MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
appears that defendant was because he brings one direct appeal was unhappy with the manner in which paul sentencing counsel appeared to take the trip that strategy tactic of how to address this claim appeal procedures and has been ruled the time both impose based on the court's rulings he received a fair hearing he received the opportunity for and his claims i mean if you're right i would agree with you if the hearing that occurred during the motion to reconsider sentence he had not occurred it might be different but in this case we can look at the record and we can see that there has been more than just these claims you know put forward in post conviction this claim ha sufficient in order to advocate for this claim and overruling in determining that he observed the defendant testifying he didn't believe him and then he compared that in both of them by the fact that the pre opportunity to present the evidence that he wanted to weigh in order to make his claim the fact that there is another avenue for which he could raise this claim and the you know post conviction doesn't mean
he also manages four trips back to detroit he isn't he has there are no longer seats new evidence no customers no witnesses nothing to support that he was doing in barbering all those letters and even the person who is on what was the defense primary occupation after that and not the percentage of income compared to some net legitimate income and i think the evidence here was clear that the defendant's primary occupation w
home there are three fundamental rules that we need to keep in mind first the homestead must be construed construed liberally in favor of the debtor and there is a strong presumption against waiver so any way subject to the to that doesn't make a difference in this case the reason for that is because the homestead right doesn't guarantee you helps with a guaranteed to you is protection against creditors who are trying to breach the equity of your house  there is no there is no law specific to the home state issue that is present in this case but there is law dating back to the nineteenth century that sends once a divorce decree issues and separates the property the property of the word each party at the time the decree issues and that includes everything from real estate to stocks to vehicles real estate stock transfers and vehicles wouldn't under normal conditions require somebody to sign title over to the other person and accord then have to supreme court has consistently second since nineteenth century said we consider that a condition proceed in the signing documents of course she would the right to find contamination in a family didn't have to make him signed signed with quickly indeed but yes based on based on that principle that property transfers are effective immediately even those requiring  of the homestead a right remains intact unless there is explicit language saying that it's not that is the consistent rule both in this state and in other states that are considered decision homestead right in fraud or some other three years conduct exists with respect to the loan that's at issue if you cannot make a showing then you cannot get to the elements of the specific equitable issue at hand in this case the district court found that there was no fraud based on the undisputed fact that it was no fraud involved she filed a motion after the court more or less instructed her to file an appropriate motion to do so and finally with respect to the attorney's fees there was also an argument that the never supreme court already determined that ms pike was not a debtor for all intents
now why can't the judge accept you know if if you take the context of that when the jurors in the courtroom and he's listening to her and observing and he have pretty good idea he knew when she came in the courtroom that morning that there had been a verdict that the jury had reached had notified the court in such a manner but if you follow that literally then there could be hardly any cases that you find constitutional violations obviously the supreme court decides not to have all cases every year and there's certainly go replacement he got word that there was a problem with the jury one juror and then they brought her out and she said that that he talked about conscience and that she could not in good conscience find this person guilty and  court to get off this case because of too much stress that should be crying and can't sleep then the trial court asked you believe that there is requires that you leave the case at this time and during every three replied yes very clearly
the court to appeal to bring the party and the district court back to the original intent and i believe the original intent of the district court and that is to a fact that mr stanton symbol tax liability will be worked out between him and the i r s in another form six dollars cost but what do i do with that language in the earlier so i'm not quite sure what that means i don't think it means restitution what i'm guessing is perhaps the government can correct me because the government drafted the agreement and i w i think that what brings the security today is an unfortunate chain of events two things that happen one thing is that the district court used the term restitution that's the first unfortunate thing that happened and that's what probably prompted the first appeal by first counsel that the term that's a term of art now given the victim and witness protection act and the mandatory restitution act it's very much a term of art it wasn't before and i think it was be due that was the gist of course that after the sentencing so it was clearly contemplated by everybody that this would be something that would be worked out separately in another forum and would not be part of what was going to be ordered by this court it's not it may seem a matter of semantics because i ran on remand what did we remanded for in your in your opinion i think this court mistakenly remanded it to go back to the district court and have the district court previously litigated and will and having order to remain and in order to determine the amount and have them be restitution what do we think that they actually misread the plea bargain and then in fact this amount to the extent that it's not at all comes under paragraph meet and then a simple tax liability what
read give me all the money i have a got no bullshit he walked out four thousand four hundred ninety five dollars just glad that and included in that money would make bills and an electronic tracking life but a half an hour they've done clearly was found at the time of the arrest and if the arrest occurred during the totality of the robbery in flight from the robbery then it was there but then the question is why wasn't part of the flight and and that's the question that i'm trying to perhaps or perhaps not but i don't get back to the proper burden of proof doesn't make a difference in this case you know when we review for error on on you know the court finding that you didn't have a gun during the robbery  of the negative but let me ask you a different question that concerns me and that is again about flight let's assume just for the purpose of forwarding my thought process here that he  if he and do you agree that it's less than half a mile between that i don't i don't  going to the credit union and sort of stopping that the movement away from the back to do a completely different task which is the burning i don't have an answer for that i think that the court house to look at whether what this notion of  is and whether or not there is a n armed or that he was scary or that there was a gun and she did not get the feeling he was going to hurt her now these are her perceptions based on objective criteria and objective data that's what the court had in front of it a picture of  backpack a picture of the robber in the bank bank surveillance photos her statement the circumstances and found actually in this context that the threat of death increase was not warranted the court then refused to do three of them taken together
that the person selected into the position have the years prior contract legal contract management and that your client did not have such experience as the time he was put into the job that are you saying that he did have the experience he has the experience and he was certified by the prior it means a certification by the prior administration under these circumstances doesn't same way regardless of the underlying political party the person in charge and we know that because it was there was a similar review regardless of party membership performed on other employees yet another that's another piece of argument that we have your own there and judge for stay confused as to different investigations one certified by mr carlos rio's news r e o and then we'll cross reference to number eleven and all number eleven is that he was certified so this is i read met the requirements that cause into dispute whether or not he met the requirement all right and that's what she just told with the requirements and that's it there's no explanation in detail as to why there's specific requirements of each one of those positions in a why is that this three employees complies with  the five but we're not dismissed ok and answer this so you're saying a large number of employees were surveyed look through the records to see how they got their position and it was found administrates claims against a state insurance fund and during that i mean it's great if you know about a process that the agency said hey we would have to look at this true because the sites looking at the whole triggered but the other two are still in the process of that but they were one of them went to state court and the other one went to federal court and they the cases against their claims were dismissed with prejudice don't have any more time you don't have any more questions some of the case on the great thank you circumstances not irrational for the state to say look we're going to take a look at whether people actually criteria why do you have the decision to f there is not one here and i just want to clarify that that it's very confusing from the the court's decision to assess the nature of the investigation which is actually part of
reconsider and there can be no argument that motion more than ninety days after the immigration judges decision will not be a timely motion because the statute and the regulations
officer church and then repeatedly during his closing argument the prosecutor told jurors but if mr wainwright had an innocent explanation for the injury to his hands when he would have given that explanation to police at the time he was under arrest and being  police report and page the eighteen shows that he was responding to an e mail causing problems in the shadows parking garage and that he and his partner were trying to get people to leave the parking lot when they got the call about a separate incident with mi actual prejudice in other words you have to show there's a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional ears the results of the preceding would have been different yes your honor and hand you do that in this case so we are we don't have to because the court made a prejudicial ruling for it the state you know you're on the scene you can see where they might try to come up with something after a witness was presented by the defense after she that night no has he ever said it do we have anything in the reports anything that shows he said that but here it is today come first time this one comes and says that's how he got injuries to his hand occurred a year or year and a half before the trial and that she was unsure of what happened she could not see she was on the ground but she believed it was to a good picture twice however she also claimed to lose consciousness both times she also  admitted that she had been drinking so she was unsure what happened and her testimony alone was not overwhelming evidence on the net the eyewitness march on that testified she was also involved in the fight who was the in she and some other w she was of winning the fight when other women began to intervene so the others here was not overwhelming and this girl went to the heart of the defense's theory of the case and because it was we cannot say that this is a very that we can
doing all the time no property loss nobody trust passed and nd thing the thing the proximity to the small motel is a high class motel and therefore properties before they come to my property other levels within a few days the house was destroyed closure for some time i gather but i was not able to tell from the record is still the end for phones or there is a state court foreclosure appeal pending the property is is still in fo thank you good morning may please the court my name is bernard gaffney representing safeguard properties i think it's clear based on the record from the district court that said card had no involvement here whatsoever efforts remade by the bank and safeguard to contact a mr malec is the owner of the property to say that we're changing the locks and we are taking custody of the property so in terms of safeguard safeguard has independent contractors that are hired by the bank to go out and perform a duty which is to check on the property to see st of all whether it is it is or is not occupied and that's  federal regulation as to that and in that regard safeguard went out to the properties and if there was anybody there they leave and if you notice in the record it indicates mr mallock thought there was two to four times where he interacted with a guard representatives but safeguard indicated that its records show that it's been out there at least ten times more than ten times if squatters move in and you just leave them there if there's people in there we just report back to the client chase bank in this case that there's people there if there's no one there we put a sticker on the window that was evidence in the record as well and it indicates a number to call and that the locks will be changed at a future date  so those were the things that we had done and i think that that was entirely proper and as the judge found st of all there was no under the st safeguards purposes we were out on summary judgment long before the trial as well so and there was no objection to any of the summary judgment motion while there was attorney taft in the case so we felt pretty strongly that we wouldn't be here today and fortunately we are but but then at the trial the judge did find that safeguards interactions with mr malik were all proper and mr mallock had counsel at the at the trial manno there was a debate about the rescheduling and so on but so i wasn't present for the trouble my understanding from the record your honor is that mr ta was had his appearance in and was present for at least the pretrial conference i wasn't clear to what extent he was there for yes ok that's fine thank you i think we have the arguments we have your papers will review them carefully and reserve decision right now and we have two
are you know workers compensation case that one side hires their way and the other side ideas their guy and then the commission picks which of the true they want to intrust thomas what are you supposed to do wonder thomas in the end if there's nothing wrong on whether or not there's any lingering currency is a good question which is not before the court right now to give him some temporary total disability that's not the issue of the issue if an eighteen b was right out the gentleman needed surgery and if so was that surgery related to an accident that occurred in february of zero seven or whatever same day and when i was done despite my school for efforts with my cross examination that's still pretty much all i knew he could remember a doctor who knows released them to go back to work he couldn't remember if he went back to work he didn't know what the year was offer some evidence as to that issue that was not done in this case counsel's arguments that you know he's arguing cisco is our evacuation of a preexisting condition a chain of events that's like arguing if the type of information about the extent of this previous problem i don't remember i don't know i don't know what you're talking about so there was plenty and in addition the failure although it's not required the failure petitioner to offer some to connect that there would be completely different case if he had some opinion on that because you don't beat them the simple fact of the terror doesn't mean there's any trauma you can have a tear just by the normal aging process that will  inquiries were made as to whether or not he was having any problems with that meet prior to this event inquiries made as to whether or not backward jimenez ever released them to go back to that type of work inquiries that were made as to whether or not back to him as ever gave him a full duty to release all of those questions there was an inference that could be drawn from this record that they did not find this gentleman but about that in and of itself is sufficient to sustain the commission's decision in this case and then when you factor in that we don't have and first medical opinion that we do evidence of a similar problem for the same  in this case it's hard for anybody any reasonable person i would think to say that the commission was not within their discretion in ruwi against the petitioner less to the issue of causation even if there is more
basically i'd like to just state the recent cited by the immigration judge why my client was not credible or not valid reasons and are not supported by the record for s immigration judge then try to make an issue about my client's religion having no basis to question his religion he had provided photographs showing his youth and participation in india in his religion in the someone else he speaks in a different language he doesn't comprehend the english language he'd already told the asylum officer unfortunately the respondents attorney does not provide any reason why not to believe them they are no sikhs automatically guessing is part of their name but then they have another name well that's based on the religion to do away with the caste system it means lie and so there it signified but then i have another name  on why the government would not be interested in a man saying i have scars on my back from being tortured dragged through the street and i'm happy to show them to you and the government says well we don't care should we assume that he did have those of he had said that he was a leader in this religion we understand that you told us that you're using what are you using this website for if you think if you say that he was lying one thing i want that in the record no there's nothing like that in the record including your website which is not in the record for the truth of what is the surface but in the background whatever that means well here on it mr things are going to know if he had said while he sometimes you know participated in sync advance it would have been one thing but in this case where he said he was he was oh i see my time is up there was one more point if i could make
straws in the courts construction that requires that the patent post a letter of credit guaranteeing a liability that existed on his mentioned in the settlement agreement that more others took charge of one of the corporations called international call it several years later the partner of education conducted an audit of the two thousand and four financials of international and found that it had or alleged order to breach what is called the ninety ten rule it's of the law requires that no more than enough there's no possible harm to your client you agreed that i would be the one to resolve any disputes under this agreement what is there any good faith basis for your client on those facts is the judge then understood to not that yes but the reason she orders him to post a letter of credit is not on account of his refusal to pay drug no moment until today has the department of education attempted to enforce that liability that is currently on appeal and while it was been mitigated in the district court the department of education agreed to stay all in force when action against the corporations in both hear what prompted the district court we understand an error will require the posting of a letter of credit was the claim made by up at least that education said we cannot lift third because you were a shareholder of international when the assessment was made i don't tilt that is final and he's paid or resold you we must and says we have reached a settlement agreement we have resold the ownership issue and we have agreed that asked paul for two thousand and two mr moore about us being in charge of international i have had nothing to do with mcdonald we disagree even though you have agreed with mr murdoch that he has been in charge since two thousand and two of international under our rules what matters is the actual date of the transfer  why did this appeal about what do you want from this court on the other hand what does your opponent want from this court court order and remove any doubt that the district court has remedial power to act as he did yes ok and do you think the district court is waiting to see what we do would you like to explain to us why your client hasn't complied with the district court's orders in light of the fact that you apply to us for his stay and we did not you want well he has submitted to the court motions to the district court that existed before they saw the complaining two thousand and eight then bring suit and the settlement agreement and now water all still believe that it's incorporated into the whole harmless concept if they really want it that would be five hundred pounds yes the reason for that is that the total the suspect is a certain amount of mr montana is responsible for forty percent over that's why they mention the five hundred thousand