MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
adopt the defendant's pro se motion i thought that was interesting so there was a hearing on the motion to suppress that the defendant were seated per say yes and i really confused by the grief of the state because the brief talks about the defendant had no right to file pro se motion the court had no right to hear the pro se motion me it seemed like the state went off on a different kind of injury than what you're arguing which are the facts and existence or soon but what about that i mean why are we talking about whether do you think that someone could stand on one side of the threshold with police on the other side of the fresh hold and just stand there and say i'm not coming out no you're in i believe it was where your thank you
believe the prisoner a cup
i believe we've taken judicial notice of the fact that she was discharged in bankruptcy and if that's the case here would appear to be no recourse against her the only recourse would be against the property and that suggests that you your client hasn't been damage unless  then you have proven a crime issues but you haven't necessarily been the case getting efficiency attorneys fees interest so on and so forth that you might be able to obtain with a personal judgment against the mortgag ultimately after changing his mind several times and struggling with this if you want a creditor to call for trying to piece through this issue we submitted he ended up with the wrong decision the reason is he said by common law or one hundred and ninety one dollars hears then they have to be very explicit changing the common law will be right step there is nothing in the foreclosure act says the legislature intended to alter the elements of a says when that happens you can have a judgment of foreclosure by motion he wanted me to only exist for the benefit of one another and neither had anything to do with the that is clearly in it and we would see that it is the legislature intended that level of proof to apply to trials they would have said and they would have said we're changing with the law but they did has been denied jump up and say i want to submit more evidence secondly the bank argues here in arguing the mill practice case that a lawyer understanding thank you for residents i want it remind me of the point it's my understanding that one of the morning team did this shark and i thought if that happened before the foreclosure case sadly i don't that this foreclosure can never happen again and i don't have the references with me but i'm in it although it's not in the record i think it is legitimate for me to say this is a matter of traditional sixty one is i don't think it says what you're saying it says because if you read it a it says in the trial in foreclosure the evidence to support the allegations of the complaint shall be taken  open court ok except then it has paragraph that says where it's not denied by the parties answer or counter claim you can
the subdivision including for matters which but after the restrictions contained in the declaration of those associations were both allowed be dissolved for gold unions in two thousand to roughly seventeen years ago since that time detached garage so the only car as it all together is to come to the conclusion that some things clearly are listed in those must be n and could have been constructed but some things are clearly how israel didn't under the way this is written they had an opportunity to and it does not say it shall not have any other harass what it requires is a three or four car garage yes i attach current not to the exclusion of anything else i mean at this point whether or not there may be another record year and other avenues available to them haven't been association that would be to the exclusion of their right to seek a private action wasn't there plenty of testimony that there were other structures that did not get approved and nothing happened to words are important but other structures still there was no approval by any committee there was nobody that came to them and said hey you can't have that on your property they only came to this person so who bears my question  there's clearly a different impact here in these mr erakat and variable also holds that even if there are other violations it doesn't per se preclude you going into a force against this particular one you're not required to police  is in our building and they now have on their property up to six would have to have to sit before car on the side so up to six vehicles which would exceed was permissible under paragraph once with violence all the for it doesn't say you can't go beyond it's if you have to have  different more should reconsider should all be affirmed thank you very much for your time even even paragraph one of the say you know we have this and nothing else you know we believe that says you can have this and anything else mean what if you really paragraph three in eight in conjunction you have to ask for permission and you look at the
insurance program or any other way so that your supply would have had to go to his insurance company received reimbursement for his damages your cap and solution for his damages
would you like to rise by going to move the admission of martin sol ski my law clerk who has performed magnificently over the past year he's a member of good standing in the highest bar the state of the virginia and i know a protest is all the credentials that are necessary for this bar as well and i would move his admission and your motion is granted and the applicant will be in the thank you our first case this morning is the fine family versus the postal service over the years you know like to talk about it has to be a replacement this is a forty year old doctor and why would that be the responsibility of the government rather than your client the responsibility is on the part of the united states post office because the more i replace is involved in were placed in this place account seven which says maintain the demise of my premises including the building and any and all equipment your position as i understand is that maintaining the president the premises including the building would very small section of nominal cost that needed to be replaced because i don't know if the water collected in it was resting through or something would that be your responsibility because that would be a repair rather than replacing technically that you placed in terms of any so any type of repair that involves an actual replacement of a component you believe would fall on their side of the line been your responsibility there conditioning units always cause condensation there's that's expected certainly in chesapeake virginia this the humidity is going to be causing  here for years now as i understand it there was a lease consisted of a twenty year fixed term followed by and it leads the way it's described in one of the breaks i think with six five year options that were those all exercised at one time or are they as well so presumably the air conditioning system is a fixture i would think and therefore to say i'm clear as to why these aren't redundant it's laced with respect to the repair  and it there's nothing particularly wrong with redundancy as long as it doesn't suggest exclusion from one but by virtue of inclusion or another but if the fixture has to be maintained in good repair and the air conditioning system is a fixture i would think putting free on it or whatever is used to cool the air conditioning system would be necessary in yourself when well your first one i think is correct  but as an aside does your family pay you for your services i don't think i am getting paid for this well demand a little extra dessert tonight
coming down that had to be carved into pieces for the customer specifications within a certain amount of a lot of time in order for this to happen the defendant has certain safety measures in place one of which was training she'll be pulled off the software ever making the surprise is she the whistleblower i mean i don't understand why you'd get your client allegedly blowing a whistle and she doesn't blow a whistle she gets or benefits she because the end result was favorable to the claimant the fact is that there were records that they wanted to retain in her file they were in crack and he did not want to participate in the fire ration of that portion of the act so whether or not  pirate in the first place and that's the situation we have here do you have any cases that besides the us where it's a whistle blower was claiming that he or she is entitled to damages for something that happens to analysis lives again in the youngest case the patient's chart wasn't tampered with there was no young didn't tamper with with the trade off but she ended up getting constructively discharged in that case because of her refusal to falsify those records ask him to falsify any report it did ask for ask him to all supply the five wise it needed to know pursue it to its safety regulations guidelines  whether miss albion ultimately received her benefits because she received her benefits in the wake of mr biros completed five wise or it confirms that he did not  althea's application for workers compensation benefits and they actually did not the benefits they sell adapters were for that would be a different case but that's not what happened here of his claim that the company sought to interfere with miss allen his workers compensation rights is false and because it's false his case goes away because he can't satisfy the
a chance to be able to have some substitute to argue so that you can argue about what's actually happening and we've got expert evidence and hearsay and no ability to confront the person who's doing it so you have to test for example hearsay through the adversarial went so he thought and the supreme court majority thought that that an argument against applying the st the argument that if we do that if we take that step there's no stopping
trust you argue to this court of various theories including to give interest alter ego common law a spendthrift trust argument if even if you're still right that but who are the richard nelson trust to be and debtor under the statute it has to be reliable on the client and there is no judgment again to move them away from us and when you act that way when you should read the edge of the as if it is you and not a separate legal entity you can waive that legal protection and that's that's exactly what happen what's been going on forever and finally mr whoever's needs decides to move to canada and not mess around with it anymore and this is children holding the bag that he was he was doing this on a daily basis established a pattern that was quite obvious this is after the judgment it's several months after the judgement if we were really going to hide using it this way and so if we're asking the question did he do it other times i think we've gotten to the point where summary judgment was not appropriate because it has raised the question as to whether or not he's using in this way  been appropriate that it was inappropriate to even attach it to a reply when it was an attached to the complaint but that was a decision that was made real time by the trial lawyer handling it i believe that the outcome in
for now as i understand the video what they did is i think i'm looking at the right thing they read all the miranda warnings in a row yes they did not have him separately initial them they did not stop after each one and he had some kind of what looked like an old army what i would call an old army blanket green dark behavioral disorder of some kind his classes you didn't attend normal high school classes he was a freshman when i watched the officer read the warnings and as you argue in your brief the officer said something like this means that we're not yelling you two were not screaming into do you generally it's still does not seem clear to me though after that it's done on the video at least the officer says this means it doesn't mean you can have a lawyer it means i'm not screaming at you i'm not yelling at you do you understand that richard it's one thing and he says yes it's it's not clear to me that this young man has any understanding of what  that he needs a lawyer
who is asserting a claim that happens to be defended by the insurance guaranty fund would be treated differently than someone who's yet you know taking claim against somebody whose intense company is still got a hole through twenty three thousand dollars and again i think it's just a matter of what the cases have said is the legislature recognized that someone do the math and that's what we pay that's what they would like to do and there is no support for that either by forty six or the cases cited by counsel and again i think that would this i think we all agree and in tragic case like this you are going to have a jury verdict and access so that's not going to come into play and we thought no reason for the family to the  they might be it's let's say one hundred thousand dollars well let's take that example the way it's done in every single dreamed up case a hundred thousand dollars grows very very and then deduct the other serious money you're setting yourself up for that potentially very certain result because you have more essentially ignoring or
notices be sent to residences unless we were to be to exception into the statute along the lines that you read into it when you opened your remarks the citizens who could be  the intent of the regulation in the purpose of the regulation honestly most likely its breath based on the preamble is intended to ratify our pollution problems in the waters of the united states it is shall notified the discharge are in writing and that seems to me that the administration before sending a pregnant that i've noticed that he has to get a permit which would fall within the scope of the statute there is no room for determined finish of the word determination or there's no discretion to be exercised they set forth the factual tests the specific jurisdiction started a process whereby discharge or holding to the determination process shall be notified current those discharged by very specifically stated in the law section one twenty four point fifty two th discharges in the process resorting to the notion that citizens of the united states have to show off with extensive ministry of petitions each and see to do something that  so these are to minimize sources the sources that are clearly identified in some didn't in the sources within one of those general categories e p a has provided for that one twenty process than has ever been included in the creek or any other determination so again we know already that these are bad hearings and the real question is why on in fairness to municipalities that are already
he knew the age of the defendant he knew how long it took he knew that the kid said he went out and called the lawyer right afterward told the lawyer the same story that he was telling the judge all of those things are before the state court and the state court had to make a factual a confession that's a fact finding if you're saying that based on these facts we need to rule as a matter of law then you're asking us to find that there with clearly established federal law that you could never of the circumstances given the factual findings made by the state court questioning has to stop right right so those two things are really quite different and i don't see any reference to edwards here i see no i says in the record in the superior court judge's findings of any out why is it appropriate for police officers to spend three hours before they even turn on the tape a small room with a child of sixteen years of close in the superior court cause i'm sorry you're bringing things in the came from the confession
straighten the tribunal characterized insurance as an intentional type of service not a service that pursued produces a result that you can touch something like a musical that aspect of the policy can be considered intangible property but yet if it's paid out you know there's a certain elements of it that are so out of providing a sarabeth and if it is both
the supreme court created a whole new set of instructions as a result of grooming there's never a right where it was pretty amazing the process they put into place for surveillance videos from now on friends and just for the record the other issue that was briefed prior that was raised by you was the one crime one act and the state can see that issue right so we're not going to talk about that  closely balanced case in that regard and would it have reasonably resulted in any change in the outcome of the game as to the prior well you're right i think it is true that mission of the attempt instruction itself it just appear on the mission doesn't require us to reverse the conviction i mean there is the totality of the circumstances have to be such that the omission of involuntary the only challenge was based on the recantation which was unreliable i mean if if mr shanahan is right that we have to look at the essential issues raised
programs and to put that in perspective the target in the statute overall is fourteen point five percent of the look at the the amount of message which goes up to fourteen point seven million rocks so these three programs are structure here it's not required to buy rexall and i think part of the issue here is that the electric utility customers are the ones that are funding these programs the ones paying the money to subsidize these kind of generators and it does make sense and i road but in their program stature also explicitly states that the only power a d c will read will receive rx and why would you say that if all the refs are only going to the three electric utilities because you would intent benefit all citizens of the state second this case five hundred plus page technical statute into expert agencies is exactly the kind of case where agency deference is most appropriate and third the practical impact of comments already made would leave large areas of the state without access to the programs which is in direct violation of the legislature's intent to expand access throughout the state to benefit all citizens of illinois and i just want to utilities purchase the real what he credits but that is entirely separate and apart from the location where the project development can occur in the legislature has to civic legislative language about locations and i think it was to your point wo and secondly the broader you can source these projects as was the is the benefits of the projects to continue to accrue to own citizens they want to make sure that only citizens benefit but the our images are graphic landscape representative these programs were just a minor or small part of the overall section that's just categorically false the statute in fact this is a major major part of the act the law explicitly requires at least fifty percent of racks to come from distribute generation programs and the community religion richer project that that's explicit so this is athens half are coming from these programs so it's pretty fundamental to the entire way that this this act works the commission is a creature of stature the commission has no powers other than that the powers that the general assembly gives to it if it's this course job to police that ensure that the commission is doing with the list which are directed to do them so when the core reach the statute
that those reputations can be a fact there is nothing in the statute that says that reputation has to be accepted by the by prior to their second all that the court looks at the why and with it says the holder during his or her lifetime a trend any of the designated beneficed well she changed them during her lifetime and those that it goes on to say by an instrument accepted by the institution there's correct you know and just let me ask you a question here about section four i mean we kind of key on a bit the opening paragraph of section four of the step two for people starting such a good one or more persons opening are holding an account sign an agreement with the institution providing something so it's a pay on death account so there it would seem like at least if you're establishing a can there's nothing about accepting it you sign  agreement you're dead so would we be in a different situation if this was an initial attempt to turn a came into a play on death camp and there's nothing about that i don't think because you could speak just a little bit louder i apologize yeah the second thing is let me ask you the same question i asked you're posing on the date of death of the last surviving person doesn't feel the folder there's no is there anything that the last surviving holder had to do that had not been done at the time of he do you i understand the statute in someone here an ambiguity in it how do you deal with the lines of cases that uniformly say this is something that's in the unfettered discretion of the holder the instrument it's there and now that could rule up to the time of the doubt got a situation where the holder exercised her discretion her will why shouldn't that be cool rather them that doesn't need of who should get this money at the time of them have not been processed yet but was imminently going to
it didn't create a separate cause of action they just said the plaintiff wants to know whether in fact this insurers policy covers them since there is an exclusion in the person who's excluder is the one who's involved opinion that's entirely different than saying this gives you a separate cause of action separate and distinct from the insurance policy coverage for whatever it is you want to pursue come coming down to will you know it's it's what's troubling is here especially asking us to protect people from themselves for they're making these as opposed to the practitioner equivalent of following the elephants in the parade namely you're stuck with what's happened to you trying to do the best you can with it but it's not a sympathetic position is
the back when i was elected in high school i worked all one some of her traveling connop it was an experience i never forgot i suppose that's what most of prompted me one day not long ago to stop once i was driving back to the city in my kaiser after having spent a rather dull weekend in the country and i happen to notice this particular show  way it was around four o'clock of a dismal after the i must have been about the only paying customers on a lo have been dead for an hour son on a mighty tough spot over here i suppose you've got yourself an alibi for this afternoon you know and he was drinking almost the salmon across the road with amy that we saw them going over that right and what's the matter forget sassoon i'll handle  just don't like to see an innocent person in trouble recommendable what can i do about it if you could find the real killer i know your reputation in the police and you could if any one can thank you you have any suspects  it's not very conclusive but if you think of anything else let me know all right women of the week but not on your belt not yeah it's exactly like the one that was used in  do now you could do that to
find himself as an officer that makes claims as to whether they've been arrested or ok some could if their hand if those claims were substantiated then you wouldn't be here  for drug or alcohol testing only when there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that employee uses illegal drugs reasonable suspicion that he uses illegal drugs or is physically third party which is independently investigated by the director of safety or his designees to determine the reliability or validity of the allegation so here the chief gets a call from a da agent who says this officer was failed in possession of cannabis and fifty thousand dollars cash and you're saying that's not reasonable suspicion that he uses illegal drugs it's opposition not only you know this case loudly that says disobedience to of a direct order in itself is sufficient cause district but the collective bargaining agreement itself