MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
effectively represent your current life without violating your ethical duty to your previous client i would argue that is in of itself person batu point about sorts of different i was asking for walkers generated on other aggravated dui cases with robert looking at the issue of whether my point was treated his chance in this first his first motion if it was motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the second motion most motion to reconsider that then in the cases would be the same but because it was a motion to reconsider sentence only  argument why the decision of the land is different than theirs because it goes to the ultimate you know the attack on the the guilty plea itself which here that that's the difference in this case because the only scenario gives the trial judge the opportunity to correct a ruling on an original luncheon where in this case the opportunity to correct a ruling on the original motion was prosecuted him personally not just an assistant who i have personally shot up and prosecuted him it was two years after the case and this charges were similar but because the parties were different the facts relating the case f the alleged improved and the prosecutor's involvement was much more personal and closer in time and i believe in one of them it was something under sixteen months where he represented the fund then and there was a prosecutor the prosecutor was present as prosecutor while the search warrant was being executed and defense house and spoke with him at that time and he also spoke with him in court later where here we have the sixteen i haven't seen the record in a long time so i believe maybe one is a criminal history he didn't disclose that i'm not really sure i'm not really sure why on this clarifications use necessary when it was in the abstract in the p s i but i would note that at the time of the c and just because it's going have been me defense counsel sixteen years earlier on that to you why shouldn't serve to make this public record all of a sudden something that that can speed use when the said this is in the abstract or not it wasn't back in the abstract there's there's nothing about representation to be revealed so the fact of the conviction the fact that a conviction existed
my name is dan price and i none so then you think and also with all the terrorism going on that maybe all interfaces like stores and that should have kind tolls and with concrete inside you know metal poles to stop these vehicles from running into the nothing causing her to to become distracted nothing caused her to divert attention she simply looks up at the door which if you look at the pictures in the record it's nowhere close if they didn't sell you the grocery you weren't on their premises you were just hearing the groceries so they make the distinction between the defendant having some kind of role in this whatever maybe you have causing a problem in the sidewalk and then over the years the city watching the city of allowed it to become hazardous isn't that with just a store it is asking about i mean how does the city back when it has a duty at the beginning of the planting and then watch this thing become a hazard and have no i mean your argument seems to be that they had nothing to do with this han
into one and will contest in question over some money in your state that first of all to clear out the question of the fifty thousand dollars insurance situation she had ample time to talk to her attorney about this question between the after the journey on the fourteenth and the next allegations there was no testimony to corroborate that one way or the other excuse me there was no test of testimony to corroborate the didn't get into a course of testimony in attorney bowlen testified that baccy was one of the witnesses to the well he testified that he knew the deceit for several years and  machine he he described what the problem was mr webster and mr webster remembered that it was the day after the will was executed there are friends and acquaintances and neighbors the mission in the repairs because that moving to the second page or second part of the of the situation the mother and his his friend his girlfriend and that the three are there in mid august of two thousand and six schumer  only comment i will make on any of them because i think i covered them in the brief sight in the statutes in discussing case law on each their being poor role in it in sequence
concern about the lack of railing on the yacht in his testimony is a significant aspect of the defense liability so he has testified in his report that there was concern some concern about the way the y related negligence claims once you settle it absolutely never so assume that the pennies when they settle there is still a possibility it could be a defective and it could be some other condition on the yacht it could be something beyond the brick wall which means that it was being used for its intended purpose as a pleasure craft and that this injury occurred as a result of those conditions on the b the manufacturer of the data disputed facts and that insurance company doesn't need to consider disputed facts but they need to consider when they're determining whether or not there is an obligation for a defense or indemnity is to look at the know talking about their ability to
educate the jury why the d n a found in the nearby home on the window to the home in this case was naturally manch to my client it was simpler and it was consistent with his the trial strategy and the decisions the council made by his pretrial students and conversations with the room where he told a redo the that he wanted to stay in the can trust and then he asked the jury for forgiveness and he did so  states that he told her that if the spirit moved him this is going to testify and so he and that's what he said they were the records provide evidence about things that happened after the state presented its case above discussions between counsel cantrip time before trial was not interested in talking to him or said there's nothing you know he didn't way he would he will be attorney client privilege and then introduced the conversation that he had with misha least several conversations where she brought both mr white and mr period to try to talk him out of clear here you told him that he was guilty she told him that his d n a matched that found at the crime scene so we mislead town him that he was guilty and he had been jailed because i don't know what his attorney heard from him in this case we don't hear him saying i went to the house i don't remember the name the street on first street and broke the window removed the screen and through the house took out  or spoken are you suggesting a good to constitute a confession that the state her conduct of the jews have to include all the elements of the offense or is it sufficient if the defendant just big knowledge is guilty in the or he indicated there was a possible thing that maybe there should have been a lesser included instruction for so he there is i don't know what he thinks  was do you know or does the record show the context of the conversation in which this note was written the context of the note that he wrote exhibit number three you said you said before that it's going to be less than what i consider to be honestly think the defendant believed that his he was being sentenced only on this charge and not based on his prior criminal history absolutely wrong he was being one residential burglary he got thirty years of the state's expert absolutely page five hundred seven the record what she asked him is whether or not it would change his opinion if the proposed donor of the d n a was related those were her questions and you believe that that's effective cross examination absolutely absolutely your honor because what he that the that the defendant even had a twin brother twin sister or at that was there any allegation anywhere in any record any police report that there was a family member and you should hear no there was not within him who committed the crime in the other conversations that he waives attorney client privilege for which were that he wanted to take the stand in for us if we were to gr
later and and the first three i'm sorry the last two are actually three properties because one says fifteen sixty four and fifty sixty eight the first three are properties that were actually not should not have been foreclosed on and they were transferred into the city's name where transferring them back to the city take them back reported properly outlining here tonight so all of the work for the game is freely available on our website where the diversity research was second to none in translating research into practice which is why the kinds of work that we do on government of opportunities in terms of impact proactive regional interventions there was an opportunity here for regional programs regional strategies to are to intervene proactively and some of the most makers look at places like new york city and chicago they're doing it and is absolutely unprecedented ways on driving to decision makers awareness like the one that we're laying out here but also many small and medium sized cities can give you an idea and asked to make it work in the cloud and asked him if he put more of the technical responsibility on the global's so it has been arrange it's been arranged meet do believe that each municipality just to get in and figure out what the information needs are here because what we've seen in our experience is that when you try to prescribe what is right for you based on another i couldn't believe the amazing teachers in this school every room you went to teachers have courage to my teaching for us they were speaking english but we got a sense of what they were doing the very obvious poverty and all the areas that we so coming out of the school districts and which my mission is to think outside the box to teach social studies math science reading but in the middle of that structure that you noted with in here i say anticipated because obviously costs change but i can tell you for sure that two thousand and thirteen budget supports these proposed changes and based on the primary result and support motion support of the application for the five hundred thousand dollars grant
pending he still remains committed extent your claim the the non reality of pleading guilty to a charge that doesn't exist which isn't the same thing you're saying that the court didn't have the ability to sit on the bench and do something when t case the defendant is not much about that possibility and it turns out that he pleads guilty to believing that he's going to be immediately released and now he is perhaps involuntarily committed for the remainder of his life that's sure about that it's it's not really clear about how this came out of the sunni what happened was that he was deemed no one resection dangerous person once he pled guilty to this two counts this he went was defective and of no consequence because there was no charge for existence because there was no proper plea there was no proper basis to further institutional you can't do that he's already got a final judgment you can't change distance change his conviction in fact all these years later and the supreme court said yes you can this is under the  requires sometimes waiting or applies when the defendant does not say reinvest requires active participation on both parts and in this case if you look at the facts of this case effects there was no surprise everybody knew what they were doing if there are no other questions i'll move on to issue two first of all i'd like to listen i didn't know that i could be committed as a sexually violent person three years later this whole issue has been hanging out there for three years you cannot possibly say he didn't know he was a sexually violent person and what effect on him is and yet again that page just nineteen sixty six through sixty seven and this again testifies that he did have a discussion with his attorney about the sexually  specific allegations in the petition which has to be filed in a timely manner then you have a probable cause hearing on the sexually violent persons petition this has to have a trial and prove this person's petition he was committed on him for seven years until i believe two thousand sex and then they appear in court with the policeman for him for the defendant to plead guilty for time ser happens there then it's up to the state they can distinguish the attorney general or county prosecutors but ultimately i would think that any attorney worth anything would be telling the morning his client that this
that's a significant fact because it deals with whether or not value was given at the time a law firm received payment also a very important fact it was not promised by the to know that the planet was given an opportunity through filing a claim of five in that very proceeding and they chose not to firm and they also say nothing about their failure to take advantage of records opportunity that they gave them to reduce levy and alleged fraud got paid i don't trust a cow and then the trial court comes along with this order fest where you have to pay them again because we're going to the company against you for that pa have an opportunity to do that but the fact is they did not respond to the board questions of back up the legal requirements of the sprint work rules and the supreme court do circumstance that's not what they did they began depositing checks hempel to ross advertising they were subject to a perfect security interest and mr blatter was engaged by ross to deal with the very that is i think that important distinction here he took these checks and unlike the cases cited by the court were not claiming that ross severed ties and didn't have the authority to endorse them over that's i guess where i'm struggling a little bit because the judge does not differentiate between just the retainer payments but also humans that are made from that account to but with holding that pain you know the issuance of those checks i don't know if that is within the light or groups of authority to do that you know that's where and i don't see any discussion or argument about them being able to say to products you know these checks can't go out and that's what that's a little bit of i mean certainly if it was you know satisfied in other words they did not take the check valve that's one of the yards we may get the letter through if you look at the there's a section in the brief that addresses the various balances the amount of legal fees that were bill
a judgment of the foreclosure would necessarily in your opinion reach personal property look behind the why did you wait to do anything up until at least july thirteenth of two thousand and twelve  the property and they never give the written permission it's just there's there's nothing that they ever again mr patel is saying come get in this day or in these circumstances and despite the each tried an attempted numerous times to get seen i don't recall seeing any word of the trial or does it strike you as a little unusual because with an event in essence invite us to make a ruling on what could be controverted fans to be honest i it it didn't surprise me because throughout these plea pleadings and at the trial court level i don't think it's relevant to these issues but we had made several additional requests and motions of the court to to get to order that tell us where this property  million dollars he did examine the record of good for twenty seven forty one describes every detail freestanding personal property had nothing to do with foreclosure action nothing was never mentioned not part of the complaint it had nothing whole this whole controversy arises from the fact as it was noted that once the bankers were desirous of the real estate i feel if the defendant the defendant has an opportunity to remove his personal items from the property where truck showed up at the property and i was in regular contact with my client and the property manager and there were no advance suggestions made to me as counsel during this just goes to your right mr boo time that the treasurer show up on a date certain issue was still within my motion to dismiss apparently as to who time was convicted in federal court of us and issue regarding drugs and as there were two were centered on the same day one was the order proving judicial sale which expressing the side of the quo from the core or proactively do something to protect and serve what he now i'm assuming my bank for my client for and what he's trying to do here is basically forced upon the client the argument and thank you very much thank you  controls of the federal government and they knew it and they knew it was involved there is nothing on the there might have been up box of some discard materials which has not heard of our complaint anyway  we're not seeking chemicals or error or labeling so that he wasn't using anymore which obviously the a no he was using because they suspect the promise all the time let's go back to the
market were here today on a case that's about finality and stability of the wall there are essentially by the shoes of the poor needs to consider today the first under the code a civil procedure our position is that the motion groff by the county shelby in the gallons in this case in the trial court was fourteen zero one the petition you'll hear petition and we fully agree is a poorly drafted fish and they state that they didn't a lesson necessary are elements within the vision i fully concede that but it's not the road districts or the mr curly goodwin stop the point for the next we don't have him we have a choice to make do we want to point out or defects and make them do it correctly or do we want to say judge i don't care what they really we they can plead with they need to and that's in order to vegas up division the person that owns that subdivision must get a written agreement on the highway mission or in this case and that's all they need if they're raping the entire upon the pearls and mr pearl and the good ones or the road history has an interest in seeing this subdivision bill bailey instituted these original proceedings back in two thousand and six showing county where emotions do i would squash service of a complaint was filed after the fall judgment was in or the column board of education came back when i dissolved our own act after the two years trial sitting on the sidelines and cherry pick where you lie after the jury you can do that if you want to say thanks to the stadium in this all happened because they asked to be dismissed as a party plaintiff during the things that didn't happen here the
and why was that houses if you then make some of those houses affordable then you get a bonus you know if you make them aurally affordable then you get a bonus you now are saying if you make them and we s eight and if you make all of the us for a senior resident are then you'll get a bonus because of the bonus humans must also be seen and thirty years in the first building
complaint about sort of a concealment of the policy nondisclosure of a policy a failure to yell at the passengers what some of the main guidelines for discretion she gets her way again united has it delivered this and that says it's going to do in under the right it put it on the next possible flight she gets reimbursed all of the things that she incurred in trying to replace the items baggage off and putting it on the next flight and you you reference the fact that if it would not comply it would follow the weight requirements for the aircraft carrier right but under rule twenty three eighty eight i just want to make sure that your are you saying that is deemed impractical by carrier is that place is that confer a complete discretion or are you saying that is deemed impractical means the same as it is determined to be in violation
for i think both theories work together they actually they come to the same conclusion with one exception and that was just told her when he tried to do it differently and he came up with a different result everyone has looked at this  he approached the intersection he was not going to go through a third he had a split on the brake as he approached the intersection of course he is slowing down for each pass the stop sign there's
it just doesn't it doesn't  the discussion with respect to
is there was a mistrial request made i think by the defendant because your client introduced the word insurance pereira and i think it was you that said there's a case on this judge where we can introduce insurance to explain why there was a delay in seeking treatment my correct about the yes remark that the man used spades great white and i didn't see where you argue we've seen through the police but you argue in closing argument about the speed in the force because you told the jury that it had to be she had to be going pretty fast and you would have gotten the kind of impact that you saw in your so isn't there really a god fair question because what you're trying to plant the jury's going is that you treat him for some other injury or illness or disability and as we know the yes despite the district case to the contrary you think the jury would have changed its mind i mean that they would have been explained why she didn't treat get medical treatment