MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
are you saying in that can you where and if that's not true in other words if they were not prejudicial to the murdered house do you have anything l relating to what happened to the victim's testimony about how they suffered and so forth and you say i had no problem valiantly i mean essentially with respect to the nd degree murder  the what does that have a make really no difference in the sense that the prosecution was tied wasn't to show that your client had knowledge of the risk that he was distributed in certain circumstances that a jury couldn't for why would i think they weren't distributed to everyone because there were different marketing materials distributed different times with differences in the year representations made and we don't know when they were distributed for example is important to your argument this is this company some reference that they have over seven thousand different products for something like that and so noble and a small subset of those are important to kind of come pounding products are an issue in this case this is my understanding that there were many other products front about have to be produced in a sterile environment they were not subject to these u s standards that simply were creams and  most dangerous when injected into people's bodies meeting vs ok but when i asked you for evidence that the marketing materials made its way to customers you said the evidence shows that people went out and talked about compliance with the new recipe that sets up i think incumbent on you to define the scope of the laws in some less than obviously overbroad way because even if you don't have any arguments how cream can be part of it it seems arbitrary to say we should say that the universe of the kind of conduct is and what the number of the taxes to it is the number you chose is not attached to it because you chose a number that includes things that are not part of those drugs you know we're just we're not trying to include non s out and put it in her own name in another account just because she decided to do that would you then the arguing year that you could somehow reach it without any fear and you can further reach that inactivity i thought was the start of draws you were taking a somewhat narrow position which you were saying to the record conduct related to the sale of high risk so if that's the case how does that relate to the proceeds point so the inclusion of all the prejudice or in your view evidence of the s n p would create the potential that that would have led the jury to find fraud based on a u s b because of the influence of the
arise in circumstances of motion and i think that is true as we just heard of the last case not only in the high emotion of the litigants but sometimes in the way it comes across in court and the judges reaction to some of the hoffa was i would say pretty last basically we started out hearing about something that happened in march a couple of prior to your i object to that we went back and forth a little bit and just us and yes you're right we need to look at things that occurred after june twenty sixth after that there is no specific at this the only thing the falling out that you'll see in the transcript is what happened on father's day and there was a fairly general statements made by mr vos where there had been a lot of allegations and a lot of complaints she kept him and one of the specific provisions of justice or was that the kids were to participate in their regularly scheduled activities and the parents were to work around the regular schedule activities so when we put our on the case any on the stand testifying as to what the circumstance was showed calendars and calendars which were admitted as exhibits and part of the file documented that the visitation was taking an explanation of what did take place and with the exhibits that were admitted with the testimony that we presented we clearly show that there was no willful disobedience there was even a failure to abide by the terms of what ju out so on the first bar there is no evidence that will support a fine of ten period there's just no evidence the record the second mark goes back to what your prior case was all about and that is what  purpose of an indirect civil contempt around and as we all know purpose of that is to impose a sanction that will encourage slamming compel the parties do when they're supposed to do one of the sanctions that and i'm going to forget about the us for a second and just talk about sanctions what if she doesn't get she's going to be sentenced to an indeterminate term in the madison county jail absolutely those are the kinds of sanctions that you impose in indirect civil contempt here's what you're supposed to do if you do that you're ok if you don't do that we're going to encourage the other ones that she did still are clearly an abuse of discretion one   pose the same things but then it appeared that he thought he was i mean is it a mistake or says he well i thought it was a mistake because to impose the same cheat sheet i don't think evaluation the difficulty we have with councils response is contempt is not a broad brush with which we paint it's specific it's narrow and it's guy feeling why as the case law record there is no evidence that would support a finding down there it's a very brief record it's a very simple presentation by mr foster's to simply nothing there and on the sanction is clearly threat of jail they're not appropriate in direct civil and sanctions i'm afraid that this was a judge that got us out of the people and you know good judges make bad not not to say that there's
i'm really sorry about that r there's more than one way to make folks listen to reason they  security well she's got a pretty good range there you ought to have a problem getting the money that's what i think but wait a minute up what's the sense of phoning to send a barber a month why don't try to reason around here all right can't you've sold me i suppose you want to try to think the money's coming from you oh yes if you can fix it that way well that'll be three thousand dollars and there is a mortgage on the circle be made out in your name on the face of  i'm terribly sorry betty i have nothing to do with grabbing off the road please let me alone i'm going to grant you the junk and maybe i can raise enough on them
the honorable the united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court may give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court court is session today's cases will be called as previously announced and the times will be as a lot of the council the st case today is united states versus rolonda milan appeal number one hundred and eighty two thousand one hundred and seventy five united states  conspiracy the indictment charged four counts the st cow was the rico conspiracy the nd count was conspiracy to possess controlled substances and counts three dollars and four dollars are not relevant to my initially was to gain better living conditions west of tame better meal services better educational services better go patient services in essence to have better living conditions while the time was being served however the evidence at trial did present and the and that have been did on the edge that throughout the time this is the purpose of the organization more so for the younger generation that came in evolved with time and it became it had to face it one face was the one that fought for better living conditions and the other was the one that had to do with the contraband the drug distribution  murders for hire that were charged in count
i said i hope you have a good appetite i hope you don't get no trouble young man i'll try not to serve well you don't have to worry about these troopers when they lead the life of riley anybody could catch a creampuffs a sherlock holmes knows all of these are yeah well answer this one how many know thanks but i do yes yes well you be careful get into li jack there what's this go forty thousand dollars worth of go i thought you said you could take it i don't need your help i've been dragging my feet on and off this chair for thirty years if you're s alibis of anybody in this town they don't fool me but about which not any trace of him will find him when we do it would be the end of mr slaven and a lot of others how do you like your room nobody came in here i said nobody came in here all right all right thank cripple you're all right well i've got to getting a bit bored i guess i'll have to go here let me give you a hand saying you're forgetting your god thanks i happen to be here when they showed up so i thought i'd have a little talk with you you should know i don't do any business of the kind of guy never was much yes you know not sure no my feelings wait a minute you haven't done that over to the cops you mean the gold what do you think i am i know enough to watch them easy money and i mean without working for your kind of writing on your brother doing business with the guys who are blamed for is that i imagine i'm nobody my brother's dead and well i got a few plans of my own if i get you in really on a level what do you think ok let's go
well thank you and good evening welcome to pace and park we're that we're going to be with you for a while but still it's too dark to be able to play you may already know this but this somehow makes the twenty fifth anniversary of the patient park music festival this is actually been going on now for twenty five years yup it is an awesome contribution to the town and we're pleased to be a part of  make me mad
case number twelve three four nine one owner operator independent drivers association at all versus america bank argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side this break may proceed for the who was raised in in the context of the motion for summary judgment in two thousand on the district judge considered every one of those arguments and and after funds were transferred to komi are in breach of trust that miracle would be liable for the entire panelled of the trust armory and trust party having been determined in in the
the right right right people rover forty million americans cigarettes  you years of hard work
when he was pulled over on a suspicion of trespass first medical question is was this in fact a seizure and if it was second is was there a reasonable articulable suspicion that he actually committed a was actually further west of the property and he seemed to have passed the property and then got on the side of the property that's when they passed each other that's when the officers sawbuck get a dog box he directed the complaining to turn around this truck and that's when see here did was flash a flashlight at this truck and the truck stopped and the defendant got out there was no order to stop from from any law enforcement officer there was no shoulder authority here that would  any any testimony any any story that this defendant believed he was being ordered to stop by a police officer by the mere flashing a flashlight is is incredible because the fact is he pulled the car over immediately stepped out of the vehicle looking for somebody trespassing sufficient enough to further investigate what's happened here and for all these reasons i think these distress that an officer does not need all the elements of them i think in this case we can consider this subjective intent of the officer his testimony fully intended to pull over the vehicle and that provided some insight into what occurred when he was flashing his flashlight if i asked his flashlight in a way to effectually to stop that makes sense that for it to stop someone will keep their fourth amendment rights on suspicion that their community committing a crime yeah some evidence of the central element of that crime in this case that notice you can't be on someone's property so again for these reasons unless
a quorum being present the committee should come to order first we are joined by three survivors of the armenian  holocaust occurred
decided and why also this court would do no violence to waters or disregard the holding of borders if this were the firms the defendants natural license exists on the books still are the statute it just is not in force now and then also in the case it in two thousand and eight the illinois supreme court explained why or what the the originally in the just discretionary statute the only part that made it mandatory would apply to the mts and law enforcement and that was contained in
section three or five which sadly that seems to say the court can't give you any of the relief that you were looking for in the state court proceedings but it does have a close that says the cre be have an extra storage you didn't have before because  application of special and instead which are getting his hope that three years from now the plan will peaceably be able to put a new stream of income in place to live to be a larger screen can make up for the passage of time right w good morning good morning martin been st nothing that prevents h c a from transferring them to em back but we're talking about small dollars what they really want is for the commonwealth to restart appropriating money that it raises through these other taxes to h c a those they're now appropriated to they are paying for the teachers the firemen the policemen other things so nine twenty two doesn't help them not trying to only i borrow money from you i give you a mortgage on my home my uncle harry also promises you the hill send me a thousand dollars a month so i can make sure i make payments to you and then all of a sudden we start paying here that the mor i just don't know the reason for that it's probably because it's in some place and discussions and it's all part of one package but again it's a very small dollars morning is they want to force the commonwealth to take third those taxes it used to pay to eighty eight and to start doing it again so that there will be more than enough money to sustain the transportation system i am saying that as a fact that's not my legal argument my legal argument is the patent proposition seems to inform many believe are good must it's a fact but for thank you ron peter friedman on behalf of john and certain government dependence i wanted to start by talking about the money in the reserve account and it's very clear the money in the reserve account the reason it's not being paid out has nothing to do with the pay as well there is no transfer of ownership of these taxes there is no grant of a loon statutory or otherwise and that's that's the entireties from right there and i
the response was to cover several weeks later you know that that's a lawsuit i mean where you get an e mail or settle just you do the release and he says nothing he silence he says nothing  when you look at the evidence as a whole she left on the fifth day of the five day notice she had no cards to play we know she had major difficulties and she had no purpose of being ready or other than she could basically denied for purposes of the hearing but reserved attorney future trial but i still think you know it's it's it's not i've read we really will i think that it's i think that was an error frankly requests for information there were there were issues about pictures which is still disputed there's a dispute whether she was permitted to take the car tires things like my people so you know that's a picture you don't have to take it my understanding is releases procedural you have to have all of the material issues in whatever group you're trying to enforce here's an e mail no money discussion and all the e mails so based upon the briefs it seemed there were four issues that were being discussed one was possession one was money motor fuel sales bank services insufficient funds liquidation as their security liquor or the liquor life between the person and the state they would reach out they did e mail that says yeah i'm going to reduce the money so i think they're actually if you read it all together they're consistent with what books would say you know you mail from especially mail us at five thirty it says in all
the crime for which he was indicted tried jury instruction and conviction and that's the kind of user carrying a firearm during a crime of violence everyone agrees that there was a winner in this case because the judge applied a longer mandatory minimum instructed on all of the elements about complete crime using or carrying and therefore the jury with instructed properly and completely but the offense that was charged in the indictment and it was only at sentencing as a way pointed out that he improper mandatory minimum sentence and you're saying that that was brought up at least somewhat and but if it's not structural then you're saying bad it's not harmless errors and it's not really your argument because you really don't get the player since he objected to the fact that matter i think here it's sentencing rather than conviction i think it very much matters and the reason being that it's even more courageous in this case so in a typical constructive amendment case the jury has found all the elements of the commission element we're talking about a sentencing error and we look at whether the error which you can see was his sentencing was harmless how was it harmless when you're sentenced to mandatory minimum aspect and in fact part of the reasoning of the court as to why it didn't offend you know that the justice system under the fourth kong based upon the fact that there was no objection lodged at all this is had the chance to think about it and then the guy would have been convicted so you should sentence and that's that seems it's a very unusual position for a government that taken one that i've been puzzling over and trying to find some authority work in your point on the particular when shavers and white went back for the sentencing i think the government did not bring up brandishing is that correct correct and i do so well we hear a change in the sense that the judge still has the authority to district judge thinks that there's a fact it's being presented that would allow an enhanced sentence there will be government didn't it didn't listed in the indictment and didn't if the facts that come out during trial would support a different cry and then have been before the grand jury or the jury that a judge can impose sentence on a completely different crime up to several questions if i can unpack your honor the but the judge could impose a mandatory minimum on a drug offense without that ever having been tried before a grand jury were found by a jury how could that be your honor i am not arguing that there was no  always thousands of inmates some on the right side all right some of the wrong it's been an unfortunate thing to witness but the courts including this corey have been very strict about because there are rules of finale and retroactively there are many people still
raising the level of not guilty and of course
that it's can't track that would be error and should be reversed in the recently we say that is that there's a  did was order the steel it was the fabrication of bad the steel that caused the entire mess at o'hare field and and this judgement in my opinion is th title to recovery under the lean is the determination that made the trip if not substantially family here after that your material breach prevented a finding of began just the name of the area and you look at the
hundred dollars per month it's mr johnson's contention that the four heirs for several reasons first of all the court made the specific finding that the needs of the child heading rea the situation in that's one of the reasons specifically prayed for by miss johnson is that the amount of child support that was was ordered was three hundred dollars for a month the amount of child support that should have been order parents child support obligation was only about thirteen percent of his salary instead of which it should have been set at that particular case at twenty five percent of the person's salary so in that case as well the non for three hundred dollars a month beginning january fifteenth two thousand and eight that was and it was an order of court but it was done we ordered a court it was no findings over no and according to the statute because of a substantial change in certain well as we pointed out and point out in our brief the situation here has not changed anything has gone down from the standpoint of roger what he did have an increase in pay he had a thirty one dollar increase every two weeks which is fifteen dollars per week which is fairly costly that in that situation when this was going on that rhonda did everything that was i guess everyone expected her to do she remarried their family have remarried before the chain of custody took place took the child to a florida and began a lifestyle that was really different than the lifestyle we had what's illinois with the with a family was you went down there there was nothing that was not anticipated i think the important thing to do we point out in the briefing this is that there demands but they never proved any encrease in what i increase was needed and so when you put all of these things together then in order to give the matter before you are before the court view you plead what i consider to be a sh two years after mrs johnson in the child had relocated florida those needs and the needs of that child had increased in this particular case if in essence if the  forte is always modifiable the parents of the child cannot contract concerning jobs or they cannot contract away that particular support obligation because  child so child support is always modifiable regardless either one of two ways one is showing a substantial change in circumstances or two hundred eighty two a a five ten if there's
limited to judge her cheek to the meaning of action taken i think we have to see this in the broader context if you will of what congress intended with respect to iraq or in creating a new procedure   congress intended by actions taken to move why the definitions of aggravated felony to ongoing the two ongoing deportation proceedings and i think and and under those circumstances i think that no argument is being made or was made that the transitional rules of iraq ira should apply here and that's where i think the tron really really gets it is in strong support because congress taken in the new rule proceedings that were created by that were created by ira ira and that actions taken should not apply to deportation proceedings such as used to this could speak because of the you know whenever the last will cross occurred that really begs the question about whether that definition is going to be applied on going through force proceedings or whether it's going to be applied to those provisions of the family law which for a child custody based on adultery or make adultery is grounds that as a grounds for divorce and now i submit it is precisely the kind of a situation that to get to that that moore that we're presented with here to lend itself to the for classical biblical closing taken in which that definition is relevant under the act as jewish fish or addressed that would necessarily have to at least be an action taken by the term the general and here you have seven years of actions taken seven years hearing zero of two  decision by the immigration judge and final decision by the order that all our actions taken under the act so i would urge to the very least it would have to apply to the actions taken by the attorney general in this case to deny relief where the amended c so that's sort of an indication that the congress knew how to do that we didn't do that in this case and instead said from here on out apply this definition to actions taken and as i said we believe that those that would include actions taken by the by the