MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
course on appeal i didn't represent mr hoar fasten two thousand and one when he pled guilty and made the offensive statement to the probation officer three part has should apply to determine whether the defense in subsection he should apply and that is namely whether the false statement was made in the course of a proceeding by a party and submitted to a judge about whether he served in the marine corps yes or no what his rank wires and then my missing something or yourself seem like a likely proposition i think that this statement about the prior maureen corps service was significant in the fact that him whether he was claiming to have been a colonel or a new five we can see that there's no there's no dispute that statement to the probation officer is a statement made to as i dragged my my question i guess is is is this if two thousand and one does not apply to statements policy there's no question that it's it's striking person in the guy to think that a person could live and not have some sort of life bill of rights but it's my contention that congress created this this problem  pretrial conferences in criminal cases and during that time any number of items might be discussed with the lockers that might include a false statement by a lawyer or a false proceeding and then i assume that they have the same protections that animate an exception for statements made on the record to a drug or submissions made as part of a record to the judge but that's probation officer and not no part of his statement may have made it to the jury in this case your honor as the indictment charges the prostate was made to the probation officer and from the language of the indictment the purpose while the probation officer works for the judge he's ordered to collect information by the judge from the bench but under also under federal rule of criminal procedure thirty two and has an obligation to keep the eyes and ears of the court as other statement to have jazz within the meaning of the exception function wouldn't the probation officer be required to include any material statement by the defendant and if that is the quays then why isn't the probation officer for that purpose to say if you know i've never been involved in crime before i you know i'm happily married you know whatever it is that's mitigating and it's immaterial to the judge whether it's conveyed her begum or not doesn't probation officer have an report interview i think everyone understands that this is this is a process of cooking in the sense the defense entire interview does go to the judge not everything the probation officer gather shows the judge the probation officer he was not under oath  an opportunity to charge that perjury lie in the form of the statement made at the change of plea and for some reason chose not to but that doesn't mean th the statement at the time of the guilty plea was that mr horvath claimed to have served in the marine corps at the time that he pled guilty and he was under oath
commenting on one of the recent statements made by opposing counsel opposing counsel stated she made it that her client was on high alert by signing this agreement and in order to access the pit area this is not when from being in the restricted area during the use of the injury occurred in a restricted area and i believe that the way very clearly indicates that any injuries that resulted from being in the restricted area under no obligation to enter the restricted area she could have an option not to enter the restricted area to watch her husband write we also have no in our brief that the appeal should be dismissed
motion to dismiss by the other al stewart who was also our client which was seeking to dismiss him from the case entirely as a defendant so that was also said hearing jurisdiction has been limited with that as well too so there is more than one area which is treated differently in those cases but we're taking your direction on that knowing she's ok assuming that the concern is concerning the pending motion to dismiss even if he was now represented by counsel yes correct and the argument is if you go back and look through the history of the orders well too it's  have you know if it if nothing happened the st couple times why would he believe that it would happen again and that's that's certainly fair i would argue actually the opposite that he was
the same conduct while employed as a public a public official republican for each deceiving his employer the village so he didn't to see the village by virtue of the state improved deception and an application relating to the manning of a fire station which one do you think the comptroller or the treasure or human resources the firehouse logs are also a record of indicating who suppose to be at the station which for which should reflect how many hours one should be paid for so are they substantive evidence for the impeaching evidence entire department that was in attendance i would think that at least one other person would have requested it but his name or her name wasn't there so were they guilty of a felony as well kemah say when i tried  was the witness here to determine whether or not he stayed after hours i don't believe so battleship olson testified that if you don't show up on time then it means that representation sufficient more guns there has to be some success like getting paid more than you entitle to in order to establish a f he was devoted and that he wanted to work forty hour weeks and so if he was using whatever system he designed to show up and fill in hours on that red shift
hundred twenty years old when he won she visited his home during these two months between ten and twenty times and they had sex between seven and fifteen times during that time period the kind of testified that she visited his house about five times and that they had relations about three times so both been agreed that they didn't always meet and have sex and the parties really didn't brief the issue of whether this relationship with followed by as a as a dating relationship obviously i would argue that that that the onus was sufficient to prove that they did have a dating testimony also the he also didn't task it was testimony that he attacked her after she met up with him to console him about something and then she told him that she in the interim six months or so since they broke up the guy gage to inflicting great bodily harm where is he not subsequently filed charges did and on it's unclear when the state learned of the extent of her injuries not some of her injuries were here and of course right away the state when the state learned of the drowning or of the extent of the injury and oh and also i question whether the charges were based on on the same based on
deposition testified that he believed that there was some pipes that will run from leaks and troia to the community war which was the air fuel sources were leaks and curlier there may have been simply a ditch that was run he could not remember was there and the water lines that were here have been removed and you were removed in the eighty's and there's no dispute about that so the question becomes how or when you see it as a water source at all much less state tertiary water source over the war source to the prevention of pollution of injury or damage to the water source so that raises the question as to whether if you would find it will still be use it water sources some hold the challenge to whether or not the which says that that's the law i mean that's there are an interpretation placed on the statute but there is absolutely no case which says that to this point in fact the one case it seems to there was a if i don't want to go to the fest to too deeply but there was a gentleman that sold land to the north reservist who decided he wanted to get it back he wanted to refund the money that the land pillages that was self expects to it that somehow automatically eliminated this season change the season corporation and rethink it tonight that's not correct it took it took an election for the city the city had action in the courts pacifically file then the question of ultra vires are stupid the questionable for buyers may be raised only by the city or by a party who has suffered the invasion of some right by the breached it cannot be more than forty years from the date of the creation of that condition or the possibility of rebirth so until they breach the conditions subsequent there is no right to her once the breach i
after the shit you call
a natural tendency to bring the power of the beneficiary with that of the trustee but the nature of the interest is such that if the trust is to be preserved the power beneficiary of the trust must be kept the stake and that is worth many decades be sufficient to convey the way first beneficiaries beneficial interest in the trust two bit between seat of the d d in this case there's no such language on the face of the to be fair i'm not sure that i fully understand the question i just don't see any difference what that accomplishes by allowing the trades for a title when looking at the public records in the county where the deed was recorded that would be a separate issue st
apply to the facts in this case and in fact the order entry february seventeenth two thousand and nine was done so after the trial  default for her and her against her own judgment nothing and she didn't do anything to big the fall judgment that had been entered against on the contrary she says hey brought up the fact that founders insurance companies insurers are not sophisticated this is not heard of the record this isn't part of the record insurance in illinois is mandatory they're offering to people living in have a i wasn't president and i'm not sure why that language was included in there or her but the fact of the matter is nothing was done within fourteen days nothing was done for nine months and
something in violation of the statute but for the fact that there's an exception so we're just arguing about whether that exception applies to this particular case and it's my argument that because dusty's took a son that was was the point that if they had his new material then they would say we probably violate the but we didn't use the material we were very careful to use the posts that were there that had been blown over in one argument is just based on the definition of the wor of the public policy is to remove these billboards and one of the ways that they can be removed is if they're destroyed if they're on the ground then the department will reach out and say well we're sorry to have this lawsuit really offer you compensation because the statute does say that that's what should happen and we did that and that's the way this should have been resolved they should have been compensated for that for the sign that was destroyed instead they essentially redirected the sun it's been here for eight years  statute and go to the dictionary immediately and say there's a definition that applies perhaps backwards but you have to be the context of a statute in the will to get a determination as to what it means in the the statute really is dealing with substantially is an issue in the reno repair work it's providing activities that are considered direction construction building raising placing and so yes i believe the god i mean and here's the other key distinction is this case has existed for thirty five years when the when the legislature made after the legislature a firecracker stage i should say moving this amendment if the legislature intended and had the intention and maybe making clear these acts of god and excluding them because of their concern about the purpose of this act they had every opportunity to do so but it makes no predicts exactly what the statute says in the in the st few sentences of the in addition there are governors i believe that their interpretation would lead to some absurd results which the color case has made clear to the parliament as well as about just make sure that it will not increase the severity of this act without a clear expression of the legislative intent and by the president's definition of replacing they're simply saying that it's to restore to its former place that doesn't that does not necessarily mean that efforts have to be out of the ground but a parrot could easily
in however the prosecution did not relent they asked for a read the labor scene so that they could get more information to the court and so the prosecutor could talk to her supervisor then the bastard came back and submitted an article that talked about  and name calling and then be subjected to cross examination on those issues which again this particular bad guy evidence to be highlighted to the jury is normal and the prosecution was in a panic and threatened to do it in a laboratory deal when this evidence was
morning to you all my name is help but there is some uncertainty about how long it took dr rocha to call for help and isn't there testimony that he waited maybe fifteen or twenty minutes to call for help well  witnesses and you saying that that should have more weight than the oral testimony of another set of witnesses who presented contradictory story well and the jury heard both thing when the events of this case so so what was the patient approaches the hospital he's not concerned about these nuances of the relationship between the the the chief of the department the internes the residence he comes to the hospital believing the whoever gives him care is going to give him proper care the record seems to be clear that although he may have had a relationship with dr paul people who are that's not why he came to the hospital he came to the hospital because he was in distress and you came there hoping to get some relief so why does any of claim against dr upon today he misrepresented from your argument what dr rocha was going to be permitted to do he then sort of on a lot hoc basis allowed him to do something he never told the hospital he was going to allow them to but again i don't see why any of this should matter with respect to the plaintiff who went to the hospital believing that whoever gave him the care would give him the proper care now you may say you may want to argue that he actually won three or not because of his faith in the hospital because of his faith in dr paul t but isn't isn't that really a factual dispute i mean i assume that you to the hospital and if that is the basis upon which he came under the law puerto rico the hospital is jointly liable with the physicians who committed the malpractise isn't that a fair statement issue who who made the judgment was that the judge with the jury who made the judgment about the basis upon which the victim the deceased came to the hospital there are two theories  theory that under the law puerto rico this is a situation where that in effect the doctor said to him you go to that hospital i want to take care of you there and so this whole theory have joint liability does not apply in the situation counsel here argues even our hospital use only liable here for ten percent and we argue that is not correct even here is liable for forty percent because on the verdict place allowed for ten percent or rocha who was the hospital's in turn who was in the fault in the case and did not come to trial he was found liable for thirty percent because there was evidence on a
and let's go back to you know the real issue before us that i think it is that appellate counsel was in effect perhaps and yet the state claims that there is no such issue in the mr coles a decision not to testify and it certainly within our understanding of the human experience and with regard to juries that they were dealt with suspicion a defendant who does not testify and that's in fact  that the defendant has a right not to testify and number two that the joy can hold the defendants exercise of that right against the defendant that the state does not dispute that there was a a for thirty one when they get this right your position is that if this had been a direct appeal that claim would clearly fail on your t the jury did not state that they are aware and that they will accept the premise that a defendant is that after this case you stated that just that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that preclude such an argument there was only one identification witness and mr cole did not testify but did that if it's one thing to say that it's not a yard mishap precluded but what what do you have to support the argument were the what do you have in this case mr it specifically in this case mr cole did not testify so that's a fact specific to this case that we go to a prejudice for now it's not really developed very much but he doesn't have to make a substantial showing because just the violation at the first stage only just and that's what he has done here this is how i understand your claim that them there's a jest that play a turd that set a prospective jurors stack on the jury testify but where do we get that and why why why is there some sort of of just presumption when jurors are ethically admonished that they might be doing that you like that and there's nothing in a note that came out of the jury room there's nothing that shows that that this was a factor in this case so i would actually just ask just to just assume that it was affected or i'm asking that this said back for a second stage proceedings at which time counsel could develop the claim that mr cole has stated the gist of this play i'm not trying to convince the score that he has made substantial showing merely that he has stated  that the court uses threshold to very low not that's why and that's why i am saying that even though i don't believe it's record establishes that that claim was presented even if you find under and under that standard thompson clearly governs and clearly precludes and if where the spirit of the well allow this supposition to go to a second stage then where is that line that would say for thirty one b issue  evidence coming why this is a closely bill there was only the each other but they picked the complainant to testify that he knew the defendant you also testified that he had been doing illegal drugs earlier in the night that he was if at five o'clock in the morning saw before he knew the guy and he identified him immediately so what what what's closely balanced about simply the right leader for the identification number one where he was admittedly intoxicated and very tired and number two are where
letter there was a letter drafted by me there was a memorandum a memorandum of understanding which referred back to whether i care a member who actually drafted but part of the agreement i drafted the better part was requiring us to actually prove that for instance the there was the there was too much money being paid to three we are not concerned about the actual numbers on the in that there were entered in the books we don't know right now i don't think any of those are particularly wrong we're concerned about the back story things that we had one of the accounting for that was the sort of thing that was within his knowledge for his objection he has a duty to come forward with all the information to back that up the back of why he did what he did the term i guess the term the word suspicion by mr bradley to define its mission and sitting at home and just coming up with ideas that could be true now is more now there is evidence to support it i didn't see evidence to move to the second stage of accounting on a spreadsheet it's all where well what happened to these vacation days and how come we're hiring all these extra people to work hours that i thought you were working well they were business together thirteen years none of this came up until after a and if it didn't collect that would come out of mr o'shea's component so with regards to the retention benefits of the retention bonuses those were to be earned post close mr o'shea was working there to keep those prescriptions for customers at those locations mr shape originally argue hey i should earn all of that in the end because it's face money after mr measurably objected and in fact is where somebody illegally or on direct threat makes you sign something for example you know the godfather is the great story of that great heart parking or financial pressure whether exerted by mr o he argues other works i do know that he takes significant time to argue partnership law well the revenues of partnership law or under the partnership act are obviously different than of the corporation act and i think we all know it's not within the relief authorized under that section a motion to amend complaint it's under five dash to jansha six sixteen ok and i'm you when you look under six sixteen it brief he makes it very clear all he's pursuing is an account at that time so the judgment had injured the poor and had ruled against him and he said well wait i'm going to file something completely separate and has to be based on the evidence that was presented he's never identified what that evidence what kind of claim that would be and quite frankly the court had already ruled over summary judgment on the contracts and had rule that  on phase one in order to come forward with all the numbers we could perhaps of had to hire forensic accountants or something you know some people who were years and then them things turned sour and mr mr o'shea wasn't living up to his duties and that caused mr brandreth to dig deeper best guess what that
running negative account balance and she's basically meeting her spunk since we believe that pat showed up when the judge came up with a must lower figure that she really would have been making enough to  which this court and i think was two thousand one hundred and the bird esky that i was involved in seem both to say that measuring income by what on i think they keep bringing it up does he want to claim you know it was some substantially bigger number but yet there was never any so i think he was trying to increase your income with the hopes that it wouldn't be me so i think the court was just  find evidence of that that my client testified truthfully admitted that the she did make cash and parties did not declare that on her tax return and that was kind of where i think that ended ok thank you
all escorts you say action pursuant to what cladistics just do which is barring the police officer from basically from testified to what would have been on the video that was destroyed in our case in that somebody thin grounds of reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving or actually in physical control of the vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol and with the defendant properly mourned by arresting  intoxicated and also in meeting it's who he is to the trooper that he had beers that evening after uni meeting so there were several different indicators separate him from the p t test that indicate that this person was impaired severely there was any bad actions here are a part of the state and even a visceral reason is a reason for sanctions because of the discovery violation here and we i think we all agree that there was a discovery violation if we are ask