MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
no sufficiency of the evidence here it's purely a legal argument and interpretation of the going strong that the transparency of the property there fred the issue remains  property yes joint tenants between them so which your position to draw petro tenancy relationship between the two of them and as was the best advice to not have a joint tenants relationship with them at the stating that it was status to get i'm sorry that i merely has to get fifty percent i'm sorry one hundred and eighty thousand dollars for seven property and the remainder is to go to her daughter and son in law which again suggests that they have property provision really a person cases states that her to adopt the position of the state have to input language and punctuation into the closet issue with all due respect in order to adopt chase more attentive for more liberal interpretation of every one of the four unities it was only intended to address instances at the time of the transaction and straw man arguments so  people one his fifty percent in the other four will cut out the fifty percent you cannot get every joint tenants correct if one person is given a percent that would make equal per equal percent embrace the notion of the mob evolving as you as you mention and i embrace public policy also that favors the general interest of society its role and the public policy i wouldn't raise here is that when parties come to an agreement they have to understand what the terms are using mean they have to have it has to have meaning we can't have a clearance just arbitrarily redefin then everything goes to the two people remain and then when one of them were one of them die everything will go to the one person it's there so the transfer of the interest is extremely clear  trade arguing the alternative and it backfired but my position is that is a big deal with it because it all just applying logic you could not apply in a straightforward way  straightforward fashion the way the chase wants to apply it because it doesn't offer all three parties to have joint interests because of the specific language giving one party fifty percent which by definition precludes the option it's just a it seems like that's what you're saying to me i could be misinterpreting what you're saying great a bit i was distressing the notion that a married couple could be share an interest with what the clerk's office told me so i did attempt to approach the supplemental record and it was my understanding all along that it had been operated i was told by the clerk's office over  after about a month later after the illusional truss and it says upon sever property under ninety thousand dollars to go to me and then what's left over is to go to
her stock was worthless and therefore the transaction could not have been a breach of duty because she could not have been injured in any way shape or form known actually in the truck or in finding that there was no evidence to show to show any of the
eighteen have some problems and don't have are as i'm sure in all those things that the courts talk about in miller and graham invoker but there is an awareness of how well this guy is i was just this is a bad seed and that this is really done this with a point where even if the judge had expressed those things you would get in the same same sentence but there's no requirement that might be a case which the imposition of an eighty year sentence out of somebody committed murder would be untrust you feel for seventeen years old statements about graham and all those supreme court cases up to those youth i think it still comes back that this was a discretionary decision based upon that it was really consider that as far as the other les mis describing of the evidence it was really a bad analogy on his part about helping the character in the dark versus photography and
that you are disputing and if they were true i would have to say that the circuit court judge was probably out of their mind to the time of the decree and i don't believe that's the case so i  it right and i really she said i believe that she said my claim is going to receive nine hundred thousand dollars upon the sale and she said well she raised disposing of the mark that's correct that's that's because mike but that's because that's how they said they had done it since the beginning of this marriage my client stated don't raise the children gave up his professional career to any opportunity he might have had  certainly based on this conversation in a bad years earlier and i'm sure if you asked my client when he was getting the first if if you're asking the same thing can you take the money and give it to the children i will be not just his entire future conversation about could happen because here is the facts implicates is that my client received this stock in the form of a sack option when it was a privately held corporation and she got there was this part of the compensation she had at the time of the first yes that's when she transferred the money to my client never agreed that she could give a rate of the money to the children and that she's effectively done is there i say they're going to be allocated a fifty percent responsibility for it which is not something that would
them was the mother however they and daughter i guess that sort of work the next day and then the court if the court determined that they will that that was irrelevant as i recall so rarely and did not make its determination based on whether or not the light was working as the way kind of came down to absolutely or impact the other report on the court's r right yes i'm going in you say that's an error i'm trying to figure out why you think that's fair because the court said that it didn't matter whether the light was on or off as long as the plate was otherwise legi almost a presumption that you can't see it like since playing for fifty feet if there's absolutely no light blue navy at night and that if there is a light illuminating it has to be of such power and tail lights i don't think i think the courts found that there was no way that he could tell that there was an illumination for the brother and so i thought that he only made it an there's no way for him to know because it was i grew up with that but what i would say this is that apparently and i want to understand that this is probably not the first time this happened that he makes a determination as he's driving by
section the ways it's pretty pretty much identical pretty much describing what flanagan i believe so i believe on thank you for giving me some time to address where it goes and counsel said reacting serious both on the statutory construction and on the argument relating to the fees the trial in front of me well i'm looking at the billing records i have to look at bills that were entered for stuff that had to deal with the discovery problems they're having in front of chitral and i went back and checked the
that the attorney general had again common law powers because described by law common law powers there is no basis in the confessional rational record in terms of the report or otherwise to suggest that i was adopted as the model obviously if there was a case where the governor attempted to interfere with a prosecution by the attorney general's office of the criminal matter that would be brought to the courts and i think it would not be surprising if the courts would say that the attorney general would have the right in a criminal
regard to not allowing counsel in the criminal proceeding i've been a member in good standing of various bars for forty years and privacy for forty years i've never been suspended for a day the days upon chapel cation lessness pending disciplinary proceeding i'm not sure i read the record in her decision that way particularly once i understand from him given her submission in response to the  r asking for a brief and there are a lot of things in her background that clearly troubled her and if it appears to me that what she was saying was in light of all of this i do not want to go forward with a profound reach a grand i will however do so if the discipline is proceeding in d c can be completed that's different from saying that the only grounds on which i am denying the whole broad reach is dependency the disciplinary proceedings how would you respond well let me let me done anything wrong and in this country we are innocent until proven guilty that the u s government ever a reason to believe that mr klayman this statement to us today that he would abide by the orders of the district court that well but mr klayman now's your chance and i'd like to begin with a question for you than just lecture you answered judge schools question as to whether or not you were prepared to abide by all the rulings  standing orders and so on from the district court of this case and you responded to them would i'm reading from the district judges response to the mandamus petition in which she references an order from the district co
continue to render somebody else the only circumstances when that benefit inter they were trying with each they were trying to do what they could with the experience and not mean violation of the law rules or they were looking to get back in a classroom they're looking to say hey you know what what can we do  call then it makes sense benefits for a year and either because of some change or an opportunity presented itself you could have gone back to work for a public school limited
alignment rocks in position so that two bushings can be separately position any longer independent of one another during the manufacturing process so that your first between absolute the engineers discover that there was a problem with the flash they molded there was access rubber and it had to be cleaned every time they molded mousy and so the stems or goes over  records point the only reason for the greater specificity in claiming six must've been to require a more specific structure in the in the neck and therefore light socket
i worry about that everything will be all right  i'll tell you what i want you to do take the gun and water five thousand dollars for his capture dead or alive what do you do i look at the money these numbers check all right but you never told us where you got the money i got it from the boy the storm they asked me to get rid of it for going you know what these mounted on my very best friend that you can direct them and
he even marcus subjected to credit checks at the time of higher seer here following the neiman marcus based on the trial court's interpretation of the word access but no class appears in the class or the proceedings took place we did not get that far that's correct your honor we're here based on about i think that's absolutely correct and in this case i think the record shows that they have chosen to limit the information to a power two percent of the employees and we got that by i believe the numbers were three hundred out of the fifteen thousand if we were to say we should have some type of rule i guess our suggestion would be look does the job involve access to restricted records in the sense that this is something in the employer's hands if there is taken so you know it's it's one of these situations where the legislature has you know the public policy in mind of making sure trying to ensure that people who suffer bad credit rating because of the the practical effect of all this is one that everybody who plays for a job a retail store can be knighted jab simply because they have a credit rating and who gets the how long th  it is in some cases maybe not in others to the extent that's relevant we thought should point that our letters other questions and some we believe that we have a situation here where the exemptions are strongly the rule are defeating the purpose we would
very somewhere on reno rez ranch don't need them calm down a little i told you wouldn't start on this job the last we came back after all this might be our last vacation anyway for the three of us together unless we get back on our vacation i think not mosey on i'll be out in a couple of minutes by your next alibi about a little smart and fancy rope with i don't see why i can't just sit and read all you want to get out of the yes sure do i'm sorry i learned in the first place the border on my way to coney you better not try to throw up a lot of naira from the time well there's nothing down here what you find planning i've got a big surprise for you the big surprise what is it now before i tell you you've got a lot of explaining to do explain to me you tell me before we started on this and they used to tell me that i was pretty good yes please do well i'm not guilty let the court decide that i get away go right along hank maybe i can be of some help and what he or me do you get together a posse and right down to the triangle w when you get to the house don't come in just around the place because i think that way we can get those embry's a taste of their own medicine find let's get going they don't make organs out of you and i think you've got now to find the right combination what are you doing out here so you mean to say you ran away and left when your heart will pardon me when you know that that was just a good guy i don't like to say goodbye was so many people you know what i mean
properly supported by illinois coming up by common law governing escrow agreements by the escrow agreement that existed in this case it's not supported by agency summary judgment motion must be brought in order to preserve that issue for appeal on sale we faithfully presented all the arguments we have heard particularly the duty argument to the trial court it was for determining the percentage completed look at the quality of liberal materials etc this is not best for this court because the trial court held there's no such duty for the school  escrow wager is supposed to make phone calls second guess what the owners found second guess what your text now and second guess what the contractors are after doing how does it fall into the duty of title company acting impropriety in connection with the escrow by many facts it's the same things you are with at least five different types of red flags there for a long period of time and yet she's expert agreed that given the  someone talking about a problem projects and it doesn't cost much in terms of time anything in terms of money to pick up the telephone and make a few phone calls to ask questions and try to find the agreement specifically sa believe what the owner is telling them has been done i mean here you're trying to create a whole new agreement here that's completely contrary to what the actual agreement says and whether it's manifest inspector signed ten times five times from the verdict because jerry lewis never posed to this man and you're trying to get it from a person who has a contractual duty to do know that you're suggesting here is the duty as the way but he also said she i'd seen had too many files thank you thank you think  everything was in order
this retires entire argument derives from the exclusive remedy set forth in section five that we don't i mean there are some things we agree on some things we don't that's what his argument is he's here a motion for s continues there's no question i don't think mr hutaree is arguing that the energy here monsanto was the insurer of her service organizations who were taking those off the table so as a matter of law and order for him to prevail monsanto has to personal knowledge if you can ask the pieces a lot of that may not change anything related to the court's analysis about substantively that was in fact the position are you by the whoever it was the carefully at exactly what the allegations raised are here there are allegations related to things that con ed purportedly could have done to its californians the problem in this case is that whatever was going on with comment powerlines whether they had fused protectors or such protectors or not that is not alternately what the problem in this case was the problem which is discussed by mr forrest and  coded by any statute by any regulation even allowing for that there is nothing in this affidavit that states that making that change would have in any way change the fundamental problem here if you look at i wrote the you know all of the question from the bench was you know where is that in these cases and mr garcia's is not there the very beginning of my over the supreme court's decisions that is unexpressed terms of the worker's compensation act grief and i and i agree and embraced accordingly the action poses a liability without fall upon the employer and in return prohibits common lawsuits by employees against the employer it definitely does not say that i mean that we can agree upon the plain language does not say that and in this particular case if you want if you and i forget which i'm sorry as your great question about months and months into position here look let's speak about whether or professor patents conservation does he in any way dress commonwealth it is an issue that there may have been a grounding problem but it wasn't an error material or our piece and so it wouldn't make any difference even if it hadn't been needed it would have been a challenge because commonwealth this and didn't have a surge protector that's a pretty that's a pretty significant conclusion to take out of that if we don't have
i'm with significant
reasonable doubt is what each of you individually and collectively as twelve of you believe is beyond reasonable doubt the first is to develop work has already decided the issue had been of this court today in this case the judge's comment that the jury was individually and collectively determine what reasonable doubt meant drove the confusion beyond that term and encourage jurors formulate twelve distinct subjective of the plain error doctrine but the discussion of whether this was a fundamental error was very short because it is very clear it is  continue to consider this was just a judge's statement to the prospect of jurors not in response to your request what the judge said was very fair there is zero evidence in the record of any kind of confusion and your honors we have jury trials where big believer in a jury system a jury almost by definition must not be so delicate an instrument of justice as to be harmed by something as innocuous as what the judge said here and the prosecutor referred to the closing har prosecutor going out of the way to be fair is it a reasonable doubt is what i tell you it is reasonable doubt is what the process what the defense tells you is reasonable doubt is what you people decide and that in essence is correct justice carter referred to the u s supreme court victory or versus the rescue case and that case said the u s constitution either prohibits the definition of reasonable doubt or requires that there simply must be told as the jury was here all the appropriate reasonable doubt many reasonable doubt and then he added it's what each of you individually collectively as twelve of you believe is beyond a reasonable doubt and even the german case said you know perhaps the proper instruction in this state of govern the oil that as you point that is reasonable not any doubt so in essence as i point out you know a jury could maybe decide with no more definition of this state must prove guilty beyond any doubt there's every bit as much that is reasonable and does not mean beyond any doubt so turman would in essence allow the b jury be told something considerably more unfavorable to the van and was done here i e that it does not mean it you know that the whole point is this is a concept that every one of us in this country has been exposed to every day of our eyes and certainly people on the jury have seen television etc everybody knows about reasonable doubt the judge did nothing any reason so long as he's correct even if his reasoning was incorrect and he clearly was correct in not giving you know going to the second step more presenting the defendant with counsel to argue ineffectiveness of his prior counsel based on the  but we don't know that those were the witnesses that frank was talking about we know we don't know whether he spoke to kelly we don't know if they're so clearly if counsel so clearly have spoken these witnesses and they're probably not t
untimely and it was just dismissed as a type i would be with you in this case and he certainly couldn't ask consistent with the mandate by dishing further relief in the case after the court has instructed that the circuit court that it has no jurisdiction in this case only thing you know with their with their jurisdiction so  then the court can hear that in prohibited kind of game play in your pocket so that's how the rules work harder so it's just gross not come put any limits on the inherent authority entity indeed of a court both appellate answer to court to ensure that no point warners are on its docket so that's another important distinction is something that is encourages you to construe it i'm consistent with a special invitation and just as a policy matter you know there is no time limit if it is who is correct there is no time limit on when a party could come in and voluntarily  now gone through six years of litigation that was not our choice a forum where we consistently said we're in the wrong form or in the wrong form pay for that in the meantime these clowns are now you know they start in two thousand and three they're now fourteen fifteen years old and memories
know much of a chance to see how it was going on but more importantly his testimony was i was impeached on certain points i knew within he and his grand jury testimony i believe or previous hearing he had stated that he was the person or someone you know the opportunity to view is we look at things a little differently the weight of time you have to deal with someone you know versus someone if you're going to make out that this court should not be looking at any in cases  came up with this guy had any dynasty it's interesting that he could see the f b i s face when he couldn't really discuss anything else about him is bill plate what you know nothing like that and well did he say he couldn't or was he really ever asked that testified during the trial that he heard shots he ducked he turned to look away and he was actually going to run in the direction of the defendant the song standing there with the gun pointed at him and then he turned around and left and certainly be imprints of who this person is is in his mind he could readily identify him and recognize him as somebody who knew the testimony during trial yawners was defense counsel during trial on cross examination witness that the defense presents a young woman who like high school when these young people she says she knew both of them she wasn't really friendly with either of them but they all went to high school together and she testifies the person that did the shooting was definitely not the defendant and she described physical characteristics that she recall which seemed a bit this other kid was on the bus and later get by with the defendant's brother and then you have the defendant saying that a credibility question there's that independent witness who really wasn't impeached about you know it was really friendly with the defendant or now and there's no physical evidence and no st that he described was wearing something died and then you have a bandage enter the side but that's it right i mean that's that's the case and on the other side the defense is somebody who says i know this guy too and i saw the shooter and that shooter was not that guy that's contrary that's not closely