MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
consultant at a g m facility that was previously owned by the party's daughter in marion illinois and he had a income of one point home twenty five  them had been living in their daughter that as well as another house he moved into the daughter house that the daughter lithium and the  was he had for the previous eighteen months and then able to do his job as a consultant sometimes when barrett had not been able to form his duties that his daughter had been in pain in the way which was the source of the funds  be used by all bills for his wife that his doctor had ordered him to stop working and that at the end of the day that day he was done being employed because he was being paid for but i don't think i can explain it because i'm not inside the court hearing it would have to be evidence that existed at the time of trial that you are for right reasons couldn't be produced and he said i'm not going to allow that we're here and you can do and offer proof reconsider the fact that he allowed as an offer proof and then prevented me from cross examining wording the testimony on the contrary was really grossly unfair that they offered it but on of background that day was the employee is employed now but i don't know you really can do that underneath that evidentiary rules because industry rules require some kind of new new evidence and i think that mrs is it from this order it just says he shall continue to pay maintenance how do we know what he's supposed to pay and why should we just presume that it's the same thing as before the work continue i think it w i'm sorry to get paid for cutting the tree no your honor he was one of the arguments he presented second stage was the fact that he was physically unable to work home so the fact that he was out in the yard work our argument was that he  upon the evidence that comes before him at the time of trial and there are lots of cases i mean what if a guy gets in the stands as young working but i got a notice on terminated in two weeks and different than the situation you're under in that in your hypothetical that is outside of the person's control he's been laid off he's been terminated outside his control or as mr wrong and control over whether or not he's going to retire there was extricate himself from the home and the presence of mrs brown and so the reason for the lay of this case for eighteen months was because we couldn't do the second stage trial until i tried the criminal case which i did and those things are in the record but are not part of the brief and we are now outside the proof for us to question she filed  stated said that my client would continue to pay sixty dollars a month on a credit card bill and forty dollars a month to senior citizens here for her vehicle she is incorrect and saying that my client has her clients vehicle her client was always at her vehicle and still does the court have any other questions i just want to clarify that because i tried those various things making sense is we do not think this matter
with the require a retainer agreement that is forcible because it is both unconscionable and against public policy but i guess you just a couple of things just before we get started to meet focus in on certain simply say that mandatory arbitration i can made the same arguments that i make you risk being your discovery cries but i believe that the no discovery cries in this a guy can make just what sets it apart from any other case that anybody has looked at and the reason standard of care and i don't see how we're going to be able to prove there were surely going to make an effort if we lose this case but it's going to be so much more difficult to prove a violation a standard strip title with the s p l side why did you do there's a suggestion here that you're not sure what the legal malpractise is you want to discover it is not have gone whole problem with this case is that it's not supposed to be an expedition to determine whether there's a beginning so we could avoid kind of a repetition of your response to their brief and so i think the argument that central here is that ari discovery is essentially giving one side it says in there that the former retained files for ten years i will not destroy them and that there are available for the client so i think there is an expectation that kind of a stance that is entitle to information and the data means and information we're off argument that ended it turning client relationship when we're looking at it arbitration fish it we should give it a little closer look than a commercial here i believe that that is the case itself but i believe in this case this given the complaint in this case the answer is no because there is no suggestion there's no vision but even suggestion that in the foundation of this agreement the time i didn't understand it or couldn't read it i have procedural type issues that's where you get into a little story to disclose  believe they have claims to assert and they want to have the maturity to in court and not an arbitration and that they seek to invalidate the arbitration provision so  is but the certainly a client should be able to fight now we're trying to sell that to in some ways i think there's a contradiction in the position taken by the other side they say they could file a lawsuit tomorrow and to be able to do like requiring arbitration yes or having our position is that the the trial is not unconscionable but if it's found to be that it should be separate from the arbitration provision and i believe the last clear head that is rep should take significant then the strong public policy in april resolving cases by architrave i can't believe there's a saying in this case i think there would be a balancing if they took the position that there was a lack of informed consent then i think th
sort out whether or not that was a question regarding what type of light there was there rather it's then whether or not there was a green arrow at the time she was trained a lot so i was kind of left enthused about that as well difficult to see that
involved to me underlying action here are and i'd like to address both of them in the opinion i know that this court mentioned that there could be three types of on certainties factual leave interpretive and legal and i'm potentially within the policy is the holding when it's really we were setting out what facts of the case were it was a no this in due diligence not a court which case all right but the standard of living whether due diligence was m liability and one of the factors closest to that in a way it was an ambush because it was led to believe that there was no coverage and then after they say that there's no coverage you want you entered into or somebody enter into a anything in your argument no in fact i think that that is supports our human did nothing here in these pleadings is a clue makes it clear that all of the claims fall within the exclusion in so if somebody writes to an explosion that says we really really really really mean this and someone comes along and just says we really mean this one is definitely not within the federal government but the other one could be  nothing in paragraphs eleven through sixty eight of the underlying complaint and i brought them up here that said anything one way or the other about all the facts is the advertisements is defined by the statutes in the ratings or whether they were cats point question of whether morris is written in catch all provision to the exclusion could income has come off claims i think that even if that were a reasonable reading of that exclusion is by no means the only reading in this long as there is a reasonable reading under which common law flames don't fall within that catchall provisions then by operation of the rules of contract message but i think in the context of the facts you have to establish that the fax was unwanted that there was no consent that ate up some of your think in your paper
this meeting to outline my plan to get the lone ranger i expect to be here tonight and i let the word go out that we were to meet at ten o'clock i figured the girl would hear a little let the lone ranger know he said think we've got some special plans to i don't know for one thing you might have something that would tell us who the girl is he might have some letters that would tell us who else we've got to be on guard against maybe he doesn't have anything but i am going to any harm to us now is he likely to go with where foley was campus and they reckon so wherever it is that's where to go and we'll follow him we'll get in there and find everything he's got to get out about us wouldn't shoot them if they refuse to take them off and you're the only way i can see that they were removing my so that they could have jumped me well look i got one more question if you know the message i brought you this one a woman gave me like that away will capture her as well as the lone ranger
and and so you don't have nearly the impact on the commercial side there we all have dissipated and hope we'll see next year we've been talking about these issues now for a number of years and what we hope w happen with university station and i think we're right on the process of seeing for like fifteen however we're really just seeing a little bit of growth there parking garage previously was a commercial lot it's now been converted to residential so it's hardly unique situation what we saw this year were really increases in the residential values change but in addition to those factors you also have this situation where you have this tax parcel switch from a commercial value over to the residential side so that is amplifying what we're seen which is pros on the residential side and really no change on the marshall side like i said we're hoping next year with much more of a universe station town increased five point one two percent residential values increased five point eight or eight four percent or more from value essentially no change plus zero point three percent if you look at the chart on page four there is a column on the left and five percent of levy paid so the first column is the second column is a percent of the levy seventy eight point three five percent commercial pay twenty one point six five percent that was under a share factor of one point six five percent never should factor has been in place for a number of years and we've talked in the past about what would happen if you got to a situation where the commercial became so low that you might consider increasing the shi factor and that is that is what we're recommending this year an increase of the share factor from one point six five to one point seven and that means that the commercial value is paying one point seven times what the residential would pay if you had a single tax free and really the reason we're we're saying that and recommending that this year  on top of the increase in values and in teaching you also have a flat commercial side and you have shifting parcels so what we're recommending is that with this shift from one point six five to one point seven essentially what we have is that the percentage of total of the total with no change to the share of the residential would increase from seventy eight from three five of the total to seventy nine point three three the commercial would decline from twenty one point six five twenty  six so that's a big shift remains the same we're suggesting that if you increase the ship to one point seven you will have a much more stable environment where the residential is is that a year from now we'll be able to say we should go back to the one point six five share because of york we already know as we sit here today that there's going to be significant growth with university station as of june thirtieth one and it's that will alleviate the need to keep hopefully keep the shift at one point
entertain any additional amendments title
only talks about related disorders is not say how it was then what if the other health condition of this then work and the plain to say that those disorders are disorders are those things arise because of that but either way the media doesn't really matter because he's still got a deal with the to the patient with lutein to the possibility that there might be someone that also has related this or as a final point you'll know this is a set a reexamination we've had extended
address whether we had jurisdiction over the equitable claim given the fact that the counter claim was dismissed with prejudice that there was no three zero for a finding that was  sought and equitable enos really different than the statutory law that we've been talking about the last few minutes which you address that please be assured first of all just by way of a little procedural history assuming she may have said something like you know parties that i'm going to give you a three or four a fine certainly if you want it but order them well i mean  upon the creation of the attorney client relationship in which the client agree is that the compensation to the the true will be  matches up with the cases we cite remarks and so forth home federal which clearly stated that the recovery would be that the attorneys fees would be twenty percent of anything recovered by years lapsed since that time the issue with respect to the sphere grids and again with all due respect to my opposing counsel i don't know wh think is a stretch to put it kind of there are as i count six iterations of figurines none of which are consistent none of which provide a clear direction as to who was what but i mean didn't the producers operate under the assumption that the feed was twenty percent of the sale price that the property directors can be and saying it can pay four hundred thousand dollars towards this i  and the price has continued to go down it's been listed there's no plane being made anywhere that did the effort to sell the property somehow deficient toward not consistent with expectations really like that but again the point if it's twenty percent of the sale price we don't know the silver price because there's been said we don't know what the what or if the problem will sell it's apparently being listed at substantially last than the value bag and we all been properly presented before the court but i would submit that in terms of this notion of the elite that there isn't a again there or there isn't an not just the first two reasons it's six agreements that cover a period of at least ten years that as i say are inconsistent and tend to conflict but the point is that if if those two i submit that the payment of the four hundred thousand dollars suggests rather than creating a lien manifest itself in the notion that the former a thousand dollars i
th two thousand and eighteen this matter was this a bad decision was the decision of the commission and became final approximately one month later the employer did send a check to an employee and employees attorney regarding february th of two thousand and seventeen through the days of that check was issued which i believe was on about may th two thousand a team after receiving the check and realizing that the employer's plan was to pay the committee benefits as given more weight than any of the outside your stations because in those specific cases like you mentioned i think in colorado it specifically states that an award must have been a long sound in the act and in montana it knows that my or the day after their temporary disability period a case of st impression i believe it was an abuse of discretion at that point in time with regard to that award i think the prison doors conversation commissions case law should be provided more weight than those of the neighboring states of colorado and wyoming should be paid in a lump sum or it should be the employee's discretion again the owner as conservation commission deals with the act on a daily basis they are or should be considered acts within the field with regard to handle it how they handle it especially with regard to secured benefits for example there's a nothing but i believe that's what the commission has interpreted the act to allow people to do and that's the employer's position here today or are you saying that basically the general rule is it's pay weekly monthly and if there's won't change but as the employer looks at the case now again albeit persuasive at the commission level employer you said that you have the opportunity and the right to pay these benefits as they accrue and become due and owing that point matter again i would just refer to the commission law at how they've been doing it they live and breathe the act they're experts on the act and a player would rely on that case i'd be persuasive in front of the justices here today
they want to cash in advance on the parts that it was just it was completely unreasonable it was to make this go away you still cannot get around the fact that how are we going to build that foundation are they going to help us are they going to pay for it we don't have any duty to provide the foundation outside of forty nine feet and in time to nation you also have a right to the damage to the remainder some of this and then that was hidden corner all the way through the mine you can tell materials in preparation for exhibits argument and i think like every case we all ask what happened what did and still do to get healed in the court operated and maintained the plate quote located within a dish forty nine point five feet wide through the from corning plate paragraph eleven the pipeline that's located within this twenty nine and a half right away needs support quote high above the mine floor and will as envisioned by the players more specifically the pipeline that's present ok so here's mining law if there is such a thing is mine all this is mining along illinois where there is an express the green and that relates to mineral rights it needs to be interpreted i'm paraphrasing the price of the directly or indirectly from because of its presence so that their argument is because of the presence there damage because of the presence right that's their argument but actually it's stand here and have the court make a ruling that section fifteen doesn't apply because it applies only to person injuries or damage just real property or damages a person property ok we don't have an injury we don't have a bank of tractor and there's no allegation that there's a damage to real property not ok but let's remember this what the trial court said is i'm going to spot i'll assume that you pled because of the action under section fifteen here's the problem the pipeline unfortunately they don't have a cause of action because it accrues at the time of the injury here the whole world was on notice by virtue of the recording that the pipeline was present that the pipeline company had rights importantly the whole world was on notice of section six and section six of the easement expressly says that the grants for the landowner cannot use the property the course is set and particularly in the high end case the st district case is that as soon as the player should discover some injury here the imitation not use and the need for support for the pipeline which anyone  such thing in the law and as i said before if you look at those cases every one of those cases there is an express agreement there's a severance of the time there's either there's a severance or there's a
their position and what the supreme court seem to reaches it's years now since was that true basically trying to collect a debt from yourself because in the money you got the corporation which is a small one person corporation and you've got could get rid of this you know basically to preserve something i like like if you would transfer you know a physical asset it is collateral and as a result the judgment was satisfied what is the best case you could give us for the proposition you're pressing this time to the effect that the the solely on corporations become place position using the corporation using the show as a corporation for him i'm just result and that's one policy of the corporate veil and greed was right you just said those factors we never presented by you  know as he using the corporation for his own account or something like that we never presented that but the clear in the exercise if it's accurate discretion could at least leave the underlying piracy and see who's in control here examination of those circumstances there is no the better so that mr platt received is real he received the five hundred and twenty million five hundred and twenty seven thousand our credit and then stand the sunni notice collectible over and over again so i agree with you your honor it is a credit i agreed with your statement but i believe there is justice cunningham said it was under the circumstances for him to examine him would it not be an equitable  still have to make that decision to suit himself and that's where again the dancer merger says we're not going to be in this is situation where we have i believe we created in our brief but don't
and so the group he makes a recommendation as to what should happen next should it stop here or would it go on to the final days of the researchers condor investigation process which is the investigation and so again this is the key point the pretty team recommended quote believes that further investigation is warrant that recommendation was given your daughter for the pros she review that in light of that or not a state employees in the sovereign immunity of course i now stand before you as the state in the sense of the southern illinois university as an entity i understand or even if the way we were representing dr s
speaking of a large is that we are yes or no ok and gaylord and that seems to be important because the gaylord they had an opportunity to identify the elements of this offense and they did not include intent and department i deprived if i can not you know how similar or not the the different statutes for this different sections are not necessarily your honor however even if the court were to look at the underlying  and i'm just trying to figure out who has the most accurate information this isn't the information that was provided to the twenty three who the administrative record and the information that was relayed at the text of the statute which normally that's what we do here we have a interesting issue because of the commentary and the commentary i'm not quite sure what to make of that because  explanation regarding it is seems to say hey we mean i guess for everything to being intent to deprive not intent to permanently deprive but intent to deprive it so is that enough or  categorical match also understanding that the commentary was not is not supposed to be viewed as legislative intent is i guess some judge of counsel wrote the commentary so i just not quite sure if you're relying on the commentary you know what the best reason for us to follow that and you are just to make their responses and completely clear track it seems to track example and matheson said well there's burglary and there's different ways to commit burglary and the law doesn't care which when you commit it you just have to decide if you commit a burglary and here we've got saft and th degree in particular and there's no we're trying to grapple with so if you've got something else to support that reason i'd really appreciate it it's a it's a tricky issue so it's whatever you know that now's the time