but of the united states military and i know what it is i think it's oh you guys that's an issue that is changing you to to another prison because you now have a different category point category because of the offense you did commit revival time i'd like to address the two points of the court brought up during his encounters argument first with the question of whether or not this court can rely on the court's expertise obviously with the protect act as your honor pointed out that's an open question at this point discretion you might want to give the district court another sheriff to explaining its reasons more fully or clearly that would seem to be very concerned about services if a person who know congress and the cases i have never seen one as expensive but of course i don't know what it's done all the time but that's just my thing i take judicial notice of the fact that i've never seen such a case before now
animals it's an agricultural charge the horse it is about purses in the grocery store in a terrible condition really the owner of the horses was told if you leave them in this condition there's going to be you know i'm going to show you there's go there was no you know with the that there was no there was no evidence about the condition of the house in time there were none of the officers went into the house and telling one it was execute so there's no there was no evidence presented at the time how wrong these conditions passing in the house  defendant's understanding of what's happening not just because mr kelly you know there are some testimony that he told the officers there that he may or may not have told the officers here in the office or in remember whether he said that he had family members to help look  and those types of animals but here are the conditions no heat the testimony of the officers was water was frozen you know no food  st especially when constitutionally they are one of the ways that you can be unconstitutionally big is that there is no objective criteria to analyze a violation of the statute and that is instead left up to the subjective idea of the trier of fact and that's exactly what we there's no testimony about what the temperature was outside or inside that we could hear it was fifteen degrees but that was the only testimony that we had it's a shame to me that two officers who deal with animals would say it's way too quick for these dogs and not say it's knowingly intentionally or recklessly  temperature of the officer said it was cold and you had that photograph of flickr that appears to need to be frozen so you can certainly take that into account as evidence of temperature for knowledge is the only appropriate mental state or event here and defended is now saying it's intent but that can't be screened with a mental state statute which says you're reading any of the three mental states you couldn't read in a rare one if the highest mental state applied if the highest one we had to be read in the statute would specific findings we presume the judges know the law the jury doesn't need an appropriate decision explaining how this works the judge knows how to really animal cruelty statute and he knows how to read the mental state statute he knows to read in the state mental state of knowledge and  officer basically took responsibility and said yes i'm i'm trying to protect these dogs in this house there was also a piece of mail addressed to the defendant at the house so we know he had some authority over a key role seen bringing in one of the dogs on one occasion and  but it has to be because on their own a legislature can anticipate all of the horrible things that people will do to animals they don't need to put in the statute you know don't paint your dog they have to use a general term like abuse but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutionally vague on the just a few issues to touch on first dead ear infection and the things that the dog did need to new treatment for there is testimony that that was for a fly in my order you know there was actual testimony that that was not based on a
a discrepancy in terms of how the state court spoke or misspoke perhaps but in mind it there and in that there was absolutely no prejudice what so on as whatsoever given the see the basis for your argument to pay me the wrong given the rest of the discussion and their opinion so there's a couple reasons that they applied the wrong standard they
but the most significant thing here is that this did not go to the very essence of the case did not go to an element of the client with ensuring is the aliment and let me answer your question just the same can still pictures talking about reading the substance of
issue in my case is whether the trial court committed reversible error in essentially ignoring the application of the supreme court california's ruling that there was a statement made that you illegal i don't think it's always illegal i think that there's a variety of different circumstances where their purpose big legal and i should point out this was somebody wants to put an ad in a magazine that says i want to sell i want to sell the scrambl designed to be or were sold to be used for illegal purposes now i have seen in your pleading that you told them these are going to be illegally modified these grammars and or i'm going to sell them legally sell a descrambler and my answer is yes what's wrong with my answer it shouldn't complete answer because at the jest unless you do it illegally well the  told them i'm going to do it for an illegal purpose or a screen illegally modified so i'm having a hard time even if you ask the lawyer i simple question how it becomes a negligence of say was you know i don't know the answer to that question judge but what i would like to focus on is the fact that mr tejpal got arrested and he got thrown in prison for doing what he thought was illegal act because he had been told so by deal on opposite side i don't think it's reasonable nor justifiable to rely on the advice of a lawyer on the opposite side of the deal nor do i think i am the as a matter of show studies duty with him into terminating duty it's a matter of it's a matter of long which the courts decide if angela the courts generally consider several factors in determining whether or not a duty  such a different issue because they didn't record it and they didn't say that they could have satisfied we have dealt with it even after the question but that's not what they did our company according to the like in the complaint our company did not have any knowledge i think you use morgan thank you very much for use three minutes
palmer the district court and the palmer analysis fails in one major regard and not yes whether palmer's only actions in this case with signing a right that's absolutely correct judge if you look at the juvenile well i don't want to look at the juvenile court orders but they were submitted into the record but i don't think we can look at those as part of the motion to dismiss standard where we're at but also and look that the reason that director palmer had to put these individuals in wisconsin is because i was the training school and and so we iowa i would you rather have been closed for the exact same type of judge rovner i think that's kind of our the problem with this actual record and the problem with granting qualified immunity after a motion to dismiss state we have such a limited record to begin with and that's why you see the circuit and other circuits talk about the problems with doing a motion to dismiss qualified immunity analysis is because we don't have the full factual record but i think if you look at the pleadings it's mentioned that palmer would regularly receive reports and then if you look at the pleading get into that deep of analysis without having the contract as part of the the record judge they were ordered to be in the custody and care of the the state and so i think the way that i would look at this is  correct and so i'm just trying to i just want to hear what why former in this case because palmer was the individual that these children were it would have required him to move to intervene in order to do so at the district court and kate if there's nothing in the complaint that alleges that he had that authority or that it would have been appropriate or that responsibility for the contact alleged and that is something that the district court took issue with as well that there were no allegations or things that he person raised it to these students most of the allegations are things that happened to them while they unconstitutional confinement to go to the juvenile who are there's really nothing in the structure of iowa law that would have required him to do that the juvenile court officers cramer stated we do have a fundamental difference and who has custody and control of these individuals but i think it's important to go back to what you stated earlier judge roemer and that this if they were in iowa cust not and you know my concern i'm not sure that here that you're going to be able stablished this is a situation that and clearly established in the law i understand that there could be hurdles at the time of summary judgment but it needs to happen at the time
did you steal them bob yes ma i stole them bob i was a bank messenger they caught me fair and square i was afraid i know just stole them but i never good night just good night