MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
new judge because i am seeing the judge is retiring the new judge could consider the amounts is that's one of the factors that they have to look at is the they physically moved their business operation which they did i think is between may twenty ninth and may thirty first the fact that they move that is not a role what this jury was instructed to do is look at  complete the hold over is not terminated it because the way the jury was instructed your honor we believe it was correct was it a holdover tenant is one fails to surrender possession to the landlord of the lease premises at the time and in the condition agreed upon in the lease in the until that condition was met then they who are responsible for those premises in terms of possession so it's not really a question of the obligations of government with one point there was testimony during the trial yet here warner comes to be indicated i believe he wasn't sure really what the restoration involved in indeed there were several leases here with h point though i believe your client said but we've had enough apparently they had a tenant they did the build up for julianne's did they not they spent according to your brief on the record i guess of over twenty five thousand they still had to retain dominion and in order to fulfill the other term of this week's this contract between the two purchase well first of all just think this is a bit of grammar at their election they chose not to do their work and in fact if you were to be this reference the work was never done so there was a proposal to do the work for one hundred one thousand hours they didn't do their work that was basically an estimate but in that case there was an agreement between the parties to actually do the work before the police terminated there was really work that needed to be done the parties entered into an agreement to do the work he and then started to do the work but they couldn't finish time to a crystal wake limited partnership correct and if there is any evidence according to the appropriate standard our inference is that can be drawn from that that demonstrate trial and i think it was the judges of judges belief that under those circumstances five hundred sixty five thousand dollars in fees which is good all the way back to day one of getting all the fees incurred with respect to the whole moment at a loss that was inappropriate condensed into reasonableness i might disagree with that i disagree with that because if you look at one of the factors which is the time and labor required to respond to what was going on in this case there are
leader patented mentioned whereas here we have an offer to sell something and the invoice itself says whiteside lasers like pools or whatever it is and by the testimony of the inventor himself there was no ninety six a ninety seven and so forth there is some ambiguity in it but i'm wondering if you can guide me through it to give me some understanding as to what he was doing when he was to retire because here we have an offer to sell we have heard auction practice prior to the critical day and this is unquestionably the invention that will be used to satisfy the offer for sale and all of this is prior to the critical date so tell me one what step is missing prior to the critical thing that can create an offer to sell if you're going to stay under start and i think what's missing is conception at the time of the invoice because her to sell you something and so long as i haven't conceived of it at the time i offered it you know i know i'm going to be able to work it out some point i have a conceive of it i could offer sell you a thousand personnel's and another thousand i'll just collect offers from everybody i can even reduce them to practice i can have them already for delivery and then i'll wait a bit after the critical date and deliver them all and it doesn't make sense that would be really contrary to the prevention of the commercialization effort fourteen saying very clearly that he had conceived of it and was not reduced to practice till later so i need some evidence that shows it was conceived before that possibly be president to the contrary well i think that i can't i can't substitute it's different argument for a different rationale for no one that worries the border found found that it was  conceived as of april eighteenth corporation skilled tech state that it's not necessary for the invoice itself to list the claimed elements they you can rely on other evidence to make a finding that the invoice was for the claim was for the claim to mention such as the
right and it sounded like the trial of george thought it was kind of fishy that twenty six days after the judgment was entered she was in the resume just to the chicago area after she said she really had no plans to do anything before that i restriction not only that after the end of the judgement this greatest fear is that she could move out of the southern illinois area could come to fruition get a choice at that moment either andrew disagreement with our raise prescription or proceed to trial a but he didn't take a calculated risk that she'd already made up her mind he relied on her statements that she had in the playoffs and the judge found i mean as i understand it the
you and where we are in my my decision as far as a date with not you present oral argument certainly without this court's permission because i do not feel that i can i  move to withdraw i know that that is not the normal practice and that motion practice before you tell a court is different than all it or you talking about one letter are you talking about  now without cost yes sir that's correct given your it appears that your client didn't want any of this to go forward why are we here so because i did not expect my client right to write which i i now find if you continue once again this all by getting around the letter making false accusations against my wife to suit your purpose i made absolutely no false allegation or isn't this a form with b before taking these extraordinary steps let's ask you if you have any thing you would like to add to all of this before we take the act e i i would hate to see this to feel just summarily dismissed yes it had been paid but i think there are two issues that are very important
in from another place and i would know the what was interesting is in the new jersey case besides fashion being substantially different the defendant medication had acknowledged that his bottle of pills have the f d a warning that was edited twenty thirteen which my client did not have the benefit of that apparently had a great it was one reason there but they also described the they used the phrase the defense of actors who were a s in own state is already rather than in steps that deal with the subject at hand which returns me i guess to money argument here we have a supreme court case people v grant that specifically now was was not the argument raised below by the state that this was an absolute liability of the use the word absolute seems to be better than strict i don't know the difference but absolute liability is a mental state and there is no i've never seen absolute liability cases did the only that defeats the concept of a voluntary act so if it's a i don't know how far absolute goes judge veracity i don't know if i have to say it was perjury but you're saying these were diametrically passionately opposing statements that were made by the officer in the same case without any explanation for why relative to whether or not there was information in the nonprofessional world in the court on the internet or any place the post occurrence made up of some excuse for failing to blood test let's use that same example here the defendants mr thomas told according to the testimony at trial told the paramedics he was changing  limit but the test was ninety minutes after he was driving and pointing to the testimony he consumed one bottle of wine which clearly leaves him in the potential of having a rising b c at the time he was driving and it's no wonder people of rights or privileges that the defendant might in other words things can prejudice a defendant that should not have prejudice to the front and that could be caused by something other than did he make any prior statements under oath in any of the proceedings related to this proceeding he did this trial and you telling me that the state is on the rear of the inconsistency contradiction turn oxes one here most occurrence that it came down so if you look at horrors you'll see that in twenty thirteen there the factual discussion in our state is that by then the pill bottles had the warnings so even if you were to rule in my favor i'm just in be an issue all cases after twenty thirteen the state now has their bill to defense that there's a warning on the pill bottle so we're really not even talking about anything other than mr i don't honestly recall this at the
davis and the fact that edwards when the court finally clarify what it means that you probably changed the result as being that it held its head it has to be more likely than not that no reasonable least three times in their opinion the court the supreme court could have adopted the way we from dateless but didn't do so but stuck with the language is more likely than not that no reason know that the defendant had no injuries immediately following the murder to indicate a man he had engaged to know standing someone in would have their hand will slip down onto the blade so i think i just want to make the distinction we're not talking about i picked up the pin we're talking about the method in which i use which i use the hand and the motion of my hand in that you  right that's what the record shows now my question did online redirect examination finn's counsel did not come back to that or challenge it in any way either her opinion were fact
the state had back evidence that showing was our position as you know for me in bruce's position there's nothing in the record to show that shawn was in fact a gang member all his life or ever does it for the court to consider gang evidence or the defense affiliation street gang does he have to be a gang member all his life it was it is reasonable for the court to for his conviction in two thousand and nine for his first so see the street gang members that he beyond that while he was prohibited from associating with gang members is not in the record and was prohibited from doing that could be that they just routinely check off that box and it could be more than that but we really haven't for anything from that he was the defendant with you and you mostly mostly in juvenile court he said and you've been a gay man growing for life this far as i can tell that's on one forty one forty one of the record and that's the that's the heart of the matter over in the brief because that occurred to me the first one to start looking into this the thing to take traditional notice that it should be about specific thing not just in general on the person case number of such and such on such a date a record the fact that they didn't put on evidence suggests that evidence doesn't exist but for our purposes here today the whole point is it's not in the record and therefore the judge cannot rely on it so i understand  got four years in prison even if you did have a substantial record this is not among his greatest hits even though he did have a substantial record four years is a long time for being six books off the right most direct route but when you co i certainly don't believe that that would impact the result you know look let's just say that there was some conversation between the defendant and the judge about matters concerning placement in some sort of detention and based upon their conversation there were comments made by the judge that indicated that he had knowledge of facts that one off the record but they weren't necessarily issues or matters that one all records to the extent that your client raised the issue of his gratitude towards his placement and the response by the trial court judge didn't come out of left field it was in response to this statement so i will agree with you that it is reasonable to say that whether or not your client is or is not a game or for what t ration might not be a record but i don't think it's correct to say that what the court was talking about wasn't i'll record what the cool what was that record what my client was concerned about the employees of the of the jail and so on cross left out of all that was evidence that on the record that shows actually a member of a gang we know on the right we know from the record that he was being truancy there's no question that he had a very substantial criminal record the only question is whether gang membership on top of that can be found on this record to be insignificant so that mean
naples but the term for his tour of duty in naples ended last month january of two thousand and six that job isn't there anymore and this court has no authority to assign federal employees to positions that not exist we can't create jobs and send people to jobs we can't even send people to jobs that are already in existence this one isn't so that's off the table what else could you possibly want  the fact that he will be a great there's no there's no brief period any more is there that expired already his his period as a twelve in naples italy expired last month january two thousand and six there is no longer a ts twelve position for which he qualifies so that's off the table to what can you possibly be looking for the remedy  issues i mean again unless you've got a reduction in grade or pay you're not here on any thing that we can adjudicate and we've already established that neither one of those has a stake in this case the position that gave you the greater grade no longer exists so at this point that's moot that's gone if it ever existed is an issue it's gone for a rip was retained there's no issues anymore as  to a position that no longer exists that terminated on january two thousand and six so that's off the table in terms of what this court can provide and in terms of providing you with  over speed but it didn't cover an excess in the poor performance of an impact on her performance assuming the agency hypothetically had indeed sent him back for me because they concluded that he wasn't performing he was performing poorly is the ability of this court to decide whether the navy was wrong in sending him back to the extent that there may be appropriate personal practice or maybe saying one thing but doing it for whether he was wrongfully sent home from naples i think that determination is one that is not reviewable by henri's actions taken by the agency under the so the agency could enter into an agreement we'll send you to naples and brinks that completely i just he gets over there and his supervisor doesn't li let's make it worse the supervisor discriminates on the basis of gender or sex or religion or something and send them back home well what do we do in that instance and the discrimination issue just ended in this case  a case but what if it's just wrong hole then other than discriminatory
required in the definition of service trauma so how would you define trauma or service trauma service we would submit that a service trauma is  procedure about a month ago i was in the chair for four hours they finally had to and that's a side surgery and it was a very traumatic experience i could go on but just take my word for it yes you are if i had been a member of the armed forces would i have just gone through service trauma i think it would depend your honor whether you  probably not because it wouldn't have had the traumatic experience that mr nelson went through it's very hard to separate out what happened here but it's all due to the fact of the circumstances of the service in this mr nielsen sarah or in the circumstances that you describe it's the same treatment that we're talking about which would be presumably your circumstances or the circumstances the proper treatment under the circumstances at the statutory scheme dental benefits are strictly limited in other medical treatment benefits on earth seventeen ten medical benefits are basically provided to any veterans for service connected disability or clearly made the argument not the main argument you may have raised it but certainly there is has not been a factual finding by the border of the veterans or that there was any activation here or and current service  normal dental care and i don't think that's counter to what the board statute be interpreted in the in the veterans favor when it's ambiguous it doesn't make sense to draw that distinction here section seven hundred twelve in one see that suggests the intended benefits of treatment is a distinction that should be made and there's no legislative history on that point either
you buy and then during the closing argument mr read an article argued and you heard about the background training of these gentlemen you heard about of darkness was he who volunteered to go to iraq to treat soldiers i object mr red these are people who take their jobs
in the petition to evaluate whether it is actually a cause an action again judicial authority under the federal constitution extends to kiss i there is a cause of action is if there is additional matter controversy and i do believe that the fist sets in the fourth amendment are important but the inquiry begins with how do we is an expansion of the civil pact to sack to apply the two six fifteen motion because in the past the courts have upheld summary judgment but if the implication of the six fifteen right is that in the past that summary judgment the defendant could raise some the judgment at the commitment initiation hearing that the prosecutor can raise it in the section i am recovery stage and it was because it was constitutional ramifications that you are in a criminal proceeding and that the substantial constitutional guarantees on the best federal constitution i offices the six and the fourteenth met amendment  with an expert opinion that's as stanley shows meets the definition of session a dangerous person the prosecution the prosecutor as a constitutional governmental authority has the discretion no we're in right at the constitutional restraints and the privilege tonight incriminate yourself the privilege to remain silent in a criminal there is a federal fundamental rights in the first eight amendments and then you trigger that with the examination of the accused by medical personnel that we now call qualified evaluator into the vision of the zone of privacy client there is a preview you now have a governmental intrusion into the dynamics as the communications between the attorney client bets the silence the right not to self incriminate might yourself pass on the attorney client relationship have the preview of what the defense is ok because there is no attorney client privilege when that psychiatry or the barrel fight evaluator stats interviewing the defendant prior to the thank you for your patience your honor i know it's radical to grant a motion to dismiss with prejudice because of the finale date and the race judicata implications but justice requires that because the
rental something i think the rest of the fact well or true self so so ownership is want some type of ownership it goes that case goes through a lot  have its something back i think that's a very good framework i think that this court could either adopt the definition the factors are there for the sale i think you could also be a lot of i made a little bit more i do believe that the lower courts in this case the appellate court of the trial or should be reversed because otherwise when you read through their holdings they would effectively allow any other company does work out of her home case as far as the doing business and so while i would submit that that there would not be proper venue under it all it is a different under your analysis counsel and the question is greater than just whether whether business was being transacted on behalf of the company oh absolutely absolutely and i think that militarily goes through  down the street what's important i guess and aspect is he was living in the home at the time he was hired i guess you'd already left because this really has no ownership interest whatsoever in his home property have no control have no right to control the property or what goes on he paid absolutely no expenses for his house mortgage utilities internet cell phone bill or expenses relating to any individuals it was a personal hiring decision to hire based on its fifty years experience in the industry and it was not in real estate procurement there is no evidence  man fifty years experience is probably the trial court ruling i believe had several factual findings they were not based on the were based on chooses to have to rewrite or modify the definition make it more definite and add or modify factors i think that that could only solidify the fact that in fact this office was his home purposely selected i mean certainly was purposely selected by him he was selected because he lived in the area but we're talking about a fixed location and we're not talking about that particular hole nepotism or a building that was not in terms of purposeful selection which i think is brought up he says he says it again terms of chicago was a local problem solver and i told him i would be available for chicago while he did have face to face meetings with clients not at that office still serving with chicago arguments here i don't believe create some massive problem where every corporation on planet is going to have offices everywhere this is not a case of a high tech company this is not a google or amazon  on the that network or virtual digital phones where the phone calls are coming in going from the main office but to suggest that that if in this case mr bones shrunk back pointing towards his office being g i think it's worth noting that the strategic business decision to hire shrivel is exactly what i was talking about the problem was it would save them money on not reckon on well that was the final court judge's pure speculation and a
wrong has been committed and isn't that similar to what happened in this case they get this notice something might be in the report that they didn't order and was really really hard to find out about that just let me finish and then they get another report which sadly took a long time to get back and feeling down here in the arms and they realize they had an actionable case and then they pursued it isn't that in compliance with anderson
do you believe that this court can issue sanctions big one where you wanted to go through a special committee oversight when i thought we clearly said you didn't have the right to do that and then we see coming right back up again with the attorney things what the tax dollars are being spent on be used potentially through all of illegal purposes the problem with that is that the county actually has separate statutory duties specifically waters office to ensure that that does not meeting i believe it was in december and she wanted to ask the county board to permit me to stay during the time this action they were going to end and institute in order to the back warrants i'm not aware of any good policies along those lines from or anywhere any written policies related to the act itself other than the stats in order and then what about the last line that when i see anyone in the legal profession say to someone who has violated the rules of professional conduct to me as a royer that's a
constitution say