MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
prior to take that into consideration cracks so neither one of those it also does not apply to all offenses but only to certain particularly serious offenses and the court held in j s that this statute which creates a limited exception to juvenile court jurisdiction is rational and based on the the offender and the threat posed by the offense to the victim in the community because it is a violent nature and the frequency of commission court ruled that the statute is reasonably designed to remedy the evils which the legislature analysis used in reaching the kinds of statements that an it relies on the over a grand concerning juveniles as a class or sentencing simply do not come into play in applying the rational relationship test in a due process context the state would also point out that as we explained in our brief some of those statements were mischaracterizations and they certainly all were taken out of contacts for rober in juvenile manhunt the side of letters and grand again different characterization we have to remember what those cases actually did get hold and i will go through all of the reputations of defendants characterizations that i made my brief that's clearly stated there really that the first district said it in both shed jackson and soundless it's very clear that those those cases program that dealt with different constitutional provisions like different test it did look at juveniles characteristics the justifications for sentencing those have they do not come into play in this analysis and there's nothing out there  to look at these things in general sense well we can make all sorts of comments approaches noles as a class or the differences between if you look at certain ages the legislature in the statute said that well if you're fifteen or sixteen that's legislature made a determination the supreme court says that's rational and that's only part of the analysis from the state legislature does a rational i'm sorry everything the legislature does is rational i certainly would never say that  that no one would would agree with that prejudice because his claim was based on actual fitness findings not on support for it and that's the basic problem with his cousin prejudice because argument is that he relies on  stand and it's not it's not a stamp pushed anything that would constitute cause for failing to meet them most of those are pretty much the points that i wanted to make
was with a group of men without children and that he did not appear to know others at the football game now from that the police officers derive an inference that he was on a work crew and that and in doing so they found out that mr mansell geraldo was in the country illegally about a week later after his arrest they did what they called a routine search of his employment records and discovered that he had an illegal social security moggs over but it also found that the that they were justified not only constitutionally but also under section thirteen fifty you've got an argument there isn't covered as an argument there really is the government agrees that there has to be reasonable suspicion so i think it would really help me if you've addressed your argument to the factors that go that far as to the judge called us to know you're aware reasonable suspicion basically has to be based upon something other than a hunch it has to be based upon specific articula men that they didn't appear to have children that they weren't sharing enthusiastically for any other team that the police didn't happen to know them from around this community none of those factors point towards any sort of illegal activity have points towards the fact certainly that these men are spanish if they don't speak english and that they may not know people around the community and maybe that they're not enthusiastic football fans but that none of those factors point towards any sort of illegality and i don't think that the government necessarily said that expects that what they said is that they could derive an inference that these six men were on a work crew and from that they drove they large channelization that m were crews often have aliens in some time some of those aliens are illegal and that's what i understood the government's argument to be and what the district court scene provide and based upon nothing wrong well except except that the question doesn't detain him as well the but it but i think the question arises this what a reasonable person feel free to walk away under those circumstances and i don't think under these circumstances  in your honor that's a that's a very good point however that's not the only point the point is that these are all factors that are contained in the records and that are actually relied upon in terms of the judgment of the border patrol agent and moving forward towards th people in the vehicle that he asked a nationality response came from the others but not from him when he did ask him specifically about his nationality he said from mexico the next question time taken to interview these individuals or the events which transpired involving us to find it amounted to an arrest until the time of the defendant the knowledge that he was from mexico and had no papers speaking exclusively have is what happened there it occurred on as i recall a highway that was typically involved in illegal alien smuggling close to the america close to the mexican border now here we're back in a football game
across reference to section two forty five eighty five which is the restatement bar or other significant language barring adjustment to aliens who illegally reenter after you've been is picnic and in light of the numerous other limitations had on family unity and you know the provisions for suspension of deportation for the like back is basically of a form of family unity for people who are not unlawful status they have no other means  they may have allowed him to go to go forward with the application and and have actually told waiver have they not realized that a question on my hearing you say that reinstating the order is self as i understand that i'm sorry his arguments as i understand them in his brief are one that reinstatement doesn't apply because this is reinstatement of a deportation order and to that even if it does applies unconstitutional those are the primary issues in the case that that when you put your honor that involved the deportation that i know there's not an abundant amount analysis but there is some discussion and certainly citations ninety two i would also point the court to the fact that the relevant regulation in this with gabrielle which actually engages in any more lengthy discussion about this issue and several other circuits have held the same way and cited to it so i think i think that is foreclosed certainly there if not  happened any anything that he could have done you know his his his departure and his coming back in happened after the reinstatement statutes affect the day so i'm not sure that he gave up anything i mean you know think it wasn't the council who prepared his the christmas status application but i believe that's when he understood that he went to the interview believing that that was what would take place but his application wasn't even accepted because they
need two minutes of my time to do in this case at this point is what is the property proper remedy here if the district court improperly revoked a criminal defendant supervised release despite the fact that decided that of a future principle had held that the big picture principle does extend onto the criminal context and the only case that i'm aware of in the night circuit in the united states versus talking in markets which is quite different from the circumstances in this case and we usually go ahead and review it anyway because they receive their collateral consequences to a conviction but he could get up and say i will accept the collateral come consequences i don't care it's moot i'm arc lateral consequences under the guidelines which are no longer binding this could cause additional criminal history point on it so there is a real interest in that decision at least being vacated on in yeah but they all much time elapsed december of two thousand and three it was over four years that had a lot over four years now i seem to recall that or maybe it's  opportunity now air from some other state had simply imprisoned him because of a crime with the government and then be allowed to delay the execution of the war well i believe in united states versus between being in a federal prison on a different charge and being sent out of the country on a federal well removal of art indeed i don't think that there really would be a difference because at the time the person finish get into the second question was in federal custody in the central district was absolutely from you from october of two thousand and one to two thousand and three what would be how many international proceedings it's make sense really entered the country he didn't have notice that he was facing these additional penalties now the government at this point can test whether or not he was in fact deported however the council proffered below  the person into custody here we have one who was already in custody they knew exactly where he was that and they had the opportunity to arrest him they didn't do that instead they deported him one  probation officers report part of the record in the district  maybe let me ask you this will save me some time i go get the record if i have to will you can see that the work the application for the warrant was not under oath yes absolutely thank you
for thirty seven years i think he's qualified to give testimony regarding the standard of care and i think he would be the person who has some value of the court decide that it was necessary to have some evidence testimony as to whether  house that's what they claim they want that you know sound what they claim that they've asked mr peabody for because they did and councils argued over and over again that there was no discussion between the plaintiffs and jeff peabody about what they wanted with respect to the house so they were asked him for this and kept insurance but they got a policy actually or what exactly do they are or as far as the house they are asking for anything because they originally took out the policy with a different agent and and with that agent they had this policy and policy states in the house in very simple terms that the valves because the policy that was in force at the time of the cross was was a replacement policy that helped their original policy have been reviewed renewed a couple of times and the supreme court tell that you don't look at the most recent renewable see if you did that there'd never be a step in the occasions you look at the policy that they st got from which they could understand what the terms were of the insurance and in this case and with the course said about as you look at the plain language of the policy you don't need an expert about that the plain language in the policy here is that there was a limit of why ability  the amount stated in the declarations and that's what they had going all the way back and that's where the statute of limitations even now there's we would like to address the issue of good because councils argument if you create an issue of fact to avoid some of the judgment threw up your clues very affidavit from an expert you would simply be giving any party who could go out and find somebody to be an expert and give them is a question for the for the court and that's exactly what the court did in the process the court the court look at the language in the policy and said this is language that they read little person could understand  as to what the coverage was did not it was nappy considered to be a fact issue the fact was white is the language that was in the policy that's the fact and the exception in the crowd case that the court said this is going to be a very narrow exception given under the point this theory the exception he swallows up entire rule if it's simply that anytime plaintiff comes in says oh i i thank you thank you whether there was or was not coverage but determining the amount of coverage given the fact that they knew that the amount was based upon the cost to construct some twenty plus years earlier and it
understand she says as a member of the class that even promised me i'm an intended beneficiary i don't see why the rupee comes into it and she steps into their shoes for  has the ability to bring a claim under a contract that has any pretty too she has to stand in the position of the contracting party she is the if the correct agree is the intended beneficiary of that contract silly if there is intent to breach of contract the breach of contract can only exist if one of the parties fails to satisfy its obligations to be a party to the contract that's the fundamental problem here the question here but twenty ninth agreement is concerned that goes along what happened there's and again i think what we're saying is we're trying to see there's nothing in here the parts about
while the definition of the common sense meaning of forcible force is applied and in fact the statute that defines political winds of exactly what you would expect to find a first degree murder second degree murder aggravated battery very sexual assault arson kidnapping the jury can figure out well forcible felony or at least they can speculate wildly to the detriment of  on top of that defense counsel fail on numerous fronts to object to any things they said at all during closing argument or cross examination and to that end is it worth discussing three having  interrogation that occurred the day after the shooting didn't mention to police that bastien had virtually threatened to kill him had said run so i can shoot you had said i'm going to blow your brains out this is what he has tried to a trial sustained closing argument strategy of appealing to jurors of motions and the state displayed in the end that was outfitted with the leg and brain spattered uniform of the deceased officer for a long period of time during the trial whether to admit the the crime for those purposes the state predicted that it would be hard to divorce the reason for his prior custody from the fact of his prior custody and the past practice of it was something that that was highly the state my response is precisely just because he was likely to be in my view to be convicted of all her doesn't mean that there was no chance that he would not be convicted of any of the charges as  he testified in the context of his self pants like that he had a gun it's that he was on video shooting the officer he and he confessed to police that he did that  a bargain i would urge her to consider if you think the evidence is overwhelming consider that in light of defense counsel performance not just these large areas but generally and a good example of  as if to get away  can have it all i own simply just and when it comes to the motive and intent aspect of this can be from the states that we cannot separate this from the other aspects of his flight from the halfway house
i'm talking about from the time she signed it she was always associated with neighborhood women's health care and the forty nine p c correct your that and that restrictive covenant was in before and after these doctors scientists jointer these doctors and their staff these same doctors in these things they are providing the same service to the same patients at the same location in the same medical profession  women's health care p c to lose its relationship with its patients and its right to enforce its contract now the average as an alternative argument that if the if the core to find that privilege is somehow took over everything there is a secess did something important happen or not really do these two entities exist side by side what really happened then i think what we're talking about is something that we specially isn't right for summary judgment resolution right in the so i think what happened here with decision on the ninth compete agreement and there's a manifest weight of the evidence they had or that applies in the accounting portion of the case and the richer to share it to be claimed which went to trial i want to briefly trust the letter first and then  on to the computer current counsel if you would permit i have a question first do you agree with counsel that there were two agreements under which the doctors who were practicing medicine at the same time there was never a tyrant when we were practicing medicine simultaneously on behalf of the two distinct entities why did you feel p c still have the right however to enforce the restrictiveness covenant after interest which had existed for years beforehand stopped the mere fact that the corporation exists under the illinois secretary of state records doesn't mean that there continue to be a le would be speculation because there isn't anything in the record i can only state that troy there was no testimony put up by the plaintiffs filed any agreement about sixty both payment on what did he require a payout based on division of the assets as well his conduct was what his his route was we have a set amount of money that goes to the agreement this amount of money so look at the former contract was naperville p c there was you there was no oral testimony regarding this where did you get the idea that there should be a payout based on these assets as well that thirty thousand or so a so i think what we're talking about here is in my respects opinion or merging underscore that is a privilege and operating agreement doesn't have in chante of the legal effect one because it doesn't say anything about diminishing the rights of the finkelstein is not a lawyer and his testimony both in his declaration and also his deposition is just loaded with legal conclusions that respectfully dr finkelstein is not qualified to make also if what he was saying was true you see different
match that big exercise his right of st refusal is real and the purchase price jumps up to about three hundred and eighty three thousand dollars in the meantime my clients who are errors like a teacher or one of my clients actually cody hopkins ninety days to to match that did so i think there was plenty of time and you know with this matter and disputed obviously why not wait thirty days to do was fine to close the sale but that's neither here nor there perhaps based on polk county illinois or any portion thereof for the cruise value or for the purchase price offered by any bona fide rd party purchaser come whichever's greater period that's that's the bid and we asked the trial court and we're all asking this court you know if the court determines that mr brown should not have an additional ninety days to match it mr holland's bid we have no problem with the court order in the sale to go through my client for the amount he did we have no problems there are so i agree that it has to be a good thing if rd party purchaser but i also submit to the court that there's no evidence that my client's offers anything other than a good faith and rd party really is a whole other than the two attainable and and one of the cases i think that that helps a lot although admittedly there are cases that are all points the language is the perry versus the state of carpenter case which counsel pointed out involves the guardianship of a disabled disapprove a sale and ordering resale if that action will be in the best interest of the state question and with the poor didn't period because you had a situation where an attorney was going to purchase the works real estate satisfy the mortgage contingency provision and the bill which said no the poor can't afford that because the mortgage contingency provision is for the benefit of the bought in other words if the buyer can't get the financing they should be forced to go position i found it interesting that they they and maybe it's because the sale is closed that they've taken a position at this stage i don't have a citation for a this but i recall thinking you're reading me and secondary sources that's  state doesn't apply to this or he has a he has been favored by the testator's he's been given something of value and it's clear from the language  that he has the opportunity to avail himself of that benefit if he doesn't then the executor consultant can sell the public a private sale all of the the person representing in this case the guardian in perry had the obligation to get the best deal or best profit or best use of the property that was being sold for the benefit of the war that's not the case here because i knew it was going to enjoy the practice of wall when i saw what courts do when it comes to interpreting statutes contract wills in order to reach the right result and we're not asking the poor to strain here we're just asking for to
charge for a service that wasn't actually provided or history or otherwise had it an effect on the government's willingness to pay isn't that materiality test so so if it's not higher charge what  complaint allegations when you look at them and disregard either the proposed second in many complaints they submitted or the characterization of what their claim is in their briefs is very limited the green green the consult payments and that somehow that satisfies the element that is the person is referring recommending business that is nice companies pay their salesmen on to go in in the lobby doctors to make on to  content that's not what this court and said and in as they said in the book and calmest is going to be something much more concrete so many other circuits adopt reasonable ie standards and other things like that but there has to be something much more than
in a few page on to the end of the agreement and specifically exhibit b it's a specific restrictions and then on the next page part of the exhibit is the language could really applies only to the portion restriction following the word man appearing in the middle  property must be maintained for public of origination purposes use purposes only and there's nothing subsequent to that in that language that removed it or modifies it or allow it  clients client not be permitted to i put it together is to explain a couple things i have three points that i'd like to make first there's no allegation in this complaint that this property has not been kept as open space the transmission line and the result of the receiving was that it doesn't go through the forest preserve it goes off it goes down and then it goes east so because and there's been no education of that judge with respect to whether it is where it isn't that was there or is opinion i respect your opinion we don't agree with it but that is never going to be a good yes thing with respect to this is there's no r