MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
began his presentation of this case and during the hearing defense counsel admitted that the disclosures contain no conclusions or opinions which is clearly expressly required by the rule which states that if these things are not objected immediately upon defense counsel telling the court that this was his plan for the next two witnesses we had that hearing when each witness was off the stand i reviewed by objection and there were some additional actions throughout the a controlled expert his former designee deposition was taken some time earlier in the case and i played a portion of that to the jury what is the difference i mean it it says control the expert witness under three and it says testify and any regard may have prejudiced the jewelry i don't know what to thirteen aphis i have why would they be allowed to testify about anything well i would have to respectfully disagree  perhaps that would be the case if these witnesses were not disclosed at all but the defendant did disclose these witnesses there was a disclosure about the subject of the testimony case by saying something like i agree with this study are think pollution or that study is relevant to the situation i mean you can't just a few out  generally though it's relegated to the the actual factual situation thinking of light speed of the vehicle whether or not somebody may have the appearance of intoxication that type of thing  again his absence of documentation of a connection between getting on a moving equipment and your right is but again mr page it offered expert opinion that there is no connection he merely stated that he no evidence  fast for example an expert witness might get up and say well this medical article shows this and that's a fact if that if this court were to establish a precedent that it would open the door on rule new it has your honor knows many times parties list many people who never see the court house and so to directly answer your question as to when i learned they were going to be witnesses my recollection was minutes one of the same cases where a worker was on top of the locomotive and there was ice formed up there have workers slip them was heard and that was held to be an unsafe condition there were no standing to the regulations that say you can't have ice on a
case presents two very important constitutional issues the first one we believe is the most important because we believe that it is presidential in the fifth district  so the court does rely on us before and considered my client a reason occupant under the rulings of u s b thorton and also consider the search to be a valid and i argued in my memorandum of law to the judge that under the rulings and again that the motion to suppress had to be understand the officers have not observed any criminal activity concerning my client or that our vehicle that evening they haven't even seen my client drive vehicle for i believe it was eight days was the last time i saw him in the actually no inventory they said that they conducted in the inventory when they got to the police department when they got to there they got in the car and that when they found a jacket in the back seat that had drugs doing they were successful then they say this car this court is that he had no reason to move the car why do you need to move the car it's the same thing here that the car is completely divorced from this day or two of your war it ha
i've got to know what's troubling you yourself away with a couple of old for abuse like i had a feeling i felt i had to come if you didn't gave me you know there's something very lovely about this like know i'm going to say one thing more and then the morning the question is travels along the words parking time by the time it reaches there the gas in the is then then they see that would solve yes yes if you want to listen to the time  it's impossible to tell you it first hand i was only just born then my father was head of this firm and he's been dead seven years but you must have heard about building a house gracious man everyone in the district seems to be talking about it i listen to every bit of malicious gossip i've never why you'd be cross examined like this you were sold me a piece of property which hasn't turned out very well nothing i can put my finger on yet but i'm just wondering if you've been holding something back yes and mind you i say if i believe in ghosts there might be something that i could conceivably be holding back but i don't believe in ghosts and you don't believe in ghosts and i've told you already and you dr selby don't believe in ghosts either do you know i don't believe in ghosts out in effect the reason that you got building a house in such a bargain until there is nothing left but the we right i'm not quite as young as i mentioned i thought i could so succeed we'll just have to wait and see something to do with them nobody's going to tell me something comforting about it there's no reason for it she was perfectly well and happy i've never seen a ghost so happy ourselves i mean some kind of influence for good or evil something like that and if we haven't done what we were meant to do  interesting case for want to engage the girl i think your attitude a bit too detached but it's got to be done to understand it we haven't got a lot of time if we're going to save it but for it we've only tonight
that i could get this case in front of the appellate court because recently i've had more than one case where people are coming to a poor asking to an express written easement here we're not talking about when by prescription we're not talking about anything by implication eldora law is very clear that when one or greater difficulty in determining the width of the road and i'm talking about the roadway this is in the old system but we're talking about here is the the public factors or trying to determine what would be a good road for that area i think the court was limited but once again i can understand the attraction of trying to judge the use of the road how do we prove it and how can we make it better for society but that's not  down but he would probably get there if an emergency arose some way or another but it is something that had not existed before the big pull even the food said it would probably be the manifest we have the evidence that it is not an issue as to whether or not there might have been another decision here it's a question of whether there is any evidence in the record that will support the decision of the trial people believe the situation that he was trying to bring some kind of working relationship between the world and he felt the best way to do it based upon the fact that he was not going to determine what was the real  this buffer zone that it created was somehow part and parcel the express beneficial that's the part that we have trouble with this was you know i can't say it enough because we keep going off the point we keep talking about the effect of in force to express eas
court actually said to the fact that you know do the fact that this is never come before we don't think that's regarding an involuntary transfer and release those restrictions we said no no we're not going to agree to a national spotless restricted shares thirty seven days c and they did it by the procedure set forth in the operating agreement they did by the way in this prior instead of the whole numbers we can agree that her interest is near the property yes i completely agree her interest is america property owner and i think that's actually a valid thousand accounts values thirty three to seventy thousand dollars she's liable for the sum you thousand dollars the defendant is now capped eighty one thousand five hundred dollars and she's seeking indemnification from the defendant if there's what if if just for the sake of argument if they have property chand be assigned to the other spouse if it is ok and i understand that's not your position but let's just assume for a moment that it is cracker that is appropriate does that other spouse been standing in the same position as does the husband then stand in the same position as the wife had been then yes i think and then position really is that she it is marital property the ownership of the actual membership interests they're all interrelated if you're going to allocate make in a court in the court of this instant things become up to the valuation during the trial they deferred that so they did an actual percentage distribution if you're going to do the agreement which was not contested at the trial court level was that upon the parties divorce which was the first twenty allowed it was for very reason that the parties were divorced before the final decision the court she just has this contractual ready to receive money based on the company accounts value based on fair value and that payment is over time over i think it's a five year period of time so based on operating agreement to be assigned to us for us to be able to negotiate with the l c in the new stance will receive sixty five percent we would receive thirty five percent we just asked for the rights to to ask for that during the course of the motion to reconsider this the terms of the agreement and second that the company of the enough to form with the average unit in that he didn't establish a fair value according to acceptable standards and that is an understatement of the value  case arises out of the judge's order as a tumbler eleven twenty twelve and whether that was an enforcement whether it was supposed to create a proceeding or a continuation of the original motions to reconsider but that does not invalidate the concurrent application of the limited liability act that act entails to do surely duties the court has to look at that in the pool they cannot separate off the island and liability act and state i'm in a dissolution proceeding i'm not going
telling the court that the grain came with a x amount of moisture and then it had to be tried because it kept acquiring additional moisture was being stored no who produce the grain he said it's not he said i think very clearly it's not the kind of statute that i interested in this case and he was the guy who's talking about safety so the warehouse knew nothing we can responsible he went to his bag to deal with that issue that was his best job to maintain the corm the green in good in except to condition it's right in the country and that's exerciser really complete dominion and control over the prior operation i live in terms of i want to go through some of the questions that council run the warehouse so you it is because they did not give hotspot the rules and regulations that they saw these young people climbing up the ladder and didn't do anything to stop it or ensure that they were harnessed properly wet too dry not mix properly whatever it might venture but the issue is letting those young boys internet band yes what is it that they should have done that they did not do whatsoever except me except the office which is nothing about this case there we would call our own we didn't even hear of the space that met chef near here and to set up his own personal business besides being the manager of this facility that wasn't available to us let me go back if i can and talk about this warehouse agreement because i think they're misreading the agreement if you go it's the release of his in exhibit buying for any ability to control what's in there then if you didn't have some sort of legal interest don't we have it we have the ability because we will deposit their own grain to anywhere from three hundred
question is whether the insurance company has a right to cancel an insurance policy at the request of a premium finance company when the contract between the insured premium finance company is not dated know if they wanted to avoid that and just directly paying whatever the full premium absolutely to the insurer right but this is a this is a situation where the relationship is between the sure and the
have a choice whatever choice is allowed to you by law just like every other human they don't have anything more than they've already got well your  you could flip every month and that was not the intent of a legislature or delivery service well we could but think about it were an economic real world so you think you could just flip that i mean i think we have
illinois constitution for expressive assembly since there are two types of assembly right expressive and non explosive assembly with oh if i may if your question this way to share this is it has a white child this was certainly all my constitutional language is certainly indicated quite correctly that their words are different and the draft was made different choices and you have i hear here that by making those different choices that it was more than j you mentioned that you agree then that some sort of restriction would be available but it's fictions you think would be available say how can park a be close from eleven to one and park being let into three but what can the park district do with regard to our constitution additionally contains the words and song for the common good and maybe own opinions to represent but those words although they are different do not describing a difference in right that's right is protected by our constitution but not the first amendment that would be conserved and yet limited under limited by that we're looking to our constitution filling the gap for some difference for something that is including vice presidents misty and when she said quote the plain language of the proposal number seventeen which is our goal from the earlier article in our own state bill of rights and quite parallel as we all know to scrutiny that invokes the time manner and place restrictions and this was on a motion to dismiss procedurally see didn't have a full blown evidentiary hearing is that right there after it's reciting i so let me ask you as you had said earlier that the the occupy chicago people the ninety two arrested were at the congress plaza on the corner of graham park correct yes i was there anything in the affidavit that described the spatial area that was involved i'm the corner of grant park emotions this mess the begins on the record of pages a one twenty three the affidavit of alonzo williams who's the deputy director of park park services and i didn't see anything in there but then he specificity about the
whether the jaycees talk whether they are collegial even if it was there anything that says theory is you know a lot of these groups get together and when they do things you say things you're not supposed to they have to pay a in the course of a way that at some point there is such an insufficient nexus between the conduct the ledge and any goal of the employer or the organization that we're not going to find liability and the trained in this report to work and you could be disciplined for not storing it and still the supreme court said not good enough in your case you are in britain testifying britain did not testify in the is the first time it was mentioned in my opinion was during opening statements the first time it was brought forth was during the first witness and this were we get to the second part of this case and that was the wall you know where in the continuum does this fall now the judge allowed without a true thirteen disclosure fasts regarding the jaycees more than hugging  story of this organization they fuck the founding member the person who started this fellow camaraderie and feelings binding amongst members promotes better and more deeds in the community best evidence with him that there was enough evidence on every single moment for the jury to decide this case this is what they do this is how often their organization grows and this is how the organization benefits there are different is task that i was deported here  volunteers together and gave her pepto our she said you know at all times you are it you see you are important to this organization we are important to the city we want you to portray that now closely associated with the business but the fact is that they had nothing to do with the ruling the poor in new will ruled that new will provided no evidence to show the initial murder material this is to establish that although they have this this goal to do good deeds that in the community he was told that night not to do it because somebody was injured fine they are vigorous when they want to keep all this stuff out and judging by our heaving rules it's not fair just put this one little piece of the puzzle in without file otherwise it looks like there's no policy  certainly if you have the question the only thing i would say is again i think it's important to understand there on this case when we look at the evidence in terms of the plaintiffs the only reason britain hug auntie's instructions to him not to engage in physical contact and i think part of the confusion here is that being a poor server in that's kind of where your questions come in motion the porch observation was that some jobs require physical contact with the employer's customers or clientele a poor observer does not require physical entire life just shaking hands or saying i are too fourteen no one is instructed on how to get one for the purpose of recruiting our two fourteen mr brinkmann never said to anyone one word session about it least in the she and case he had some an actual fans testimony from the actual person who was the alleged agent that will allow us to reach some conclusion the only
cut out here where it was some of the power we had heard it as it was at least some of them as it was played for the jury initially the meeting looking for it noticed it was coming out which would call attention to it and the other side of the argument there was discussion with the exclusion of course utility to to give it and did not make such a degree the purpose of the motion requesting the investigator was to be certain that we would continue to use the investigator that was already appointed there was a writ were indicating that the defendant was engine wait here for counsel to refer to the stability of the prostate mitigant and to to infer that somehow he should be held to the same standards of an attorney that doesn't apply in this case because in this particular case
good morning  breach five horrible he was forced to sell his property at a loss of damages now the claim alleged in the complaint is implausible it's unsupported by well the to the facts and it's internally inconsistent but what matters for present purposes connection between united barrel company that supposedly breached the loan commitment and a company called united federal more of mr we don't blame the united federal mortgage is the same entity as united capital the entire basis for that claim is an authentic good web site right now that shows a mailing address and phone number for united for a mortgage that is the same that are the same as the address and phone number that appear on the loan commitment that was supposedly made to less depend illinois law if all of it was by assets there's no successor liability mr we don't resent it no evidence that american bank merged with united federal mortgage to the contrary he actually presented evidence of that if there was any connection it was a simple purchase of some was an argument on a state motion yes and during that time you know on the state motion and i'm looking at page twenty three of the transcript there was some back and forth about whether there's a final appeal will order and judge gleason said i then arguably as an admission on behalf of the corporation yes but that if they did ways that got on the witness stand and said they're the same corporation does that prove they are i think  supposed to have a hearing on monday i think july fourteenth two thousand and nine and then mr nestor the counsel for the other side told me that the counsel from sibley austin could be there as they were aviation i was agent and through a series of of unfortunate mistakes and you know it wasn't handled properly but all that goes if it goes to anything it goes to the question of due diligence and due diligence
i hope that helps  that would in all like
that it had no effect on him how can you say that you said that he drank apparently an amount that could kill somebody yeah which i think everybody know she was there i'm sorry we know she was there yet sadly she was there in proximity because she struck him so can that be considered and why not i'm sure you don't believe it should be considered as save the losses so you're saying that unless there is some observation of some physical evidence of impairment by someone regardless of the fact that it's over the top the a c and there is testimony that that is over the top and would impair everybody i think that's what long says that cannot be considered you go farther and you can't this case was lost as soon as the point three seven was written to the jury and as soon as they saw that shark and heard her the test the the they should have been decided on the facts of the case and he was what he did what he didn't and you know almost and and and and yes judge judge wire was overwhelmed by and i think your too that's a high level of alcohol consumption high blood
mission old boy has been to look at the long range financial matters of the town both from a capital project standpoint and from a financial operating budget debt standpoint when years how do we make sure so i think you have to be careful in the discussion of separating capital from operating just that's what we try to do our capital projects if they get funded right be of but because of those projections out we were making it very difficult decisions now very restrictive decisions made with the recommendations but to the school they're looking at somebody's diverse departments but you know so maybe this you know well the long range planning it's more about i'm on this committee rather than looking at all but i'd love to know this subcommittee makes sense to be looking to bring it off together but we need to talk further about what i would love this feedback as to how we can take what goes on here and more effectively it back we present a summary you say yes and there's all this behind it you can assure people or we're here you know we need we need more and we can provide that so there is a great deal for the city to provide information