MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
six one five into dash six one nine and of course i think those of you who are at least have appeared before me one of my pet peeves is we never know which statute so explain to me how long that letter is even relevant when the person who kicked him out makes no mention unless i'm wrong there's no mention in that letter as to why there's no mention it sa says it's press state so you know i guess what's at stake here as i said earlier is this  my swearing to defend and if necessary give his life to defend against all enemies and the first amendment says that congress should pass no laws backing the right of people to peaceably assembly the united states supreme court as interpreted back to mean that a member of the general public and i'm quoting out members of both share every other member of the general public right to use public property established by the constitution long regulations to stay in the case one line which separates out the two statutes and under each section are used the specific section of the complaint as to why it should be dismissed right you will  paragraph be in the order i'm talking about as to count three paragraph b where he says plaintiff has no standing to seek mandamus then perhaps the court has reached that
tiles of the property affecting the stream of congress and future taxes are paid it's not intended to be a method by which a party who has an interest in the property can forego paying the taxes and increase his interest in the property to the detriment of all there are parties
cases from tennessee in missouri i think then that the that idea would apply in illinois but in all of these cases the determinative quote action is whether the color of title has attached the kind of fraud that  his term there are ways to do that and he did that p p by the federal suit he got a claim for discrimination in the bunch of other things but if you want to attack the things that go public officer does during her tenure that's what you have to do the general public but that's necessary not sufficient the harm that he needs to show and you might be interested quired if he was arguing about the authority to do some kind of passion but is to say that he is not eligible for the office and get him to i don't really have a good example because i don't know enough about how the university works and how when and how his authority he works with the authority of other  violated he did wonder if it isn't necessarily what the trial court was going to determine was it the trial court was in a sermon whether you were wrong he was going to going to determine whether or not the d was properly d and the then whether or not he wrong you it could have been like you said a really a fig mystic said in the bylaws that maybe he didn't have a proper degree or certification to hold a position which has nothing to do with whether or
i think that's on that part of the dismiss all based on the internal matter can be reversed as a matter of law and nonetheless the trust or decision should also be reversed because there is no evidence that this allegations of that then that that a conversation occurred in and two thousand and three this other remains occurred in two thousand and four and so whole year later surge that he had an interest in that it's an evil out of business and said it's not part of the record but it doesn't there isn't anything in the record either that indicates that that was the reason why they entered into this agreement and no so i'm a little confused about the direction that council is talking about this these complaints have been extremely difficult to address the st complaint that was filed in two thousand and one was for partition it alleged that there should be a partition of fifty one such personal property so we had to go through all fifty lines  and now he said that those issues were resolved because during the settlement of those that partnership was you several d s were exchanged between the parties and some of those properties were still liste their complaint that we were dealing with and so we said no some of those were taken care of we had to see agreement october of two thousand and four and now we don't know it was one of the name property that was listed in the two thousand and four were written agreement agreement and say that's our agreement we also jean attention to the court there well number one that the complaint did not wasn't well led because the included some properties that had already been deed eleven it's ten years i only see hearing about it now after we just you know properties in the settlement agreement for our partnership and so that's where where we talk about the prejudice we that's where we talk about  to the court that bet mr her own head attorney present to draft that document and the defendant did not i'm not aware if there was that her an attorney present to draft that i don't know i think it was just between them the person who me also get things to that the court i think that in reviewing the court's decision may be the justices could understand the frustration that the court was experiencing in this case and considered you know whether or not  produce four more years of there as well and also  because tax returns and so the court took their issue under advisement well he reviewed those tests returns and issued a decision in july of two thousand and fifteen and found that there's nothing on the return the theory hasn't changed it was just that there were certain properties that were moved again we only have to prove that there is a sad fact is that th
no he did not know what the both was and he just wanted to find out what it was he also testified it was two to three inches in size and that it floated around upon removal of the coach which was an unidentified object to officer painter at the time of removal officer painter discovered that it was a bag of what appeared to be drugs and in fact it was a bag containing four point nine grams of cocaine four point nine grams  an officer believes the objects he's detected as a weapon or could be used this way or whether it's contra he's determined it's contraband through his playing touch since the state does not allege that officer painter thought of the object was contraband i'd like to confine my remarks to a weapons analysis for contraband possession of an illegal substance i'd like to make a point from people giving me one of our supreme court cases which is relevant to the one that i just made and because there here but we would also contend that there was no probable cause for trust or for a number of reasons first of all the record doesn't support there's not the record isn't present to support that with the officers had it's not clear what allen was resisting here since you knowingly is an element of the statute mr allen was ordered to stand up and mr move so we can do that it's not it should be anticipated it's defendant should know what is coming next and the officers procedure or what is invested in their side he didn't knowingly resist anything state cites after the proposition that and arrest can be made if there's probable cause for a different harassed that wasn't me or that their search can be conducted for based on an arrest that was never discovery of cocaine upon search incident to arrest this not really relate back to operate as a justification for of the aircraft it relied on two cases it at south which also helped support the when he was actually complying with orders he stood up he did not he was not told what was going to happen next when two people grabbed it you know it is a natural reaction to sort of a way that's not an intentional  didn't know it wasn't a gun then he was justified or an eye out removing it because it potentially could have a weapon that that argument fails the officer wouldn't need and people pete ready when the officer says i couldn't tell it wasn't a weapon in that case the court held that it wasn't reasonable for the officer to think that unless she packaged a bag of marijuana
intent that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and then tell the jury this the state has the burden of this we're going to focus attention on the element of intent because of course that would have gotten mr robey the greatest relief if the jury had believed that so it's not this it's not a challenge to serially to counsel's global strategy to focus the jury on intent but it was not a reason to strip strategy choice to essentially take away one of the elements from the jury when they're evaluating the state's evidence in this case and swept up and there's overly aggressive police conduct but the evidence showed and again it was the jury's province to believe or just believe that  police didn't see anything any to see anything changing hands so again i'm i'm having a hard time seeing how this is improper closing argument tested positive for heroin and that the being of the heroin tested positive for one point six grams as far as the reach well if if if the record reflects that the forensic  and each sample that i tested that i had separately way i found to contain that happens we would be in on this issue if you agree that the record is somewhat ambiguous on it i don't think there is beds out when she tested them there is no evidence that she did not test for a bed she never testified to that alternatively defendant asked this court even if it finds that the evidence was sufficient t offense or defendant counts to wish that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a lesser for the jury instruction there are some real evidence to support it and it contradicted the defendant's own trial testimony defend soliciting for the sale of heroin but another person saying edwards appears to wrong towards a defendant who distance of only fifteen feet away when the officers approach him when he might just have been walking down the street and couldn't walk rare amount and color and we believe substance also heard him admit that he bought buybacks apparently that's correct but the problem is that no his testimony does  venture a guess as to how much they care when that you bought ways there's no well there he also doesn't say oh and those were different banks and the cops picked up a copy away that's correct and this isn't a secret this is not a chain of custody question this is a question about whether
out of the car maybe the windows are down but for sure the doors are open the in time gets out of the car and he's nine and three quarters years old and somehow he ends up with a piece of not recorded to anyone else no one else knows about it my client testified he knows about winning inserted with the summons for this case in twenty four to all twenty four feel for two reasons both of the elements that are required children play in the area the condition or risk here we had fencing all around the property my client was e s d children playing in that area and he said no it was  so here this is further to the other side of that we don't even have children playing anywhere in the area there and they are there's nothing that can next children to this bacteria are receiving downtown our property him room you've got peterson you have got to have some evidence as to why the incident happened and you believe there's not and there's only three people who know we're on scene and there are family members that's no
a trial judge and having been a trial lawyer and all of this is that mr scott you know i hear i think he had a he had a decent case if he wanted to save the state or if you wanted to say accident but he which he was entitled to do i mean obviously your defense is what your defense is that it was basically about what we call the what the saudi some other dude did it and so he it wasn't him and then saying is all of that went before the jury and and when you you know i've seen enough if the jury had bought that he didn't do it then that's a not guilty but if you say you weren't there then you put yourself a little bit in a position that then they can make all in princes in the other direction and so the disposal of the body if it was really an accident doesn't doesn't bode that well for him defendant was angry that he was sold a defective gun ok but the fact that bullets came out then we know that there were i don't know how many bullets they didn't recover the gun right there ok but that being said you got click click click click click but it keeps clicking and there are bullets in there during six times i know but a jury could say they could infer he's the one that loaded the gun and if he kept clicking it and he knows that there's bullets impair that means that he intended to kill someone and the instruction is you know on premeditation is it doesn't require a long period of time it could be ever so short but you have before the future this is not an easy case when by all means exactly one of the evidence evan bayh camp will be have here is the connection and what we have is the evidence in the trial and we have to look at all of that really understanding what is going to settle this is a jury issue but not entirely right because you have you do have to take into consideration that there are times where the jury does make a mistake when you can't really give them much and show that it was an accident but if it's not an accident then the evidence shows that it was an intentional killing that is as the prosecutor argued scott who had to be who was aware that there was a us that's not necessarily inconsistent with other than an official perhaps true but it supports the rational inference of the jury that what happened was not an accident that is  yes i think it is abundantly clear that he was shot inside the house and if you shot and he was shot inside the house and his body was gone shortly thereafter and there was evidence that there was a clean up in the house so that that was consistent with or that corroborate the inference of the true that there was no accidental shooting and that's it and that is absolutely essential to the way the jury viewed the rest of the evidence and why and that's why they couldn't for that there was no or that there
firm handling their manager against winter and she talked to him specifically about this last year and i did our human trial court and i have argued here they d dollars just to get this car rolling and on the road again it's hardly show condition in an engine in top quality performance or running condition so all of that if you will have misrepresentation those representations here in illinois and that's what he says that is if you gave it is if you david he says i was in illinois when those representations were made period six of his if a david although all communications were affidavit he says he didn't go down in missouri and hire anybody to bring it up here the car was delivered to him by the defendant by the defendant's agents in st charles so the delivery is here and that under the swiss lady case state of illinois is not directed state of illinois in fact not it's not directed to anywhere particular but it go where of course the internet yes but in this case here the what is your take on that statement well i've got basically here in the record just nothing with respect to the allegations of any representations made but i do have the fact that we do not have an initiation you if we want to talk about who won ninety one then i would think the defendant would have finally some kind of motion to attack the affidavit but if we have a new record we have good bro statement that he didn't bring the car in illinois is certainly stating that they head out to where he was at the time that he was talking to them so i don't know how they would be this whole e bay thing that we don't even know who we're dealing with or where he's he's made the statement that they knew
incident i'm still although this date i didn't seem to be particularly i'm confident about what exactly as much as we testified to they recognized that she was going to be crucial to their case on and therefore give testimony that would be by virtue of the concurrent representations there will say that the attorney should obtain their client's before and consent on that requires that each attracts a client be made aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material in reasonably forseeable ways that the conflict could on those soaring admissions would include informing the defendant that his attorney is laboring under a conflict of interest because of the concurrent representation that necessarily denies his loyalties between two paying clients on that as a result of the concurrent department which is where she lives she called the roundly police department which is where the defendant and she called the defendant to ask about the whereabouts of her car so she was implying throughout her testimony that she had some knowledge of what was going on with her car beyond her own and that she was on the point here is that there is no indication that he was informed of the reasonably first evil ways that his representation could be adversely affected there was not enough in this record to determine the issue the significance involvement all your honor she denied being in the car to her knowledge however she left open the possibility that she may have been blacked out as a passenger in the car she when asked what it was because possibly she was in the car and she just didn't remember she said i don't know of the trial court is that they make conflict specific admissions regarding a conflict in layers ability to cross examine to pursue a case theory that could harm police officers and in her denial showed consciousness of guilt that the shotgun was hidden behind a baby seat it's very possible that the defendant didn't even know about the shock and maybe float from the police who sold some other reasons that would have provided
fathom this case they claimed that they couldn't consider the offers that were made in these cases because they had no knowledge of value so consistent with saying that they had knowledge of value that qualifies them to testify this court a spills and months and explosions those possibilities now the only places a rule twenty three opinion i was not prepared to discuss in here today because the rules prohibit so i'm not sure why we're here discussing the will kind decision frankly it's very different but there's something more important and more important thing is that in two thousand and rob you're a supreme court rejected explicitly rejected those two cases the supreme court found that has moral this faith basis in fact and also is not well founded on existing law or any even a suggestion about right exists in law should be modified
i understand that's a separate proce the court will certainly take it into consideration pending so the disposition of this case so we think everybody for their efforts in this regard is a hero interesting case and complicated in many ways
think is the standard of care or standard of protocol or the proper procedure generally speaking so i was just on a case i think just that any authority that you have for the argument that these rule two thirteen requirements can be relaxed where indeed his deposition he said it would writers you know the jews had the ten commandments and i'm relating to the protocols listed on the operation wa melodies she had including her diabetes including only other things that she had landed on the neck issues which i'm not recalling the medical term for that everything that she had to weigh in with her specifically that her blood pressure blood sugars all of these things that were done it to her that is what created the specific duties and state of fear here that almost that these doctors gave their opinions on the new create done i think it's not and it's not not her house to remove her i think this should be in the we in credibility issue for the jury but not something that should have been but isn't that purpose of depositions and the she was talking about what she might have done and what i asked you previously was in the event that we're talking about it depends which expert testified that in the industry the standard would have been their internal medicine slash critical neural critical care physician i also think if you read dr kahn it came from him too although he didn't specifically say if you read his testimony he was there questions such as what conditions decided whether or not i should go to surgery and she said in a trial to one i don't think that's inconsistent and i don't think they're open the door for them to dr khan expanding his criticisms to include dr raves frustrated he judges frustrated at that point some of the things that have been arguments that for whatever reason but i think one of the points to bringing back would be he was same i'm frustrated i think why what i think it does i think it implies that it one time you have credibility so from that point at least backwards the plate ahead but ability is doing things that caused the judge to lose belief in the ability of what is being said and so i don't know i could buy the argument that if he says i don't believe you before trial that's prejudging but if you say something during the trial
government's position that thirteen twenty five should be interpreted the same way as this court has interpreted thirteen twenty different sometimes but i think in general the logic applies in the same way that when we talk about moving out of a class it's different it's different than thirteen twenty six be where it's only to begin with under age a felony under  misdemeanor are very different and probably the consequences that flow from the different convictions are big enough market apply here because this is an integrate criminal immigration charges but i mean i the court's announcement i think the fact that it puts the person into a different category does not change that it was meant to be expensing enhanced i mean the there's nothing in the statute to lead the court to believe that congress intended this to be an element reluctant to push the jurors too hard for fear that that in other words you bring these forgers integral them it's obvious where that's coming from is coming from the parties and if they don't get what they approach from a claim trial error is to say was it or how much of it was brought to the attention of the district judge that's the place secure you have everybody right there in the room and then you tell the district judge judge you can't do the burdens on the defendant when the defendant alleges error here to show that that error is in the record or was presented to the district court in other words our view at least seems to me that we have we have no formal examination we have no opportunity to either cross examine to suggest further questions of the judge or even a chance to reveal what the witnesses said to make sure that in
our first case of the day is people of the state of illinois versus robert ok we have only one attorney so what you're saying is that the weak him then assume from the fact that he was waiting for the transcript he examined the before he spoke with the defense i think that everything i'm going to talk about on that page he said i was ready to go see him in prison a second time so clearly he went to see him in person a first time and consult with  satisfied with the filing of a natural written certificate because you just told me he said he didn't have the actual transcript until the second time and here it says that he has to examine both support file compliance they wouldn't come up over and over again because we wouldn't if they did people that presumably the court in the the the defense attorneys would be complying with the and then we wouldn't have to parse and try