MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
or the form selection would act as a waiver of sovereign immunity so there's no conflicting evidence so are you saying the only clear and unequivocal evidence is the signature on the contract there's no other this huge interest that disabled people would have number one to access and that state drivers would have access to their own state road so is there anything in this case that compares the nec i know balancing test is that the  chance from this panel to actually present the case eventually to a jury thank you their safety i want to go back to the facts a little bit and just as a matter of policy don't you think courage ng a tried to set up a mechanism that allows it to be for the agreement that there will be payments made on behalf of g s t why would it be not reasonable for you know the party is interacting for its you have to
well it would be completely inconsistent with the rest of the war there's the montgomery elevator period because he was able to find a job with his restrictions during that period but then not a tool to increase his duties and he refused that question then without any of the goodness his back pain increased to the point where he could not clear his doctor said he could not work at all and i was using your position that the app was a conclusion to one drug run by the commission is fairly  of the evidence that the condition of the air being as it stood in december was aggravation and part of the initial injury i believe what he suffered from was generated this disease so it was the fact that there warehouse and that's i had a brief period as a chauffeur and then he was obtaining tax preparation passes and it is specifically then that he said he was arising from a chair and he felt this this significant pain which prompted him to go back
constitute rationalisations i ask ok will so let's put the priests aside what else can we do we have here these are these instructions it's public website i guess it was june fourteenth two from president former government officials as to the meaning of regulations we should ignore those in that they're not real we meet with you in them all of a sudden you come in this case and you put in jeopardy you get from government officials to what they really the regulation i find that to be very puzzling that you take the position these other cases that we can't read or i could be a bit from government officials as the media regulations and then you turn around and do the same thing in this case relied on ninety six thousand dollars that's a different pretty million patients and one thousand six hundred
argument not to exceed fifteen minutes or so i will wait till we get all set up while they can
yes i did and i refer the panel to trial record eight eleven zero twenty one through twenty three because i think that testimony is for typically illuminating what that is the expert testified about in this case was infringement and i asked him eleven zero twenty one quote now where you were faking about whether or not your opinion on clay twelve as you did it was obvious or not what burden of proof did you use answer is testimony on a level twenty loaded zero point one he looked at the extra reports basically chose between them and decided to go with the mit professor and that's the way this believe they were insufficient but the main issue in this particular case is it who are right to implement this procedure in a manner that simply dedicated that was going to side with us i think we would have been very happy about it and that's not what happened here and that's not the way it's trial should you tell this court is doing it and at least one other case and i quote this is for you to become the blueprint for pa technology if there are perceived need for that could be all right but allowing the independent expert to side with one party or the other is simply unfair
consist of because we know that dr smith's record is very detail that are in theory some pages included references to all of his previous reports so other than that an the examination of cross examination of smith what is it that you and vision the trial court would be dealing with should we remember this back for the request of evidentiary here where we were to ask the trial court to appoint an expert whether that be parties in the birth of the state's escort and mystery is not known to present evidence or are they not know i should say he doesn't have a right to have an expert at that stage doesn't have a right to cross examine he could not have a burden there is no burden placed on the sex offenders who are have a wide range of ages from very young eighteen through very old so in that way the rest of the groups are a little bit skewed because they are compared to people  eighteen years of treatment he is over the course of these eighteen years identified cognitive distortions that he's previously had and work to correct and he's identified thinking they are seeing his work to correct those he's you know approved for use of the paul sr you can call sister brother as he can just pick up the phone and call anybody he wants that's part of what the conditions of release are at least right now on another committee hearing and if the state tried to do that response counsel the better for the object saying this is not competent evidence of a diagnosis are likely to be offended
address for the opportunity to address these important issues mr chairman and members
their reply brief quote plaited filed within the three year period alleged willfulness and has not pleaded facts of the contrary that is enough our position of course is the opposite that is not enough the case law is clear that it's not possible that supervisor could have known that this person was working in this position and that it was a nonexempt as ition but it's not what they allege and the allegations date a conclusion there are number of specific facts i think that that support  knew the difference in the manifestations because of the differences between exam and exam employees and other nonexempt employees if this were the defendants knew that the plaintiff was required to work more than thirty hours per week assuming those facts are true as we must why is that not a plausible claim well your honor i disagree that several of those facts have been alleged in the complaint they allege that the company knew  there was no allegation of any specific person at the company having knowledge in terms of in applying them assuming that's correct i don't know but plausible that it was known whether the employee complained whether doing the employee would know who the supervisor is whether the employee complained to this particular supervisor or that other person in for now and is which my colleague points to it was the reason they for pleading that might provide the plaintiff additional time to file or or dish will damage and in west point like to make just very quickly is that on the issue of anticipating affirmative defenses central imitations is unique in its own ways anticipated no lawyer worth their salt is going to sit on the claim is going to file a claim of where they know that the statue of limitations has run and indeed here the reason that willis is alleged because without that allegation se adopting the rule that you're urging that there's a category of cases may not be a large category but it may get larger this is who we are eight we're someone who is clearly timecard with regard to a i had no reason to think that this good is going to open any at all because as judge and explained as it's usually the case that there are also claims within the decided to meet that they received believe that they had sought and they decided to leave they received many warnings and they decided to leave the union grievance was rejected and the six circuit looked at all those facts and said looking at those facts
three exceptions say what they mean those letters and there is a recent supreme court decision that just came down dealing with child or and the mother issue garnishment against the father's employer mean your argument is different than judge a kerry supporter correct there is in the read of it i mean my read it was i'm sorry to interrupt but if you agree with judge geary that you have to be the
probably in a long time what prevented us from just you know instead of moving them into sixty three getting rid of them he had control over them and he could have done that had he chose to the  contradicted by the fourth amendment how do you respond that i disagree with that there's no first of all a new movie pointed out that we're looking at the facts that the police demand the time of the search and at the time of the search it that is not the case you know at the time of the search because we only have one box with even his name on it where he said he had four or five that he had done there seems to be a disagreement between the defense counsel and you about when they get to the storage locker and he is now identifying this is stuff this is done stuff is that in the mission i think it is mr fossett was my case to you except that that's their stuff i don't this understood his position you're saying what is in the mind of the officer at the time is what controls that is what the case law says is that we're looking at what the police know as to the isn't it ambiguous situation to ask more questions so again we're looking at what they know and what is particularly with the flutie of the are they don't have any you to ask more questions with  mbox again they don't have to ask you know if they find it in big us to ask more questions because less said that he believed that he took that box out it's only in the i mean on the video again if there was ever any expectation of privacy he obviously didn't believe that there was an expectation of privacy and he would have conveyed that to the officers never doing anything you know the box i believe wins as you noticed they lived first in st charles and then in austin and then in the brief stay in the geneva hotel the house in warren below and then finally did with the girlfriend if he had ever going back to that storage space no i believe he testifies between like ninety three and ninety five he was never at the storage area  that's a disagreement or discrepancy in ads and less is testimony less says he rated the storage units as testimony in that he paid the rent on those and certainly you know after storage unit is proceeds from the burglary and possibly from homicide victims so last believes that he could face criminal charges for this for what he's allowed to be that gun and take it out because he knew that she had young children so to the other gun which was at its house but not apparently discovered as he had it with him he moved in with his mother
called evidence right yes indeed the birth of the roof with these he says are the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt her to be credible now we're supposed to follow the standard they had we defer to the judge is a determination of credibility so the state's case has the
moving forward mr know that that's a limiting factor the the point is this is that there has been no evidence and that the record is or anything to indicate that there was a reason for there to be a full a war weary of all the medical cause and trial i mean if those weren't related to injuries caused by the accident why would he get past medical do we have to assume something and the assumption is they didn't believe the doctor's report of his the court looks for an object of interest you'll have you see cases like a breeze to the chest we don't have a broken nose we don't have here would that and juries be the damage resulting from incurring these medical expenses for months and months and months and so i show up and see if it might he did it he has signed the next day after the deposition yeah you can do that but complain of lost wages i sent a subpoena to his wife's company icons that they wrote back and it's in their evidence there's no evidence of lost wages look when they overturn in regards to the issues abuse of discretion the courts look to see what the objective findings related to the injury not subjective complaints that's what that's what they're trying to get away from because there's a reason the jury did what they did argue that he should get nothing because he was untruthful and you know or you that i thought that was the case the i think the jury thought that was the case but i think they wanted the doctors to
hey they're all welcome to the april meeting of the richmond development review board we barely have a morrow and we have three hearings and on two of  recuse myself so we won't have a quorum for those two hearings what i'd like to propose to do for those two hearings heidi and peter give notice of now it won't give the fourteen days notice that's required so what i would propose is that we continue everything to the last wednesday in the month and i really apologize to the u thinking you can visit turn around in the end of the road it's about three hundred feet plus or minus you know north of the  make sure that she's comfortable with that procedure  of that larger parcel and don't want that to be that boundary just one parcel to be part of your subdivided the vision parcel that's something that you could get together  because you're probably going to merge that and it's what we would have called in the old days of the for a lot like the road open and i don't want to open either so this right there will probably show my neighbors that you know i'm not going along the county right away to to  room now covered were good so your next step will be to go to the second round of hearings and get your application together for that and i think our ordinance is pretty clear what you need the map to look like and you c encountered a quest for a subdivision and i can't unless it was one of the blue very far but i can remember some sure the town has some influence it's still a tough road so we're we're probably around thirty days but i don't know that we can go all the way to the thirtieth that would have been this probably this this hearing here well we could have a delivery of session so i think what would do is love to send out e mails to anna myself and mike and fred and see if there's a half hour we can get together sometime you may do that somewhere before april twenty fifth
asserting would in effect provide that the handle portion could be moved in any direction for anything anywhere sideways up down no direction no specific direction at doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable way to read this claim that would read the claim in such a broad way that it that it essentially reads out of the claim any but how would you pull along the endl actual stuff if the blade was not pulled along the actual the actual how would you pull it sideways which pulls the loose hair from my cat and i can say when i do not because i don't want to be used for the french but it was a loose hair but it doesn't pull out our cut any of the hair that's attached to the cat why don't i know fringe exactly person to do it and i'm describing i'll describe it as it looks a lot like just a regular old comb and it has a handle section which goes when the situation now you are rescued me from my infringement problem by saying that the the specification is has to inform the claim reading by limiting it to this what did you s exactly this axis again in the claim week sept your interpretation then what meaning is there to the words generally along the handle worst month after meeting it there in the clan and what own time out of this plan that would come out i think every single of the sixteen sixteen claims in the past suppose it would have been a little bit more clear if instead of saying an elongate changed the playing construction it would presumably i mean it seems to me your answer to judge harris's question probably should be we would love to have a claim construction sometimes what we get and you're exactly right i think you characterization we get everything in the preliminary injunction setting from the off the cuff starting almost a t r o type type of ruling all the way to what amounts
he the court we feel that question to the jury in fact when so willing to move for a directed verdict after the close of all of the evidence the court said well the jury will decide to do the question think it's just as it is that the stake here cost any of the individual in that case to the facility and therefore the facility even under its contract had to be closely supervised and training for seven monitor we you know the control over mr anderson's movements activities whereabouts on the premises that once he was in the public domain then it was the state's responsibility to loud and force them to track him and take out your honor that kept him from what's called the police department testified in that case and he was asked that when the police have done it say or ted called nine one one to report that mr anderson had highly prejudicial and it seemed to be entire trial from the very beginning that was basically the genesis of everything that followed honors i'd like to address the public policy issues regardless of the duty serious discourse must consider public policy before imposing a duty on sa declared suitable for released on parole the legislature could have decided that it would be better to keep convicted felons behind bars until they complete their sentences and then release them onto the jury instruction conference read say when it's asked for the non pattern instruction to was extremely sure was basically what i prefer to use standard instructions pattern instruction
goal of the surge was limited to those places where one could reasonably believe object of the search could be in this case the object search was the source of the over rock an i think maybe saying nothing might be the best tactical course and i hope that the final one figure out the even if he were successful i wouldn't have anything to do with the actual charges that were brought warrant to the extent it might be based upon information that was at least in part i think from the search of the strong i would be rounded invalid but that's not the case either is it i mean a search warrant african finds information that is they all had an invalid for whatever reason such as here let's assume there was an improper search would have to be evaluated based  you don't want to hear people stand up here and read things but i think this will shorten up proceedings the motion to suppress filed by mr callahan page eighty seven thirty eight nowhere for mr campbell respectfully request this court to suppress the seizure of pills located in the pill bottle pursuant to and that he cites the authority and says he reserves right to challenge the validity of the search or you go to see one ninety seven that's the last page of mr campbell's motion to reconsider for the reasons stated above mr campbell respectfully request court to suppress the pill bottles and then you go to the reply brief filed by defendant at page twelve even if you order of cannabis did justify the search of the trunk and pill bottle there was no absolutely no justification for the search of the pills themselves the defendant has never moved to suppress the evidence that formed the basis of these criminal charges at one point he said he might do that if he won the motion but he has never moved to suppress this actual evidence which is like six guns some cannabis and some cocaine and even if he were to do that he has an agenda find which of the three search warrants he may have challenge or may choose to challenge i find it kind of interesting that they keep saying there's no evidence for nor evidence in the record about the and they said there's no evidence of drug dealing well after mr callahan loses his motion he works out a deal with the prosecutor to plead out to certain cases and have a sensing hearing and part of the be suppressed at a minimum while they never did that or if they did they did it on the wrong evidence so i don't know why we're here but if the court disagrees with that i just said then we go back to whether or not this search was proper and there's i've cited cases that say when you smell the strong odor of marijuana you're one of the truck if you don't find it anywhere else
farm state farm regularly appears before court all over the state of illinois is regularly appearing before this particular court they don't last virtually morally upright inquiry of the court after hearing for the motion to bar that the reason that they couldn't precedent they are enough to let me ask the question of the day that this conflict occurred continue a case or does that have to be done by a trial court also must be done by trial court ok so they would have had to a state farm would have had to go try to get to the trial court before the arbitration hearing to ask for a continu but state farm made a calculated decision that they could proceed in good faith by asking questions by participating as best the caller they also thought they could tender their package which didn't work out but why why then would the attorney whether we need ask prompting or offered the adjuster had to be someplace else for another case at the last minute we found that out right and then it's different then apparently had to be someplace else yes you multiple jurisdictions that appear for state farm in cook county and in every jurisdiction they have multiple adjusters and more significantly whether they have a shortage of adjusters right now they had this particular hearing that was being came up to that figure we don't know the damages we don't know the estimate we don't know what the damages are we don't know where you know it's just a vehicle we don't know what the medical bills for we don't know any of that all we know is that they're alleging that out of  there is nothing from the complaint that would determine for oz what exactly played a test to proceed with that trial further it is places the burden to prove what it is that there are alleging against the defendant it's not speculate or second guess what it is that they're going to prove how to prove it or court order to prevail the fact that they couldn't do that because they weren't there and they had no excuse for not being there they didn't have to the special representative was appointed pursuant to indicated your time is up you will have an opportunity to reply i think need are available including especially at two thirty seven witness and that apparently didn't happen nor was there any reason on the day of the arbitration why that two thirty seven leave this was a present once the interest just an interest we don't have to do if there's any money out there any money to gain and our two dollars two hundred fifty dollars she's interested or do we have to consider interested in the sense of whether it's testimony of the witness does not show direct certain immediately be q e interest the witnesses interest if any goes merely to his or her credibility and not to his competency t to correct and incorrect ruling was the trial court ever given an opportunity by way of a motion to reconsider or anything in the post room motion to correct what you believe to be that you were in the motion to the bar