MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
client because it sped out of business for sixteen years because the client is nonexistent does not exist ok now is it your contention that this re really do away with survival of a remedy after dissolution in the business corporation act in other words if it's three years if the corporation is dissolved it doesn't exist so you can't service  because it my point is that every time a corporation is dissolved but isn't there no one to serve if there is there's a  ok thank you very much to do it that's what the statute says church and the rest then you can get a revival got that right here here's what it says so when i read all this weeding the term lack of personal jurisdiction i took it to mean that the judgement was dormant in was never
of any discovery in the case i'd like to say grievously that that no that's right you know if agreements like the one in this case are even worse than cash payments because they're actually to market allocation agreement linked together there's an agreement for the generic not to compete with the brand and then there's an agreement by the grey and not to compete during the generic period exclusivity period and that those two linked agreements together are worse than cash was the owner of the patents in question even license to have a to be exclusive for the six month just later it for friday this court said that scrutiny is warranted with those kinds of rice and says where quote the source of the benefit to the settling generic is something costly to the pam her you have to give up is not sacrificing a significant value then there's no basis for that inference to key facts in in an make the decision that i think are critical here in what they were talking about not a given that a branded company will introduce an authorized share it's it's a business decision that has to be made you have a branded product that will continue to be sold if you put a second generic in the marketplace and for some of your own plainest don't make any allegation that would say that the royalties being collected by dwyer were somehow are not sufficient to make it heard versus what it would i'm not saying whenever they do that because they do that in plenty of situations beyond were talking about you which is the miracle situation where you have a consensus order that prevents an agreement from becoming this agreement would not  as they say a rubber stamp because of what judge martini did before he made that decision i'll leave that aside and if i may move on to the i think you your honor judge smith i'd like to start with the very first question you asked do there's also a royalty stream and so here is a rational basis now for a company to choose not to go into the generic market particularly a company like wyatt where there is no allegation that they had ever that might be a perfectly rational choice now it may or may not have a value that is more than minimal value but with out addressing as they said when they said we will plead we will prove without even acknowledging anywhere in these very small premium it's different than if an eighty year old tries to buy term life insurance the question here is was the deal with a cheap pledge actually doing anything can be competitive here or is it reasonably been disclosed at the time the complaint was no in fact the  we will prove that there will be payments amounting to a kickback for a nasty one for payment and then on october twenty third six weeks after that statement six weeks and a day after they had all of the terms of the
inadmissible now unfortunately the trial court subsequently ruled that mr cook's attorney here opened the door to up to this evidence by asking the the state's  priority than not mentioning it i mean after after all knowing that his own client's use in the car i mean as well i don't think he said it in the bus from the hearing that he believed that that would happen now he said that he didn't think that
screen you can see be there in the picture a little to the your left and a lot of those guys unfortunately they've moved on and gotten older this picture ballpark is about ten years old but we've been around for about thirty eight years  wanted to show you some of the stuff because people sometimes they call and they this is for the fisher cats this is from johnny pesky he was kind enough to autograph it and sent it to me  i was at the dinner of the granite state dinner they had that dinner once a year and you're welcome to go this year it's november twenty third two thousand and three it's at the expo center in manchester and this is the flip side and i'm good friends with the fisher cats so they were kind enough to send me some stuff and then a baseball fan the other day set me this nice ted williams it's made out of and so i went with him to milwaukee and then we moved from milwaukee braves we moved to the to the atlanta braves been a big kid in atlanta braves and john went to the commissioner nineteen ninety eight i mean i'm sure nineteen sixty eight john called me and said look i'm going to be president of the micro exports i want you to come be shouted direct and player development director there and that's when my career six or seven players from each major league club which mange thirty times seven is two hundred ten players they divide those players into teams and they have six teams generally even if they call it the arizona fall in and  is because when you're standing with the bat and somebody just want to run five miles an hour at your going or ninety five nobody can help you get the ball but yourself so it's a skill individual it comes up you look third basem thing you have to be skill you can't be just somebody standing up there and then but then the last four it's really our team fundamentally like  i didn't have the runways like you know you open up the door and if you want to get into a nice comfortable long place where you walk into the airport you had to go down and walk on the ground while they open the your field and he started using a little bit here a little bit there and he had interruption don't get sent back to the minor league at all and then came up with the match and that's what he professed to did and of course we showed him two or three year contract for frank forty five fifty million dollars well and he's a guy that every five days he's going to take them out he's that kind of person he going to be there for you know he's going to minutes left so anything you want to tell us about yourself maybe you write a book or is there a new thing that this when people know you're for real there's a lot of people they just don't listen to a lot so go ahead major league baseball put it out in short for gibson is a good friend of mine and of course we just celebrated yesterday you know we celebrated that twenty fifth year when gibson hit the home run for the dodgers and i was with dodgers i just got it open and i shot i thought it did really pitch and i called the shot before the first game and told our players when we played in a world series you can one thank you for listening
more well thought out and we want to do something about retail right now we believe we ought to do something about retail stage this coming year we want to have the shield play it up what are we going to do with how are we going to do it was going to do wit at least one maybe two or three other people of that type and so we can control whether we have the expertise suite right here or whether we need to we do training to train the people right here to do a match making process not a deal making process the deal making process is between the buyers of the sellers and the brokers but the match making process we think we have a role to play in there in terms of is a big reader right move residential and then but there were some other businesses that were on the roll that should have been on the roll and they were able to get put on so they dollars actually ended up canceling each other out here where we were supposed to at actually you know the future i guess if you just put two thousand and eleven so we can compare see where your thoughts really great just yet it sometimes makes it easier i do it for my own and then when i go if you are presented to everyone on the on the big they just want to see that what are we doing this income through the korean market folks or or our wrists will use that to cancel out whatever oh festival income we would have our festival expects that we would have know if anybody has a place where you go to this discussion points i don't how much you know that we were trying to emulate the code in in the downtown legislation so involved but we do need some kind of motivation for them to do what they're doing which is a terrible but it's not the police were to go to a place where it's it's accepted  this is kind of his recommendation to us on what i am asking for is approval council for me to go before the civil service commission next week to ask them to  this additional language in which world in one respect take care of some housekeeping issues for the entire exam it is a state requirement we usually have our
vincent president events that has happened in our country with the ritual injustice that we have seen he has become clear that things should not be looked at in isolation brought into college  thank you thank you louis jervis decision and thank both counsel for their appearance today
august nineteenth two thousand and nine latter where he's writing wanting to know about his interest and they're basically saying you're not complaint is that it continuously makes reference to the fact that your client would ask the question and mr shields would say don't worry you're going to be on the them cases you should uphold the trial court's ruling that there is no specific performance on this or thank you very much
considering the governess and like most people prosecution please look at all the facts as i know you will if i could briefly and i admit it's going to be rather redundant with my brief talk to you about all the facts which counsel didn't you hear mr spencer left her house he returned with a codefendant and that is that they were going to get the marijuana however she didn't know that anybody had a two thousand dollars they were supposedly to have to buy two thousand dollars worth of marijuana they front door apparently to keep fingerprints away these people are looking into a criminal transaction it's going to reach down to their detriment in the future not merely a drug transaction where they hand human two thousand bucks he hands them  that's the act of somebody going to this house just to buy drugs if warfield's in on just making a drug purchase with the wife he need to move the point being they want to quickly get through that door radhika indeed much that prior drug transaction gone bad so these pushers of forces moved it there's the thing about break yourself they went there to get money the defendant told the detective there was a prior mix up regarding the money and with  to the jury no rational person i submit would buy them the most logical way for us from all this evidence they were going to rob the victim they parked around the corner from the victim's house they're going to leave for a drug fr injection is quiet why not park right in front or defending and say why are you around or what's the point to give them just a little bit more surprise the defense expecting the victim one of their theory might be expecting them to show up for a drug for his action that they're not showing up  they want to come around the corner and that together with the way they burst of the door see for yourself show people the floor is all further evidence if you will of the offended it came to explain a scene the victim's paranoid didn't white people parking in front of his alibi he's a clear untruthful person whole point is this was a ruse to get to the victim the defendant was there as a mediator is going not through the presence of the gun is not everything in the case but it certainly helps our proof and again the coliseum or the gun was just part of the transaction and it made more likely to be a transaction involving a robbery  admissions but here we had all these facts involving were pointing to a very of armed robbery mark my point is i'm not saying my cases are absolutely the same as this look at the language in the case was were getting money from the victim by utilizing this firearm and threatening we're going to attempt to ro of the they want to get drugs or to settle over that agreements from the prior receiving but the evidence is clear that for whatever reason they intended to rob this victim and all the victim may have anticipated just adored transaction became out to be much that this was an act part of it or anything else there was no objection the gave the defendant admitted to detective mcdaniel that they went there to get the victim's money and then with all the other facts easily me
continued presumably to receive the payment due under that underlying credit agreement and for that reason we stay there was no work baron be there will argue that the ban rebuild the business and three months later takes the proceeds of the fire agreement of the fire insurance and appl loan so they could just elect to do however they want they still power both times within the commercial security agreement in the mortgage and because the election is based on and conditioned on the terms of the commercial security agreement and the mortgage
to challenge legitimacy of the sentence should by rights have told the distribution of the funds in no not at all because we're talking about the issue of finale and what point were with practical difference on your sovereign immunity i'm actually saying that if the money were deposited here and can practically speaking about it and money can never be disbursed restitution basics lateral attack then then we would have to return and then some of these other cases like tele maybe either not easy to reconcile boilerplate we've seen it before i've seen it for ten years now and you can't you can't tell a tall tale once the materials that you've represented consistently don't don't exist have
concerning the validity of the jury's determination that he was one of those armed robbers and that's what i intend to discuss here this afternoon the first issue mr driver alleges that his and gloria driver counteracted him or he contacted her after the trial and she admitted to him that she'd been paid one hundred dollars by the state to testify and met trash she had not actually seen him at the convenience store moments before been seen him hours before the noses an obviously their skin color and so i had very limited opportunity to serve the face of the perpetrators and victims also testified that since one of the brothers was holding a gun it's quite frightened which would have was a thirteen or fourteen year old young man in the house who was five feet eight inches tall so in reality the one just two people who might have been identified as the dogs there were three so the evidence that mr gregory was one of these going to touch on surely as very very very weak d n a evidence to burnish group of people and that doesn't even take into account the notion that the d n a may have been placed on a hoodie or on a sheet at some other armed robbery because the at finding effect was an element of the
briefs but i'm willing to talk about any of those issues but like you are three so it's rather points out there is a second statement here dead under oath as to state that if you're on this if the state deliberately or the police deliberately circumvent  gone is this mr henderson mine later he's asked where to get it but is there a change in the location of the question here and that would go to the purrfect your honor which is timing setting and completeness of the first and second so there is a change of location here the second statement person station the timing it's only two hours perhaps one half hours later in the well as that was considered to post time  completely new interrogation when they haven't told you it is and when you're simply reiterating it's somewhat expanding on what you already told you're already in the you're already in the seat and i want to also write recall gets to listen this is the this is the choice of this or the effectiveness of the question first ran the second procedure there was the answer that's why that spoke the whole point of the procedure
whole thing there were several whole list of attorneys during that time before the fifth in line there were times i wish i was present during the underlying going to during all this time but the reality is that  provided that way
mention that there are a subsidiary in affiliated business or success to kno him go from albert einstein don't worry he defined the term insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result now that's probably as thing over and over again and expecting a different result and in the context of this particular case when i refer to the phrase doing something over and over again what
year this entire matter there is appropriate that it was initiated in june of next two thousand and six with the mission of the one thousand nine hundred three american will probably sometime in july of two paper they seem to suggest in the earth in their arguments that you can you can go in warner copies of the transcript certified copies of the transcript of the oral publication of his will but but even if the thing is even if you if you recognize that what makes it effective over here is the publication of the well by reading it aloud that doesn't change the fact that there is a written well there but in this case we were starting the situation or brought it under seven desk to be in the trial horse ruling specifically explicitly recites its rulings under seven s three
nine hundred sixty one dollars and the federal stimulus check and the amount of twelve hundred dollars down at this quarter should be noted that we take the position that the life insurance policy had no real value the only provide her health insurance so long as it's available for the thirty six months under the us postal service not the reason we redid that he's to provide the as warm as it's available spouse may qualify for temporary continuation of coverage structure thirty six months if you don't read that is saying that former spouses get thirty six months are up to thirty six months is should keep the plans health insurance through the u s postal service you're saying that this shit is a sha question when you're talking about asking us to find a piece of discretion because if it's a limited thirty six month period or if it is for the remainder of her mind i think that the evidence that poses  good morning  third issue as far as the division of properties of the merrill residence there was an appraisal for about seventy seven thousand hours or believe there was testimony from my client corroborated by mr camp that there was not ten thousand dollars worth of room for periods and other maidens necessary or decreasing the value of their assets if you decrease the value of that asset and have the savings byron's family life insurance policy
describes or explains and event or condition of which the witness has personal now and a qualified under the personal now if standard the way this is who will give the statement must have observed the events which are the to the business in which he said it had something to do with the gas lines i know i'm being inferred it had something to do with gas lines that's his statement nicholas martin had no personal knowledge of anyone doing anything in any case fine if he didn't subject of that statement the same goes for the statement of the fact that he was asked something about the tenants and nicholas says father said i can get rid of them to this is not something that nicholas martin him any person out of this is because martin arrived to the scene later in the day and takes his father away this is after he alleged act of removing any and pass or screwball owl and this was something that happened prior to the most grimy case therefore since it was a state of mind exception it was an outside personal knowledge of the witness this is something that the witness said th air but it's never established anywhere in the record where the source of this admission is and the evidence even circumstantially i think paul short of showing that the defendant did anything what happened was you have a command of  smell of the natural gas he goes back down shuts out the other me so now hold me to the building are shut off yet oh and then he leaves he's going to hurt at least half an hour as long as two hours which was my point  arrived on the scene a little bit later on there's still a snarl of natural gas coming from somewhere but it's never stainless where comes from the printer cable shows the fire department tech and douglas are no tools found on the promise this or me or mr martin at all and the judge i think didn't take into account that tools actually were used in order to screw these  statement would be i think it would be when it was asked if your father did anything specific to that to the business when he said it had something to do with the gas i don't think i heard it did something to do with the ga transcript of what the prosecutor was saying to the judge before he ruled whether certain portions of the videotape would come in persecutors i do so i do believe that all of it i do believe it's impeachment i do believe it's position down below me and was allowed to come in the under an approved exception maybe not substantive but another exception or even if it was presented to the trial to it and there is no exception out there th