MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
quote against your client and that's a very serious allegation where is the record contain any evidence supporting your our actions and if you harbored a legitimate concern about the district  infringement case and despite being asked by her to articulate your basis for infringement in particular how the accused devices had a bilateral match making process which required multiple parties to input preference correct in not only awarding attorney's fees against you but doubling them because she believed it was necessary to deter the lawsuits like this one which she concluded was quote frivolous which you never demonstrated was present in the q s device and which the record seems pretty clear was not present in the device and so i mean i'm struggling with why that when the judge wrote and you say you knew that in fact you had stablished all those points in that telephone conversation and you say you had ordered a transcript question yes your honor we raised it in letters or where in the record is that  so the supreme court in produce said that you exceptionally rarely deviate from the lodestar calculation so why don't you tell me why this is one of those exceptionally rare situations where it was appropriate for the district court to deviate reasonable in this case had offended reasonable attorneys fees you might have encountered in an alternate universe it's the reasonable attorney's fees in this case so why are we looking at portions of the case that you supports the award and handsome it must be based on evidence that enhanced it was necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation not to turn to compensation this requirement is essential  is to realize one of its chief virtues providing a calculation that is objective and capable of being reviewed on appeal the supreme court has carved out a very very narrow universe when you can deviate from those stars to come up with a reasonable just that the supreme court explains why it's so important to have lodestar because most are subjective and it's reviewable and why you can't just make these sort of you know shoot from the hip determinations which is kind of i think we got radical let me let me control these machine factors to come up with an amount you think they were saying lodestar is no longer the way to go no i don't think that's what they're saying and i don't think that you're that i'm asking you to overrule produce discuss your supposed fraud i have to tell you that if i was you i would have gone to the bar and said i have this accusation against me i want a res and in their own words the other side of the word and not only the training hundreds of thousands of dollars in expertise for instance that would be considered as eternal word and the courts have said that in certain cases in rare cases awarded damages my eighty five year old or what amount about fifty percent so if this is not ten percent it ca
to pray is a very difficult obstacle or a misjudgment or are you asking us to overturn i'm what i'm asking you to do well in a sense yes or at least limit it to the extent that in this case we have  issue the crime is the mailing and the problem with that is that this mailing will not the mailing that was included in the indictment so you're asking a defendant to prepare for trial to prevent present  to a jury or in this case a bench trial with a lack of information he didn't even realize that this was an issue until after the trial was over during summation and factoring their request charge the government even mentioned the fact to the government so that if they find additional evidence or they go through while they're going through their evidence they say hey we could have used this one it really leads us down a very slippery slope to the prosecutors really wide here the government is shifting letters which he made and he said that there were some things that he was rightly perhaps calling the cooperating witness for the government if not oh mr stern perhaps putting his client on this and perhaps and most importantly  he said that he could have spoken with secretaries who worked in the office he didn't do that and i'd like to also point out to the court that it's failure to do all of these things i didn't raise as a as point three year which was the  ineffective assistance of counsel for his failure to do ali all of these things but you bring it back to the real issue is the fact that the defendant wasn't alerted to what the government was doing here just putting it in the middle of all of their we the mailing of this document made no sense mr stern had obviously hired this document months before he had given it to his attorney to be marked up mr conway who i testified about the mailing
no duty to indemnify no wizard for any of the claims of southern snow because there is no coverage for that claim to use the word coverage advisedly because to defend them through the streets of in exchange for them dropping the claims about long haul whatever whatever whatever so it doesn't seem that the question before us is does your insurance agreement or the w coverage in general require you to just say and you may be exactly right on all of that but that doesn't seem like that point in front of the court seems to me that the made goods for the lower court's decision was that you certainly didn't have to bind yourself in the settlement contract and i feel like quite frankly it's between the two parties you all are the more sophisticated party you are where the contracts are after to a large extent so tell me why the plain language of the contract why does she have a wrong in terms of what it means with a reference to the language of the country first let me clear something of greece we do not claim that that's agreements ambiguous we do not that's not  appeal the original decision rather then said oh no they would have been vindicated but you didn't do that you didn't appeal his decision instead you decided to settle and accept responsibility for a portion of the defen the case got shut down for a little while and when it reactivated it was transferred to a judge for we tried and tried to get out from under another words we've been we've been trying to get out from under it since prosecution which is explicitly covered in the personal advertising injury portion of the head of a policy that's more than your room against your necklace yes jerry brown ruled against   the only reason judge brown found was it was because the complaint was on clear to specify that the suit the alleged malicious prosecution suit had terminated in favor of the pla then they disclose that there's no dispute that every other element of malicious prosecution claims is alleged in that complaint so what judge brown did was that what hanover argue is that that the court should determine whether or not the complaining say that a claim for relief which could be granted on a malicious prosecution claims which she found it did because of the missing to judge a more risk question yes if if in a lawsuit if in a lawsuit there are multiple occasions seventy nine allegations and one of them one of them is covered would be covered would be case a disagreement there consolidated for the purpose of convenience and judicial economy that's the purpose of consolidation that's what the sprint courses but it doesn't change the character of the case they are still remain separate cases and they are not merged in that sense now when you get to the spread situation or the purposes of whether you're going to take a piecemeal appeal for purposes of
because you don't know to object
and already mr bell thank you thank you that instrument will be refined it will grow like convenience and familiar to every time a common tool within the means of a brick factory business no doubt some young scientists at this moment dreaming and dream are writing an equation of which within your lifetime will cap some sauce of universe or power and draw ago using a substance whose resistance changes according to the light it falls upon that i have managed to telephone for a short distance without along the beam of sunlight and perhaps there it is for you to find a way to make the light that process through a motion picture of film reproduce the voice with clarity  i suggest that disasters such as the titanic encountered in the north atlantic are necessary there is some use if you can but find it of utilizing the echo principle so i give you one of my favorite it has been very good to me throughout my life will understand why they said means so much to me by profession by a person or wish and instinct i have always been a teacher t have succeeded to as he hoped they would do in turning spoken words into visible symbols at depth children can learn to read is the word in the laboratories that melbury his name spelled scientific and then taken a leading part over the years in the research that made all these things possible yet these are but at ease in the main channel of research as step by step we move toward the realisation of als burley dream is dream of a day when anyone any where i can talk clearly and at a moment's notice with anyone anywhere else
courts mention the records but if you live there full medical records and her testimony she had an injury at home on november fourth two thousand trucks with six months before you left you the injury she gives a history of getting of that morning with an explosion in her happened at the home and not work but if you say something with your opinion how many injuries happen in november of two thousand and she has a history of waking up that morning with an explosion in her neck right she testified that she might be talking on the phone she  your your you can't stand there and say there's no evidence in the record to support the claim that's not accurate is it really you're taking you're taking issue with the underlying basis is flawed to make that argument but you can see these doctors bank ok what i'm saying is i don't think sprint had a proper foundation or extraordinary step and i don't and i think he also testified when he was given the facts that it could be related to the national aging process again that my problem with kennedy is i don't think he was given an continued to have problems she told all the doctors she had this problem i don't believe it's related work and i would ask if you do look at the records of him and her testimony that you reverse the job has more symptoms doing the job and then by may two thousand and it's too much she immediately goes and sees the chiropractors if you have this is all related to my work and she tells the same to every doctor  yes but it's more likely it is related to an aggravation of a preexisting believe that was exactly just passion in terms of teddy when we did write him i think he was relied upon when she said you know help looking have your items after the original trip again i just need to reiterate that i think this is a non work related injury that she enters of at home and she trying to place the responsibility on it on the employer whether
obviously a procedural default offensive must be that is an affirmative defense that must be raised sometime during the proceedings in the district court it never was it wasn't raised in the district court and it was not raised in the briefing to this cour colleague of mine was counsel on thing and inventing what happened was the district court did not or excuse me the state did not raise the defense in the district court the district court nevertheless found that assault in spite of the fact that it was not raised by the practiced before this court but i think that judge fernandez was correct in windham one of the other circuits some not agreed with him that's true and there is there is some volatility with regard to where where the you know where everybody kind of a compelling reason here and the varying court cited to franklin for this proposition is that the state never did explain why or for what reason you know what sort of blew it was was it a tactical tense in district court for any reason for not raising raising it on direct appeal now i know that that kind of is and makes some sort of a dissonance because well when we're litigating these cases on behalf of petitioners work we're secretly tactically strategically anticipating defenses that we have no obligation under the law or ethically to say well here's the deal you know we're and i do concede that and we plead exhaustion in our petition but i don't have to plead owen incidentally we might have a procedural default problem here also include in fact what we do is kind of breathe a sigh of relief if our if our colleagues on the other side of the missed the boat and that's what's happened here and you know this that the attorney general's office the state in this case did not raise edwards throughout the entire course of this litigation and as i would reiterate it started when litigate all of the procedural defenses two grounds one two three and five three in one motion and that stipulation is that paragraph four of page four fifty one well once again i mean it's like ok why do we even have to talk about this this razor with a waiver problem because we're going to we're going to affirm the district court anyway on the merits so you know why are we doing this and the majority opinion or  justices of the two judges that decided to reach the issue basically predicated that decision on the fact that they this court wanted to be in park that warning to the states and what the state would argue is that it is not our burden to show the cannot show where the ineffective assistance of counsel was presented as an independent claim below because it was not and even even in our letter motion that was directed by the court
amount discussion about that as it usually is good productive discussion and the motion passed overwhelmingly by a very large margin but not unanimously when there were people disagree  how about the issue of the pedestrian crossing near the red mill that was not on the agenda but there was an announcement made at the town meeting that the british street bridge some years ago five or six years without walking on the road which is quite dangerous and this is been a sore point of the town for a long time it's the road and the bridge belong to the state so we had no power to do anything about it and it costs half a million or a million there apparently don't have the money for that so this is been a long running thing supplication to the state please fix this and you know it's been a long interest really budget went up very little and the tax rate in go up at all so course those are the big questions we're pretty we're we're pretty lean  we're all pretty careful with a penny and we don't we don't spend money we are responsible so it's very rare that we do anything that would excite the know there were people few people felt very strongly on one side and people felt strongly on the other as i would generate that many people in total care much about it the people who did care a lot so it generally when we did respond i was on the board at the beginning of that and we did respond we instituted a real investigation what are the alternatives what is the cost what are the consequences so forth and we published that haven't put it out there and i think that we were sufficiently open for thorough about it and sincere about the effort that i think the town essentially said apply to corporations and that has led to an absolute flood of cash to the national elections which we're all saying and in fact concerned about that crosses party lines you know vermont with its tradition of you know small government people close to home on suspicion of big money big organizations being in people's business you know this was an issue but it was clear that the balance of the population why again about four or five to one supported the idea that this this ought to be overturned or since it was a former supreme court decision i think the feeling is that you couldn't amendment that's why we have we have twenty six of them or something over twelve we don't do them very often but we do do them and that's why the founding fathers put it amendment process in the constitution so proud of it and so forth and neighboring town tree was considered slightly funny so it was both slightly humorous and but at the same time very very warm and fuzzy you specify exactly what coverage we're getting when where by you know is it the best time is it are we getting the best bang for our buck and so forth i'm a big believer in the really believe in the institution of town meetings and i think the jericho ones are excellent ones we get a very good turnout and it's a broad section of the population very representative people from all points of view and you don't want you don't want meetings there
twelve eleven seventy two  creator is necessary to reach the desired second target retards the third step is to change the voltage signal to a little over thirty and that so we were just talking about how the that the the want to do across the liquids or liquor the crystal display has to remain constant at a certain point in time don't you have to control an ac signal in order to be able to had not construed or had not properly analyzed cleaned twice that's got to be way for if there ever was one it's not proper for them now to stand before you and say well there's not adequate evidence below because of court t v deal with that when they never asked a court to deal with it and the will give you two minutes
missing pages which are designated with three actors should be one zero one three two one zero two zero this second reference is particularly important because it is the declaration of robert counsel in my client's underlying case and therefore i commend that to the court and i would i do apologize that i was i overlooked it when i was finalizing my brief for i still have a problem about do change its mind about that it would need to find extraordinary circumstances or that its participation has been clearly erroneous there has been an intervening change in the law or there was substantially different evidence it would have had to go through the process of changing  appeal where all of his petitions were denied and then he went from there to the supreme court he had a supreme court petition pending i believe at the time he filed his district court petition the merits which is actually how this court in gaston interpreted it why would the court have considered it at all if it were untimely and therefore by the time my client gets to the district court h a while but he is ed plus statute has not run what's your argument going when the suspect you'd actually run what date would you rely on for that i see that in my brief i made a concession which i would like to withdraw and strate could recommend in the district court find that the problems that the petitioner nak use had were not sufficient to constitute a reason for finding equitable tolling in that matter  our case we do not have actually developed a record we also in gaston had somebody who insisted on representing himself and in my case my client passionately wished to not represent himself in the record therefore requests for at this time at that time and therefore were finding that he was his football representing himself nobody on this record can say with any confidence what actually happened whether my client filed any of  time and he understood was that his obligations were if you're different from my reading and of course i defer ultimately to the court it appears from my reading of the records that he was making one effort after another and not succeeding but not really knowing where to go from there my guess would be that he was taking cartons of cigarettes to pay some jailhouse lawyer to help him out with this but we don't have a record on that subject he's an allegation of how the conditions  life that is are searching under yes where is the allegation the allegation was not made in the district court and that is why we're here the question here before this court issue and i'm prepared to submit it's very very well thank you very much the case just argued will be submitted for decision on the court will take its morning r
now i have three children to take care of that does not impute a political that does not even see any type of political opinion whatsoever it just shows that she thought that she had more important things to do in taking care of the children rather than going off and joining  talk to the entire people in that are ignoring lunch there was no indication during that time that any specific contact with mr america itself herself she then went off to another part of the country where her the factory they had said we want you to join but we'll give you several days to decide what you want to do they pushed up against the wall my head hit the wall and then they left they did nothing else nothing to her family nothing to her sort of implied it's an odd wording and i gather it's probably just maybe a verbal techron something by a spirit phrase like it doesn't appear that she comes up to the level of persecution uses the word appear two or three times it doesn't appear she will be harmed  zero zero zero it's very you have a political opinion had nothing to do with her children when she was pushed up against the wall she said she didn't want to collaborate  and you answer well then i thought about it when did you say i told them now and how do you get around the case law basically said resistance to force recruitment isn't doesn't constitute protected political opinion if you said i go we think she was tracked down she looked a bit reciting what the circuit said there where you have a specific verbal threat by the guerrillas directed at an individual whose identity and residence are no that's sufficient death threats the use of mines and explosives in civil areas and forced recruitment of mines now it goes on the next page going to far more detail as to what they're doing so i mean i don't think the peace accords suddenly changed forty years of bloodshed by signing of a document in guatemala and i don't think it changed anything for it to represent that my client doesn't have a
a brief we did ask you to from the defendant's conviction and sentence in this matter