MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that mr nelson never suggested to anyone that he wanted peace nine percs now suggesting nothing saying then that actually the initial negotiations were for the sale for the four point t and what mr rooney is asking this group to do is to listen to his recitation his characterizations of the evidence and substituted stretton for what the trial court heard from the actual witnesses and applying the fs weight standard of the standard review review which is apparently not in dispute any longer the most important part of the standard as we said it is there to obtain the reverse of the plaintiff must present evidence that is so strong and convincing to fifteen days of trial fifteen with mrs i believe for two for the life at the end of the evidence she asked each of us to give her points of views on thirteen specific questions the plaintiffs provide but they'll believe their take on the evidence well let me ask you one more question yes we have to defer to what the trial court or mr joyce or mr de vito things is he duty in this case whether the information would versus maddox which relies on a federal court case that says that the bed the courage to believe that the fact bill was tried to the bench does not prove the need for expert testimony but there still needs to be expert testimony about what was required under the chooses to give to expert testimony as opposed to the trial treasure any judge say i believe bush should have happened under the circumstance because that would then add fuel to me for expert testimony that the line illinois says is required to prove the legal malpractise case at
committee will come to order acid we call up hr twenty one eighty two
reform while she was in california yet the very day she came back she fired her on appeal to the defendant and have abandoned virtually all of their previous explanations for why they says she relied on the march report and kind of continued to cite part march report all through their breed on appeal is illogical saying look what a great job johnson did when she took over but was very quiet into eight months and again they had given me a little most only two and a half months before they fire case so long as any reasonable jury would conclude that the evidence shows that the terminations decision still would have been may not withstanding direct evidence or as  the real reason for the nation i think the best three cases for the could court to look at in determining whether the statements that are listed in pages two thousand seven hundred and twenty nine  probably the closest on point to and there the court analyzed two statements that were under the direct evidence analysis of course the court talked about some of the the four factor  accused of not being at the end because of this that aren't skinned people are not be permitted to handle any money in the casino the other statement was of the investigation and she after he denied that that that it was something intentional that it was a mistake and she reached out to someone in management and basically said for public refining came from this court and said that even have the judgment of the judgment of the employer is incorrect about in other words maybe they were off overly optimistic about how rare is uncommon in our court specifically we construe direct evidence very strictly it can barbie comment perhaps there is some ambiguity there some dots that need to be connected with it could be construed to be young or group attractive or whatever as opposed to or dated but there seems to be some other evidence in the record that could be those statements would be out the circumstantial evidence of the minister we still then get back to the pretax factor you know the pretax burden shifting component and about why they terminated the love of which it is i and a charity concert only read into that but if they had meant it in the st place they would still be mentioning it now a jury could
abby exact location needs i mean it's peanuts to build good a new location a quarter mile away or a half mile or you know if it's not downtown you go but it's you know on the edge you go on the freeway i mean to me
in fairness to the court you know it's a small county i'm sure maybe other parties knew each other and lived in the same neighborhood and a lot of times a court will fashion equitable relief and the asli there they are appeal so at that time there was a point in time no point may twenty fourth if i remember right what were the trial court indicated what his decision was going to be was there necessary the court was not including your client as part of the partnership correct nobody would be there to follow your lead with you there so the court was assuming he had this associated the story helping and then went know ok i'm not asking what evidence you had supporting that the partnership should continue i understand that but my question is this specific you are saying we've put
we had one case this morning with what you call me and before we do i'd like the lawyers to know that we have a class here from a law school that will be observing s not initiate this true transaction he's saying that we did it this is not mine and this is not insignificant was famous consistent the entire time saying i was standing out there and this officer asked me to help him by some facts what to heroin and p c p so it's not surprising that he would know where to find their way in the world p c p i don't think that that factor shows predisposition it certainly does not show it beyond a reasonable doubt but the end of the day and you know an obvious reluctance over a period of time here i think is just words pointed out we have a couple of minutes don't we believe most of the first round has to do with far more expensive drug cases simply isn't anything in the back of much of anything in the back and to show that he had had this disposition as things said himself during our kitchen you know i i take my job for the pride of yes i bought him some jobs but that is not what i do i don't sell drugs reluctance but more like months of weeks in which the person indicates a reluctance to deal or sell direct yes your honor in the case of showing that this happens over a  the record indicates that he doesn't have any he wasn't engaged in any other similar offenses in that day or any time is that true the record business this evidence that any physical evidence any records of this phone number or anything there's nothing in the record wouldn't you suggest that in this record the judge specifically said that he believed the officers and not mr stephens yes that's what your position doesn't yes we believe that it does a person position the child that was able to hear the testimony was able to see their demeanor in front and down was able to wait at the ins and didn't mention that the officer the initial the bank officer didn't have a controlled substance case or possession with intent lever where the individual has multiple perhaps convictions and they'll be a number of transactions on the street for gaming  mean he has a conviction for burglary he has a conviction multiple convictions for that i think there's a conviction for armed robbery and he had been in the penitentiary for a while barely time for this but i mean you have to  conviction for this kind of an offense i mean if it is unusual in that sense is it based on the facts of this case that evidence did not come in and then you would be able to determine whether or not it another thing that bothers me and in all of these cases this officer saw saw the defendant go into an alleyway where the transaction occurred right there was no officer back up or addiction to drugs would never be entrapment as a matter yet seen as not the case here your position is that even if you accept everything that he testified to it's still in light of all the factors recent favor of the state yes your honor i was there
ask mr diaz what he felt on his deposition the answer was in fact ice however in no uncertain terms he testified clearer that that ice was twenty or thirty feet where he fell he said he didn't know i wasn't thinking about it i don't know but when he came there to asking him where he was in relation to his truck he testified in no uncertain terms that it thirty feet but isn't that an issue that goes to critical billeted which would not necessarily be the summary judgment issue not at all your honor the reason it doesn't go to creates the question it creates a question but what's happening here is that the point is i'm asking you to ignore his bad testimony to ignore his testimony that itself when you're thirty feet away from the condition that his wife allegedly i can't of course get into the judge's mind have exactly why he threw it out however we need that argument to be had in september where unfortunately there was not a court reporter present we argued again detail the all of they don't know where he fell they only came they are on a chair and they can see what was in the immediate area where they were traversing but they didn't none of them said that none of them knew how long the eyes had been there where it came from how it got here  plaintiff's testimony for what it is just that we cannot pick and choose the court cannot pick and choose when i want to know who were out there i ask you to ignore some of the points testimony because it was incredible the point is can't do that neither she doesn't get to pick and choose what testimony we're going to listen to it well clearly the trial judge didn't pick and choose and the trial judge decided well he i mean let's look at the order if this twenty to thirty feet is causing the crown that court relied on because everybody else who was in nobody saw him fall but everybody else who was there before he was taken away the two witnesses remained go the him because it was too big so this is where he stayed and then the witnesses who came in after they have to be empty said there was ice in that area and they also had to be careful ok well first of the two little ways that there was no ice in the area that they  felt no more than a building yes can testify as to where the plane fell the only person who can testify as to where the plaintiff fell absence of an eyewitness is the pointed and in no uncertain terms without wavering without saying i was in too much pain to know the court he had moved to consider it miscible testimony in order to do that they would not be allowed to testify where he fell because they didn't see it the paramedics only could say that we're being we're generally attending to them found according to his testimony again in no uncertain terms these two guys helped him over there now he said he fainted we did way out after they were lifting me and i asked him to take me to truck and then when we fifty feet from however many he was he according to his testimony he was moved and therefore that brings the calls to the nexus between the alleged condition that this is diaz saw and what he allegedly fell down and
liability case that they're bringing in it's belief then there was no evidence on that point there was evidence and the reason i'm not contesting the five hundred dollars is because they did bring in a fellow that didn't want going on he in the end quote a gram of this kitchen be unreasonable arbitrary or not based on the evidence when preparing for work day i did review the course record more specifically the photos that were entered into evidence including feeling in the middle of another war three five four where there was too much space between the floor and walls and probably most telling of all is he three four to where they were going through our floor it was installed next to the walls without leaving some room for the floor to close and i think mr dunham would agree with that but when you look at the additives and you look at the photo that show coming and heidi between the flooring and the wall in the flooring and did when they left the floor there are places where it did not match the one where there was a defect in one of the plants and of course the plane feeling in everything w damages is the cost of correcting the defective condition and i think the court asks whether or not there was testimony regarding just some repairs to different spots or if you look at the
plastics it means that there are certain medical islands and other items that we really do need to make a lasting you know that there's not a whole lot of turnouts for those but we do we were going to be able to come up go through this can you charge for bags it turns out that in massachusetts only in cities you can charge for bags for example cambridge framingham boston you can charge for bags but for there's a stamp on it that says that it's a certain size or it's bigger and we will be hit a six month waiting period after the vote and then that time or intent is that the larger stores will have to implement this right away i've talked to the people at shows and they're there ready to do this so they're there they know that they're there yes there they can they can they can and then probably go through their existing it's probably pretty easy to get home we'd like to be able to collect them wash them and give them away to people that are you can still buy petition together but when we put it together the sadness said this is this is a good idea why don't we do it so they walked it and so now they are helping drive through and so we don't actually have forme and i think that it will take care of itself ok thank you very much
approximately three to four miles apart and although we are talking about a new school district on my client a conscious decision that she wasn't moving the children in the middle of the school year and we're talking about a second grader in and i understand the one of the things that i believe to be important is the fact that was able her someone he was able to be home with the children throughout the day if they weren't in school if they were sick from school he had that ability to take care of those things that the trial judge consider join around every single day one wonders is that is that supporting healthy relationships between liz and her children there isn't the record is allison of any facts showing that she did not support a relationship with these children
during the years of own rest the fall of the civil war a powerful secret organization called the legion of the black out sprang up in the western united states members would be found everywhere if i am the law using the law for their own purposes working all the ultimate goal of revolt
i guess i'll be leaving you know right up there with an hour later but the lone ranger without his mask and wearing disguises reined up on the outskirts to brian left over there and then started down the main street ahead of him he saw a young couple come out of a small white cottage and turned toward the center of town baby you can get moving this has to be done tonight  with
and regatta bay ltd versus the united states basic facts pertain to a twenty year course of performance on the hudson on which was issued nine hundred seventy nine and the three key documents are regulatory agreement and no in deed of trust and under the twenty years regatta made working capital on this pursuant to its limited partnership agreement which had approved from the outset of the transaction to be getting down to kind of the triggering event you were sixty days late which had never happened before right and doesn't that i understand there's a lot of evidence here but is that triggering event sufficient to justify the specifically authorized documents and of course performance for thirteen years up to that time and and yeah came back into me ended after the fact one point one million dollars in thirty days that's what broke this project there's no equity  that notifying regatta of an acceleration didn't say what the basis was there are that's another reason we need discovery because as you are points out that's one reading of it but i'm and that's what the government is the problems with the way this celebration was purported to be performed why we need discovery you can't tell why they did it for whatever reason didn't allow the proceeds to charity always have the past twenty years they allowed an opportune to cure after the acceleration by by allowing you to make but but put aside the question on the bottle when the bit after the acceleration regatta had the opportunity to avoid the foreclosure by making the full payment that resulted from the acceleration all times had already said it's fully exonerated well that's what i'm talking about i'm saying they had the opportunity to avoid foreclosure by making the full payment right if that were possible that was a requirement in the trustee or under the statute a five fifty nine of the appendix that says that the acceleration notice is based very clearly on the delinquent and owing amount from june first and july first well just june one being of course the muscling one is the time why isn't i'm just confused as to why you say that the june first wasn't the basis for to bring all your light payments current night if you don't do it within a particular time you have to pay the whole exhilarated not if you want to avoid foreclosure when is your your view under nevada law does it change from an obligation understand you're saying to do just correct correctly there needs to be a notice to be pulled under nevada law either a fifteen or thirty day period depending on whether you go by that you trust or the  which is a either at fifteen or thirty day period then if there was no curing during that period then there would be an acceleration and a right to sell just a little ways down the notices all they say that it will be accelerated if
they'll bring subsequently file these third party pleadings that sort of thing affidavits photographs stuff that comes about on leader on after insurance company said sorry no coverage headcases that is the problem with the trial courts or is it came up with this this this rule from there that i don't get to look at this stuff because they didn't get to look at it when they decided there was no coverage there's still ongoing rights and duties of absolute absolutely and there's nothing in the case law that says a core can lead the insurance company out of its contractual obligation to provide a defense by  and if it's not consistent with that one and maybe there's a reasonable argument that maybe there is coverage based upon one another judge determined that this is a civil lawsuit i think that's fair they could have been a duty to defend whenever there are facts that are potentially within the coverage potentially losing coverage the wealth of the law unless the policy cannot possibly cause liability from rubin give us the value of the company of the difference between what it was sold for what it should have been sold for him all facts that would have been their measure damages instead they said give us a constructive trust of everything this company has basically made since it was sold fraudulently who it was as you said they were fraudulent pretenses and the sale and everything after that was done on lawfully just like if i bought your house for five thousand dollars instead of the hundred
seeking to reverse the court's action outline which is solidly against this gentleman kirk reed an hour was the director of the department and i guess for those of us employees ethics and it was a major step and effort to clean out the my gov part of the overall act was article fifteen all the whistleblower protection which was another effort to clean up state government and an effort to provide the judicial remedy to state employees who as  or any investigation so the outcome is pre determined and we believe that falls into the due process carry out we believe the statute prayer certain elements certain law then secondly there has to be some report of the activity well we believe that's as simple as the fact that hill was just telling his supervisor the now or that he has never been fired in his life and his employment history which is i think a very normal human reaction that i'm about to lose my not he doesn't say you're fired he doesn't say pack your pongs your quest beats him to that point by saying i'm just going to quit i've never been fired before favorable to the defendant clearly laid out what this activity was this was about a fix it was about the director of a state agency that one of his wardens i don't care period i don't care about an investigation this guy is out the door and get it done and it's about a state employee private piece of legislation that the general assembly in hand or people like bill bill could stand up and blow the whistle and he did his director that you're asking me to do something and i'm looking at paragraph thirteen of the complaint that is drawn illegal  i don't care what he said i don't hear about camps investigation there supposed to be a fire here who cares what the investigation shows when we go to paragraph well this is is trying to get across to his supervisor who happens to be the head of the agency they ask you can he fix an investigation you can't create good karma you're denying of difference for president to this situation where we're dealing with a fairly new illinois that early on i
financing agreement disclaim chase equipment leasing that the back chase equipment leasing and now to say that they have nothing to do with this claim that the case in chief is is just i believe a stunning admission they never should have been put in the first place and this whole issue of all this moment that should or should not have been made whatever the case may be between chase bank and the mrs has a in the judgment a worse instinctually more than the thirty six thousand dollars a do so sent directly to the trial judge two days before the reconvene hearing on the amount of interest the amount of interest was the only thing that was left to the issue in that july thirtieth hearing damages issue judge they admitted that and there's really no controversy involved with so ever an admission they hid the authenticity of the documents it is signing the documents the documents themselves provided for interest on this is this this equipment this was it the fanatic been invented yet but what happened here was a short sale it's a concept which switches become unfortunately very common these days when judgment have been breached heard an argument in the system this memorandum which again has been fantastic but i don't know that it's part of the record because it was never we was never granted the file and it was never filed was it ever  or in response to a motion for summary judgment which again they didn't do and on the circumstances your honor i don't believe there's any question in fact in light of the admissions contained in the record by themselves i don't see there's any