MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
by entering in the other which allowed the administrator of the estate choose place in its private headstone on the spot purchased and owned by jack in both instances there was committed by the trial court real property there's no question of there's a lot of the cases that i cited to you that when you purchase a cemetery plot concurrent with that do you believe he has the ability to change his mind i think you'd be whining that she is not not after what we've gone through to get to the stage i don't believe that that would occur sometime and she was going in the other so i don't see where oh that there's any type of issue that you're raising or that you might raise that he can somehow change his mind tomorrow and say he never intended to get that he controls and he determines how long she lays there and how her his i believe that is correct was a little bit of an extra pair the justice in that is into account in part to see in the keys that the rights of the owner of the pot choose a grave marker prevail over other parties who might and that's the operative word might have about whether or not there was evidence of a gift or for that matter whether or not there's evidence to raise a stop is based on the simple proposition that everything  and that is substantial rel this robertson's comments first this rather slim brings up a lot of things that just didn't occur in the in the core polo and would seem to have you believe that all those things didn't factor for you here record on here and you have the transcripts of what judge morrison did at no point when judge morse and ruled that eight again had been made was he basing it on anything the only thing he said after giving us the time to see if we can resolve and we came back a totally different day was i is merely rhetoric i think the fact that these errors the administrator consented to her placement there indicates that they knew the jack had that that was where he was going to be i don't know well mr robertson's argument with respect to
going to have that anger that sort of takes it down it's a conscious decision i think to be angry is what she's saying and therefore i appreciate your problems but you made this decision in you what you w consider the factors and medication and aggravation and if you didn't consider or she didn't consider the factors in mitigation that could be an error which i think could possibly be clearer now the us but here are despite some languishing beyond the mental health issue because what it goes to what defendant did not do about his mental health issues is in fact he had so the trial court considered in this way if you have it if in fact that has you know the bearing that you're telling us it ha and your life in terms of not being able to get along with people in terms of not being used to deal with things and suddenly you know exploding in a way that you you can't control all of that what it took for forty years because for forty years there is no  wife who told him that he should walk away from this job now he decided no he wanted this job no matter what because it was about how the days and he put himself in that position for six weeks old over this and he said he couldn't control the rage th kept building and building and building he did nothing during that time to address you know what was happening to him either so it's not that that necessarily detract part said on the mental health issue that's aggravating and you know and that sounds certainly that's not what the this crime so when he came out at a time at ten thirty at night i believe it was in a time when you would expect that people might very well be at home might very well be asleep came to a car that was parked next to the house and senate fire then ran from the scene and try to get rid of incriminating evidence by training them to a dumpster he left a burning car at a time when it could very well have spread caused other problems now fortunately for them they had a dog to bark to enter their attention to who committed the crime and it really had no potential earth for safety concerns for anyone he was basically fishing coins out of that coin operated machine and he had forty four dollars to show for it and that
the court my name is robert epstein i'm an attorney in indianapolis and i represent all of the plate is in this case in light of going to see why the thomas this case or the remitted or a concrete binding of that district court is no basis for the distinction between in among the three tiers secondly missouri's residency reid rule is unconstitutional under tennessee one the serious the same residency rule d as the one that was struck down in retailer could sell more than more than one state in interstate commerce would be shut then discrimination can only be upheld if the state proves it serves a public purpose that could not be advanced by the nondiscriminatory granholm never said that it's reading of the commerce clause analysis was limited to this discrimination against products for producers rather the granholm decision stated that the dormant congress clause prohibits the supreme court in tennessee rejected the association's argument that the grand old man discriminate principle d was limited to one hundred years that is producers it is that although granholm only involved discriminates against and michigan and new york the principle of grenell applies to all levels of the three tier system that is what we have here this case involves discriminatory treatment in favor of in state retailers and to the detriment o sales and there is no license available based on the residency requirement in the statute if you recall back in granite or we had michigan in new york where when d to use that not want to necessarily obtain  michigan or new york license particularly but rather to be able to ship one there however service sort of market has indicated that it would apply for a license if one was available fifteen other states plus the district of columbia there are now thirteen states that allow out of state direction be to consumers so that's what they would like to be able to do so again if i may go back to market currently there are four hundred thousand retailers one retailers in the united states including wal mart walgreens c v s in the light of that total number in the in the country there are only about two thousand specialty retailers that rely on the internet so if someone is looking for an interview or a tree one earthly one in their year of their birth or are hard to find why they have to rely state of the us during this points out the conundrum that my consumer clients find themselves in it it applies not only to the consumer plainness but also to missourians that live in small towns there are two recent cases from other jurisdictions which have very similar fact pattern like bridge everyone's attention the st is the level of peace which is the th circuit case where the illinois regulatory system again presented there are similar fact pattern as we have here in denying the state of north carolina's motion to dismiss district court judge with the road and again i quote state laws that discriminate against interstate commerce violate the of market from currently getting that license we have asked in our complaint for an injunction requiring the state to find a way to allow service or market to ship wine
as possible and kurt is warming up his house and kurt gets his first time there's a whole group waiting in line just to hug him take it all in and advertising his free here comes another girl with todd number five and six there we go oh it was almost a decade but there we go we got a seven oh he has a group of people coming out  only got a little time left before he has an number thirty eight and thirty nine right kurt thinks he's done but he got number forty and i think that was he in doozy from the studio to good i know but i know somebody who looks even better it's our special guest today well why don't we find out here come on  oh i wish i could share this with everybody so why don't we go ahead and get into our next
meant to have magic a role it came into existence the years later and also that was nine hundred feet basically behind where the house was and with the septic field in between was the junk that the people that were closest in time that built the house had an understanding of it they built the house where they thought the road was going to be and would not believe that it was going to be some place where you would have to go through it to go means a specific if it means a specific road it was then defined as burton to show
was considerations that he is going to be able to do some point is not correct if are told he is going to join any of the labor market he must have a very serious am me with a review an examination there's a functional capacity examination whereby the claimant was put through a battery of tests to see what was to functionality was there was dr if the only medical record reasons number one because the existence of conflicting information the administrative record does not feel the need for heightened standard that is that there's an actual or serious conflict of interest in fact it's assume person particularly under discretionary review but under all review just because doctors disagree over time does not mean that someone is in file the benefits so long as there is information the record and i would say here the substantial information the record supporting the deed cision that's sufficient so this court has determined that conflicting information alone is neither sufficient to change the standard of review from discretion or  import interest and a treating physician need not be given the deference certainly he should be considered and i would submit that dr lucas was considered dr link its records were reviewed by the re dr wayne or look at this material from dr link list instead of rejected it herself saying well there's no there's nothing here but an impression based upon a statement of the claimant himself there's no other testing there's no other diagnosed as that would point what you look at is whether or not you could look at whether or not there's any medical information on which the decision could be based other than dr lindquist and see if that determination is reasonable the only time it would change the standard of review is if we did not for instance hard for life to not even consider this information and had no other information upon which  decisions if it for instance of the insured or other claims administrator rejected the treating physician out of hand and had no other information to support determination absolutely than there could be a change in the standard of review that is not near what happened in this case if you've got information a record that was considered by the claims administrator even though it's overt is contradictory and then the administrators still entitle to have its discretion is provided for in the to every single piece of evidence in the file that's not possible that's an unreasonable burden particularly here where the claims administrator are for life said they relied upon the record as a whole including all of these materials and i think earlier in the file that would also support the ultimate decision all doctor by as from one to the other position it originally to says that he can't do any heavy lifting but he should be retrained to do something else i mean that's his own occupation those
number she was unable you know she was this able to do there's no question about that she had guardianship she could not live along she could never be independent correct she had and probably the strongest evidence of what she knew or could was capable of deciding he characterized services being slow minded messed up during a party that she was not brought up stairs competing version on and that's what you look at in deciding whether or not the evidence close the balance what was the competing evidence the competent evidence introduced before the jury the challenge leaders testimony the challenge the statements of the defendant that she was slow she didn't have a full deck she added he also said correct me if i'm wrong in that interview that he could get her to do things right
was what the case actually sas where you cannot reconcile that particular over overly broad statement with the with the wealth of authority which is cited throughout the a to the purchaser possibly eighteen days after the transaction took place now in the face of all that there certainly was no ground upon which to challenge the assertion that the energy government has the burden of going forward to prove after the trial of the case the force of the ability of the u s in this particular case by virtue of putting the cart before the horse and requiring the claim was essentially to prove the validity and truth of their claim in their defense they were tried to they were required by the district court to prove their defense to prove their claim before the government was required to go forward to prove the forefoot ability who said they didn't provide the man with a nickel well that was part and parcel of the initial showing that was an affidavit as a matter of fact the purchasers the people and tells what were their positions were notice versus real property it's section eighteen in that case says that that the claimant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to show that he has an interest in party interest but the government and the money are really in the name party so how do you harm in that context when the government is really going against the money and the claimants are really kind of intervening i don't think there's any distinction because their government has pursued the money which isn't in ram proceeding and the clean it sounds on ones that are invoking the jurisdiction of the court to have their and really the key here is the the claimant that was driving the vehicle where we were the government count the currency has not want to step foot into the district court he refused to attend we don't really know where he is i mean there was never any clear indication that he in fact wanted to pursue this claim in was part of that make you have hired an attorney to represent his interests one difference doesn't mean it whether or not conflicting explanations as to where this money came from and whether or not it was used to purchase earch for the sale of this home at six nine who are the police cell what was the court left with they have nobody twenty seventh and we had a pretrial order that was submitted there was a different explanation where they had received twenty five thousand images why and then another twenty seven thousand at the act on july twenty seventh so there really is no consistent explanation as to where the castro came from and when it was delivered and then you have this deed that's transferred eighteen days after the sale of the house i don't think that the district court had any alternative but
system these lights are all going to be linked so they have regular cycles in the fracking engineers here directly try to find one so that you don't have backups to minimize disruption each system or any modifications to the system including but not limited to changes in the signal operations at any of the five locations or all the occasions to the system shall not you mean prior written
or the state could have said and laid out on the record here's what the offer was rejected your why what or why do you need the state to say that when the court says it on the record and the defendant stands here he doesn't say anything he says yes actually i want to best drop and then he falls under sort of elocution s for mercy apologize to the victims and then doesn't say anything else i could have had and the parks case which was a nd stage denial or sisal it would seem that there has to be some indication record that an offer was made perhaps when it was made uses ten years which is not beyond the realm of possibilities does it appear to be lenient yes under the circumstances of course plea offer spun to be more lenient than what the state would see if the
midway island not much land right enough but it's out of your front yard to there's something in me or something behind that sunse how many more days get  eight days nine days ten days without food or water frank thirteen for
go back and file that potential claim with the bankruptcy court and therefore she filed a claim within the statute of limitations of two years for person under one isn't the issue it's a cause of action while she's in the chapter th potential claims that the state my own no it's also accepted all of that so if a asset is not resolved at bankruptcy it remains an asset of the state forever simple formula is that once a bankruptcy case is filed the letters that there are lapsed standing to bring suit because the trustee owns the cause of action now you should also take into account the automatic state of this is one of the few things that the i recall about bankruptcy law from law school is the automatic state which bars anyone who taking any action for or against any assets of the estate chose in action that is property view state remains the property of this state even after the bankruptcy even though out of order presumably absolutely no the bankruptcy trustee may choose to abandon the claim in which case please if would have standing to sue but that never happened in this case moreover since this is in violation of the automatic stay  saying not only their bankruptcy attorney but the bankruptcy trustee he told them that they didn't need to file this the only did not need to report this claim then the bankruptcy attorney filed affidavit he said not only do they not have to report this claim under bankruptcy law no one has to report an only would it asset and finally and this is the nail in the coffin here the bankruptcy attorney the bankruptcy and i would take issue with that i would say even i would not report that if the bankruptcy to a trustee told me i had no need to do that i would normally anybody else know that there goes the which  case in other words the burden to show that there is evidence that there was no deliberate intent to game the system is on the credit or under  that there was without and that's the interesting question rather because it ties in with the standard of review in this case the supreme court struggled with this because of the laws clear th actually negotiated settlement of their personal injury claim during the pendency of the bankruptcy suit he said to the this is clear evidence that they have the they were not trying to hide anything they said if they were trying to hide this he wouldn't we didn't to the bankruptcy case was close that's what happened here yes rose i believe that seymour i think there's room in
center of its files was proven beyond a reasonable doubt even though all the files were richer and within two days now this is is much more about initiation than it is about someone who really had a criminal mindset confusing because a rather different testimony about this but she went back and pessimism and was not there at the time so she didn't interact with them at the time but she did drop off a bit over the messages and then she also  testified at trial but she knew she wasn't supposed to be there the other person indicated that he was surprised to see him because he knew that you can fire and certainly they would be unusual practice for someone who'd been terminated to be access to these files without you know going information about the coworkers were like just knew that she wasn't supposed to be there when she returned and that this was right now at the trial but they asked the coworker is like did someone tell you like don't let miss seward in and they said no we just knew that she got times and then she returned everything but you're saying that she returned the first batch of the both of the files on her own before anyone knew he was in the long before any police this just goes way through the theme that this is communication and this is where someone who didn't want to stop and chat with coworkers of a job she had just been fired from and didn't go through with a person who had that's what she should have done but it is evidence by when she went to the palace she  during business hours when people are there so this is not someone who is trying to be discreet so believe as it is saying this is for communication this is she's seems like something of an awkward situation she didn't want to interact with the prison
like that so on we're not saying that it needs to be free of my question is not implying that it needs to be free of adverse consequences it's a curse of the one is given consumptive one has the ability to withdraw
depositions and do the things that are necessar in the jurisdictional statements filed in this court show clearly the allegation that the principal place of business or at least its appeal was his contention that the principal place of business massachusetts that's what that's what turned to sign for this i'm not trying to you know i'm not i'm not trying to say that there were some sushi and responsibility for this but subject not a jurisdiction is something which is not  exists or it doesn't and if it doesn't everything that's been done up to now was a novelty and disk workers powerless to do anything except to make sure that this case  now at this stage yeah lots happened and make note of it sort of happened but i don't fully understand why just because it wasn't identified earlier you know w this corporation that did it i would i would i would bet you dollars to donuts this corporation is paying taxes of all fifty states and that it has offices brick and mortar offices of all fifty states that's the way big insurance companies operate as being organized under illinois and i learned from my client that their principal place of business was in massachusetts but what the court has to understand is during this period of time there's a background of communication going on between the parties beginning in november right now since there is no appeal from the judgment of the ryle to leave to amend in the sense that there's nothing in the brief so it's waved to us the only thing question crane and the denial there's my mind activity in the few days between the order of last friday and today was to demonstrate that there is  claim that would have created the federal claim was denied you file a notice of appeal of that denial but have abandoned that argument on appeal so all that you are now appealing is a the state law aspect of the judg