MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
one of the criteria under the stature i know the record back in the procedural history than worked their way backwards from that to confirm that someone states and residence in so turning to the pleading itself by the time mr mantis was created in that case it's worth noting that whatever heard the court is going to adopt because we do know that then his intent to be arrested had to be in illinois those in california getting married would have been during that period of time before he left california the how do you draw that  intended to do it in a future is manifested before the summer fifteen days of departure and it was manifested in the events leading up to that i don't think it's possible just saying that he would have had to d my my belief is that you were
there's no dispute that the city council prove this is going to work the mayor sit there's no mention of mr covert name anywhere in the cellar there's nothing indicating mr stover was next to this any way whatsoever in fact the contract that the city the main the whole idea was so
sexual contact with story when she was in kindergarten and continuing until she was in third grade but chaney could not remember many of the details of the visits so in addition to showing him the state presented admission as we discussed in our opening brief the trial court in the trial court the state originally claimed the evidence of the other crimes against you  admissible to show intent motive planted in state and propensity in the state's brief it's provides that the state told the jury that it should consider the other crimes evidence only for the purposes of been on a jury but i think the jury was instructed what to do with this evidence the state argued that what it was supposed to do with this evidence and now the state to same it should have done manner and i think that in this case this jury instructions were completely i think only jury instructions were used and they tried to modify them because they don't defense counsel as i recall objected to the giving of a limiting instruction but the state presented into a limiting instruction anyway which the court gave netlist the limiting instruction that said it's only for intent an absence of mistake inside recall so it didn't instruct the jury what they were supposed to do with it and a properly instructed jury is made up in my proof is the cornerstone of our system is is what the state is they don't have any evidence that he intended to do this they just so i think that kind of fear is i think this far is the stanchions i just i think the legislature has let itself down the slippery slope of of course we don't want people to be their spouses or their family members who don't want children to be touched sexually we certainly don't want people to drive drunk so we use those pieces to maybe we'll historical recognition that propensity evidence can mislead to jury and it's almost in the law in our state and in our country that you can mislead journey into obviously is somewhat an issue if you have the propensity to commit these types of crimes and on there is no question that in judge made the analysis that this wasn't needed to demonstrate defendant's propensity might be convinced after a little bit and one percent or one other charge crime another interim i mean multiple examples so the question comes down to you is it too much yes and again let me just briefly suggest back to the issue of error assuming as i think we've established it was properly admitted was your error in what was actually considered let's make it clear has one chance to talk to the jury to not talk about things to defend and those two women would not tell about the stings opening i don't think it's unusual for the prosecutor to wait and if the point was to show that he had a propensity to do this and we didn't need to know about who their neighbors were what the names of their children were where they went to school all of the state presented in addition to the finalists that you contra talked about and i don't know the jury the jury didn't know that it took samantha
disprove that or to rebut that presumption but they're mistaken about that yes when was me and his agent under a power of attorney at the time that nancy reagan the account it whenever acted under that power of attorney she never did anything  trusted the agent and here we can see that nancy trusted when but you also need a dependent and some kind of subservient relationship but the principle depends on the agent usually you're dealing with  financially dependent on when fact nancy had her own independent life and all knowing why and when his lived for thirty years in memphis tennessee so she could be dependent on her but the word proviron in addition to the reduce the account they had no evidence whatsoever that's the record of forty six to three seven and four sixty to sixty nine routinely get a trusted person whether that's a spouse a child a sibling a close friend their power of attorney to act for them in case they can't act for themselves they routinely name the same loved ones as the beneficiaries of benefit themselves but in a lot of cases the agent never uses the power at all because the principle continues thieves lack for themselves but under counts you just the fact that you had a power of attorney executed whether or not it ever been used and whether you ever been paid by the state because the court said that they had an obligation to demand their parents estate plans in feinberg in their state plans including their trust as well as their we
senior center and there's a canal right in the front and the colony for some reason why it was all the whole canal literally hiding that historic character of that canal you look at the canal it street which is actually the here start are we talking about the commerce area the bad tree all into the library so there's a lot of clarifications for me i've been very adamant on this from the time when i sat on the c r c to the coffee council for possible i mean ok so my feeling is that i would like to see the c r c maybe put together a committee or even group to include members from the community like la and not the home of course all my we've come to have a further and more in depth discussion on the subject matter i think there's a lot more information and a lot more folks in the community that should be included in that discussion before you know any suggestions or recommendations are forwarded to the coffee council and i realize that it's at the county council where we really to go through the history of the legislation and some of the requirements related structure picture of why are there certified highly builders or the continuance of that you know since he has done a lot of work with and then the second part will be you know the resources to support this with that so if there is a way for us to meet the do more research on how some of those things can be remedied or what options are available then maybe the have some information on that but so that was one part was kind of understanding what has happened since this legislation was enacted and how we don't see more of this type of architecture so that when we are and by seeing and encouraging people we're not sending ourselves up for failure we have resources and information available to them and how they can incorporate this type of  holiday but you can't eat at night in the house because you're not allowing electricity are you allowing any washing or hygiene in the holidays because you're not allowing any water lies system sees a contradiction with what are you going to do tell me guys they are they just for the tourist industry so so people can get their food someplace else but understand that i'm trying to understand how those restrictions so that translates to this sort because i don't see it i know that there electrical restrict the twenty first century is to use a check her contradiction that he has to be rectified and that he held up that's one of the reasons you're not having people graduate yet the science of a local polynesian building is that you don't have the demand for it there's no there's no let's go  need natural resource lands in order to provide for these things it's just going to benefit the whole all the system which is what this whole perseveration but it's one sided under the collar the laws of revision and we have to try to step in that's where this legislation so i think that's important to remember that and  that building think we need to be aware of this particular report and that there is this opportunity to have this type of architecture and then you can make
the only reason that we did as well because in the other cases that we found actually no one made that the argument that says they're actually beneficiary they're actually armies to the city agreement itself so we that was bound by the t be an example that he did it on his own and he did after his wife passed away he also signed the letter that's why is he on the original dealings with edward jones whether or of the model larry but i think you have to find something pretty positive in order to get it to say that it would be a case in which a trustee is bound to act with the other trustee i mean especially you're and make sure it was only given to someone that was all right to receive it and they gave it to someone who was in the house how long did the did the stepmother knew all the money from the account within six months after his death a interest is contingent on certain things doesn't mean he was any less of the bennett this year and for the for the purpose of this case i think if it's well stamped that this particular but but let's just look at the more he had two purposes he wanted to set of marriage trust for his wife wasn't even named said his wife and then as the remainder beneficiary of it there something like well his see that there's anything there it was suggesting that he didn't have a pass of the year you know it was this is rocker so you have a situation where again as i said there's no red light there's no yellow light here i mean
again i would note that within five days of the notice by the media from the johnson defendant's counsel i took steps to get that filed in to him to file a petition with it she's had a perfect basis to address them in the pleadings and but again when i am trying i'm asking the court to if you look at the big picture look at the case was the big picture this is from the case law that says otherwise and some of the cases you rely on alcohol for example are limited to the specific facts of those cases and iron suggest that while they are limited to the facts of those cases the rationale in the decision is directly anal this will never happen again obviously respect to the statue of limitations issues on this considerable writings from both sides that i'm not going to repeat but the thing i want to hone our is that the statute of limitations issue it's all based on disputed facts and it's all based on things outside the four corners of the pleadings and i would submit to this court there on the statute of limitations issue that is something that we should have a right if we are able to proceed if the court sh three this other claim the concern is the same alleged injuries that he may very well recover for this claim to injury but even to it's harsh that's not a basis for a verse on this is an abusive discretion standard and the question before this court with all due respect is not and whom you have all been either on the ground here in the court room but the end of the day it role to protect the public considered the purpose which is to protect the integrity of the court and also said a couple of times and i don't know if i've seen this in other cases but he said you know the discretion you know you can just look at the signing of the complaint in isolation as well your honor because afterwards the out of state attorney sort of cavalier attitude continues he represented again that he had been the original person it was sued your honor i believe he was but the original complaint is a new case as this court well i don't think you can say there's some sort of lesser sanction when it was it wasn't asked for one you know judges are in a position of protecting parties from their own attorneys and the attorneys are supposed to be representing their parties and judges ruled by months before th wish to elaborate on the concept that this is a nobody based upon the fact that this may be applied at the trial court's discretion so i would disagree that this will it's a question of wacom i also think that you can't look at the complaint and stuff i think you have to do with trying for did which was look at the overall circumstances the attorney was a novice he had gone through these procedures before and had been admitted he continued to represent that he had been admitted what in fact he had not the rules for information are very simple filed the proceedings and therefore we should address whether or not there was an attorney of record that the defect in the lack of a signature from a
article five there is no reservation to the building control committee to make any decisions for reasons such as states where for any other reason there's no reservation in northern grant to the building control his house that the the foundation stick out of the ground and therefore he needs to move his house somewhere else in the lot so that the foundation will not stick out and that is with the saying it back a lesson until the plans and specifications showing the nature and i shape high materials and location of the same stuff we submitted to prove in writing by the association or by  well in this case your honor all the homes i mean i guess that's what you're you know maybe that that committee took into consideration the fact that building a home without a basement would adversely affect the value of the other the other a homestead on the li them or dollars now but if you built one with the basement or without a basement it would reduce the five percent of and generally like you know there's nothing in the record that says that but one of the problems here is we're not requiring  initial set back from the front set back or is this this foundation exposure a question after we moved back further to match the other houses i'm not sure the record reflects that i mean we have do is or to argue is that he can't build it on the with the regular setback this set out in the covenants or with the new setback which matches the neighbors that's my question i think originally builder to cover the exposed bondage third if he didn't want to change his plans at all to trade his law for another loft in the subdivision that was flat it would be more conducive to the type of construction he was sales and purchases because every time that someone buys a piece of property the subject restricted covenants that state that have language so when this case they're going to be able to know what those restrictions might be
of medical certainty that she was injured that it was caused by the x and so forth and so on and you put on no evidence in that regard well i mean i respectfully disagree with that but i don't know what is in that regard because the basis of his opinion i would have heard and i think that they had a basis to do so i think i gave them the basis to effectively discredit his opinion because he relied on the history given to him by the patient he relied on th did that what you what you did that the the conduct here you know i'm not using this this is a very nice man great he's going to be a very good lawyer someday but he's not done if he keeps on
specific finally there was a consistent dispute with regard to the ability to return to work even though there was a concession with regard to the treatment itself was there a current partial disability i think we agreed in a shallow paragraph means that's what has happened that it is it is a mandatory interpretation of that where this agreement comes in this in the beginning of the statute in the very beginning of the legislation to be meaningless nothing nothing that's why i think that the report was mandatory i mean i think this legislation and the wording of the statute requires that reported to be there or is or  now some may respond on the employer he has future earning capacity assuming he's not a permanent total he was he on the age of the employee at the time of the injury as an age when he was hurt wasn't also every we started from before in here to curse them you do what the legislature was attempting to do here which was put some guidelines in the to the award of permanent partial disability as i said was no single factor numerous factors should be the sole determinant disability you did you turned around and said they had means if to get means that this is not mandatory or the report would be the sole determining factor and i see this not true because there are three factors here that are to be present every time there is a permanent total disability award he has age he has occupation and he has other factors are considered in addition to the group or in the prior sentence says that report is not going to be the sole determiner fair you have to determine the other this business about people going to jail and want to order orphanages nonsense record it wasn't the incompetent evidence in this report specifically says no single factor should be a sole determinant disability in if you didn't have to issue in this case is mustn't there be one period whether they accepted or rejected around the corner with me think exactly patients more important also if you're arguing is not the issue the issue case the ambiguity that gets you to the point of looking at the statute itself and determining whether or not the impairment course require regardless of how it gets into the answer in order to determine how many actual disability pay your bills will thank you for your energetic arguments on this
that we believe that the rules are clear they're making the parties of the parties on a level playing field we think we have an unqualified right to take the real shareholder you had already posed what would be different what were you what what would distinguish the deposition you have of the doctor asked the doctor and possibly some other thing that it should show prior fracture but did you have an expert that was ready to testify that somehow the severity of the fracture increased the you know you have some decisions to make this a lawyer what do you want to look like in front of this jury with a witness giving you some information but i don't think the jury and i think that was this case on this issue by the fact that there is no record and there's nearly five hundred jackson the reason for that is because you have to determine that it was a man first use of the court's discretion and here we don't know what directions th as employees their statements would have been here to the employer but i think that that's something different than the corporate was and and and so you know under the rules i guess we're allowed to choose  preservation issue that simply and that the that action or that particular issue right there on a substantive level i think that if you look at the record it is clear from the beginning that the   that's the only information that he would have gotten out of those depositions they actually don't have them and that was information that there had and so you know to the extent that it the court is deemed to have denied  your story the defendants indicate the sister or her testimony was not being used to prove that she actually had a or that her testimony had anything to do with her sister so my question is if that's your claim in your brief then left those would be used for i guess wh testify about the procedures about what is done with x rays about how things are stored how things are khaki made and when they were civil when they were turned into the patient so this is not only to people you know they don't want objection these were already before the court playing like there squarely before this court because of the only real issue in this case was causation what causes the t this
and judge keith in that case he had made a ruling and he had detailed figures about how much this residents of st charles st charles that was worth a million dollars law was a million dollar property would have almost four hundred thousand dollar mortgage on it he continued to say that this is the million dollar property million dollar property and he ended up with it when the case saddled we ended up getting the somewhat agreement that's  about mortgage we're talking about interest that relates so well the mortgage the fact that it wasn't mentioned as paragraph seventeen is i think at least part of the equation ok i'm not saying it's the whole equation if you look at  remember that family is going to be taking full title to this property on august nineteenth two thousand and sixteen because that's the date of the judgment now in the trial judge thought well wait a second is this mean allowable deductions under the law or is it just allowable deductions that here would have under the law it seems to me that that's already ambiguous and again i come back to room now if i might move over my second argument because right now i'm arguing the first part is that there actually is an ambiguity coming from paragraph a while i think the bigger problem here is that the score because if you look at just kelly's order he specifically says i look at the four corners of not one first i don't find any ambiguity now i have to look at the provisional admission or approach and i have to find an ambiguity before i can use  the marital estate each person was to get so i mean that would show whether or not this three hundred eighty thousand for the outstanding mortgage crews out the percent i don't believe motion in divorce court some would force in agreement i don't think that at the time we did this and and no one on the other side ever moved the strike saying you don't have enough facts like you were doing you know normal or all courts looked at the agreements and said you can't see i find it's on ambiguous which means you lose under four corners and then you lose on her provisional admission because you have to show me any ambiguity in order  admission and yet if we can't we can't come up with a new judge probably rules against us then that's his prerogative i suppose on the evidence but at this point we need or we should have the opportunity to develop again back to the we weren't trying to modify the we were trying to appeal late and all the case law from all the districts and you can go out after the thirty days wrongs if you're petitioning to enforce a judgment obviously the co judge asked to is partly to force him to clarify what the agreement was and that's all worse we're saying needs to be done through parole evidence and a provisional admission approach and and as far as  use that word between once we have met the and us it was approved by the court in august and then it was right there on all within a month or so we realized it was past thirty days i agreed that it was not like it was