MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
goes to the fact that he had not presented this issue and that was the words used by the court previously and did not sufficiently explain the  well that's your multiple reasons all the time for taking action of some sort you know i understand if that's the case however time that because of that same issues raised in the count we supreme court the california supreme court may have intended the insulated him from further criminal liability so because we have one unique issue in the court was unclear i think again we come back to the equity and i think the equities because there may be i think  circumstances i just may be allowed to rely on certainly what the judge tells him you know i think there are circumstances that maybe someone can misinterpret what a representing address petitioner's assertion that there are some overlapping claims i could not find any overlapping claims between the first petition in the court of appeal and the second round of petitions in the court of appeal in california supreme court in the of his plea and so the court's reference to you has not been diligent in utah explained your delay with respect to this issue and i think it's reasonably construed in that manner that's also supported by the fact that the court of appeal didn't address any particular issue difficult situation your honor although i think in that situation both courts have original jurisdiction correct yes however under the looked through doctoring cases the court of appeal the california supreme court style and denial would relate there's no evidence at all in this case that the court was not here we bring to the petition before it at the time and in fact this is the only petition filed in calcutta cream so i think that the lack of diligence citation by the california supreme court is a clear raising here and in round she was completely different my opponent attorney was an effective for failing to challenge my plea again so we have one one position that's really trying to challenge the existing plea and then the second round which is really focusing back on the first pla limited criteria before we can grant each holding three tween separate rounds and that's what we have here are two separate rounds per think it makes a great deal of difference that he again went to the court of appeal in my opinion entirely new claims why after the petitions do overlap i think in looking at the language and reading the context of what his pleadings indicate that there's certainly an overlapping to what extent he
developing then that centered around the government modification of the area around program and how that modification might have made those eric holder as i expressed a ball to the government beyond seems to me if he's got all these devices in his bedroom with all the videos and indeed i think there are even d v d s there which isn't something that could have been put there by somebody else how is it possible to pin this the i take it you're not saying that he produced all those pornography himself hard to read to see how he could avoid a receipt charge sensi have them you've got to somehow so well broken even if we would accept equally likely which strikes me as a long shot it still makes a fair probability that as it turned out to be the case it's from that address these technologies that or investigator presumed that at some point mr dad might attempt to notice mr scott mr smith as an expert so the government moved to exclude mr smith on march  after judge borden in this particular case as early as november of two thousand and eighteen told the party is this case is long enough to the best of my knowledge mr sophos that is doing things while he's in custody that he's not supposed to be so if the court i know the chalkboard and did not make an explicit determination that mr souter sat with the system but this is certainly direct evidence that he was for eighteen months he sat on his hands knowing exactly what he wanted larry smith testif then further prejudiced the government and extend the case further and i think that that's ultimately where mr souter stat can show that he was diligent and he type of way and then if it was a discovery sanction discretion if you have any additional questions i'm happy to answer them but i am overtime we w
but i don't believe there are you know you'll have time for  something in the decision following the september twelfth through september thirtieth here the commissioners found their current condition of ill be your right shoulder is implication if an injured employee is not entitled to t t d benefits if they are capable of returning to work without restriction without regard to whether they reached m m i would they say let's read what they said
the situation here and he's obviously we have some good news it appears to be unethical behavior on we have this attorney telling him that this is the agreement when there is no such agreement very troubling absolutely but when he realizes that there is no plea deal to that extent and he realizes that this is what i'm pleading guilty to and the judge was asking has anyone forced you to do this do you want to do this and he's responding yes i want to plead guilty i understand what i'm pleading guilty to no one is forcing me how does that not overcome what happened prior to the prosecutors misrepresentation because that's not true that you have to plead today or go to trial that has no impact on the volunteer
wonderful for the second circuit really only focusing on legal separation so the coup it is what is the support you have for the notion that you're proposing with regard to legal separation not being related rumors in connection with the will proceed to get a ruse becky in two thousand and seven and for some reason that's pending for more than a decade and then we have we have this  over three because of the removal proceeding used to all fifty two and the reason then twelve fifty two to work is because fourteen thirty two eighty three is a disqualifying
may proceed and thereby provides insured an opportunity to take any steps that medium reasonable or necessary in response including and this is important whether to accept the fence that ensures hands under the insurers control  subject to the reservation of rights or instead to defend itself so choose it was here is that the resolution of rights is connected to a right reimbursement and the right of reimbursement  the st question about whether that was successful reservation or right i think your argument is that the district court because the district court decided that reservation could be unilateral unilateral decision by the insurance company that that doesn't mean the insurance company argument no that's correct actually there are tribal issues whether or not there was actual noticeable reservation of rights i think there's also some question about whether or not the restoration of rights is adequate  there's no duty to indemnify our position is that there was a duty to defend that there was you know wasn't clear yob sat that we were not subject that there wasn't a claim it could be and then it was almost two months before that so it seems a lot of the by its own terms as the letter says in the in the in the burbs the letter i think i have it right here this letter does not address your bell ability any insurance at this point isn't connected to the provision of an open ended reservation of rights that attaches to a letter that doesn't apply to or relate to any coverage under a policy so it was too late a reliance on to the detriment of my client the coverage that was being provided and specifically in connection with the silent negotiations that were going on in preparations for trial at that point i think it was like whether or not there was a waiver because of the extensive amount of information and the key to reviews of the file that was provided the evidence and all of that information and they continued to represent them and that's really what's interesting about this is that there the theory that there are not under an obligation of the policy is based on information that they had both a very initial tender of a defense from the get go when a complaint was provided to them they had their own policy in front of them and that's all it took another copy of the complaint but they couldn't make this determination at that point and i think that creates a trollish five you know there's more than enough evidence here to establish not just my client's subjective perspective on whether or not they waive the mother but they have this information of all of them and typically see in the record you know we're a long way from the top i can but i would typically see something the indicate that the routine practice is what the system has work you know within a particular organization or generating correspondence and keeping track of it and what not
there's just no other apparent basis for this judgment than contempt court rule before stating the number of the the dollar figure that the loss of the house was the direct result of my client's  he lost his paycheck this family without any paycheck at all for eight months and watch the house that's what was going on considered never been taken into account it was overbooked in the original judgment and that leads me to the nd strain saying about proceedings here is both sides file her it is still within the jurisdiction of the circuit court to modify this judgment and that's a strange concept when you realize that we have here a judgment that is without guile filed for conte hope that it would be clarified this time around because you never go over saying too much or too little too you see what happens but in this case what happened was at trial level nobody got it and foreclosed upon and sold the person to foreclosure sale that that wish to modify was still pending before the trial court and then dave it had been stated as a brief in this in this appeal that both the trial that's what he ruled that's the that's that's what this court room didn't know about the trial didn't go by at the time of the judge but this court didn't touch the issue of whether judge levy heard it before ruling my client's timely post trial motions and in fact this court coming to do disposition specifically talking about the
the defendant was subject to a twelve year term so there has to be so mechanism by which the trial court decides where with between one year and twelve years this case falls on the continuum you know apparently according to the supreme court the degree of injury is appropriate consideration in determining yeah and then
me please the court
evidence that she presented that she acted in self defense was extremely improbable and not believable and any way shape or form with these and therefore the jury was clearly justified in not believing her statements are the big problem with her presentation of the self defense of self defense evidence was her credibility issues it's obviously pretty clear that she lied that by and large for the whole video  that then jamieson just produced this knife and defend it using her martial arts skills disarmed jamieson with the real significant injuries to her and the people samantha that's just not remember anything that happened after that she said that she solve read she didn't know how many times she had jamison going back to the car i believe it was so one sided know that that's not part of it but anyway i think it's very defendant argued that the big issue here is they were guarding self the fans is who brought the knife in the first place people would argue that it was it was jamison that did not have the knife so with testified claypool testified she didn't have the knife and defendant was saying that it matters who has the knife in the first place but i think what really matters here is that before anybody was stabbed the defendant had this knife i don't think it matters and brought up because then three of those stab wounds were to the back of her head which i argue of course how can there be an imminent threat soon your your well being if if this person isn't even facing you anymore and then you continue to stab them clearly any  wrong or reasonable inference from me in testimony from the medical examiner that because there were rooms in the back where had i think it's reason it's reasonable to conclude that she was no longer freezing the defendant at that point but this type of evidence requires some sort of expert testimony that i'm not arguing with those cases whatsoever but i'm just saying none of them are applicable here because there was no testimony out there that that these types of is really just trying to find out what happened and that's why those comments were not alone yes and it puzzles thomas when the room is of course the prosecutor wasn't there an error in mentioning them later and in counsel wasn't a factor for failing to move to have those
correspondence to my client exercising her right to purchase the property as stated that the specified purpose and attach a copy of we've been that in the they even make an argument as to why that finding is in any way erroneous illusion argued that the trial court didn't interpret the language correct the truck court to keep it in the family so the only way to guarantee that it's kept in the family is that the grant doors collectively have it so that it can be taken outside t i don't think you can get there from here with the language in the be there and the following and again this is what i w needs i know he wants them in this really simple and say hey it's a grand jury it's everybody when i say you guys i mean everybody but it's not that simple of the world would be here if it were a little bit there would be so many people disagreeing on this and i don't think that's why the judge
february twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen would that have still only within the the time frame necessary to initiate legal malpractise on the does three am three fourteen neither one of you stated that case why i didn't know whether i was reading it wrong two thousand and thirteen in response to daly's legal questions to him i mean he at that point you know there are some specific questions and some e mails or some correspondence about i received some type of a notice that plan is going to be handling this second mortgage account and what does this mean i don't think i am more in raver says you know it's this is the first step in foreclosure if you're served let us know right away doesn't hurt try filling out the application they send she'll you know and daily replies well i contact them but they are telling him you know don't talk to these people or this is a first step so at that point they are committing either additional malpractise or misleading y
from november twelve in the twenty three case that pretty much will present my position regarding the two cases that are before the court before the panel today and hopefully the panel will accept my the bankruptcy on behalf of the partnership without informing me the other part of the bankruptcy petition of shortly thereafter the us trustee issued the motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case because the other partner in him the partnership lawyers did not prosecute the case of i was not informed of the motion to dismiss i was not informed of the hearing and i was not informed in a timely manner of the order to dismiss the case for it i could possibly object to the dismiss those events occurred united before i didn't know that they ocurred i didn't have any way to know and i did not object in a timely manner and as a result of that bankruptcy case i literally everything which is described in detail in the u s district court case of that was the exhibit being i did not know i was not the prize of the situation i didn't have any way at that time to object to what was happening of the reason why over things were done was to steal the if the panel accept my argument it's too late because the property was lost to foreclosure and it is not possible thirty five years later to undo the for me contributing not only the westwood property but my entire estate to secure a loan for the benefit of the partnership the its credit or he did not least of the final comment on a make about those  five million dollars and they have been generating in raw numbers about one hundred and seventy thousand dollars a year for the last thirty five years that us it can be returning to the partner here and then distributed properly
d to testify about these large quantities of heroin trafficking he goes on the stand and says that he doesn't remember anything charge that he had received some kind of threats and that permits the government to recall him to testify but not only that sue allow him to testify about two reason for the fire we cantered testimony runs a threat that we should have an absolute rule that would just record can't allow that testimony i think that's what you're saying that one person who certainly knows her way better than we do exactly what the impact was in the courtroom what the atmosphere was like what the tone psychonauts the trial judge and that's why we have this abuse of discretion standard so when you talk about that it was drama recant and then the explanation that now that's all a lot better scenario for the defendant than if the guy just taken the stand and testified in the st place to what everyone t assessment of what was going on here in terms of the fact on justice and fairness and stuff the defendant actually nato good enough that the prosecution ended up closing by saying this guy has no credibility but he's that but believe him when he said she was together and into being one of them then develops there in the middle of trial a different approach that is arguably a materially and trying to stick together if we didn't have a rule that that point the district court judge was required again on how sophisticated that use was as compared to his use of the co defendants home herself that obviously has a bearing on her own defense
we find that she reached her plea agreement by virtue of these phone calls the sake of discussion that we uphold the district judge on that point then they are relieved of their obligation of recommending the low end of the guideline but it was used pretty effectively well i think the language is somewhat shocking and having spent you know a couple years representing mr jones no one was just i was shocked to hear language i don't know i thought by the language what i think i'm looking at is whether it's a correct now maybe that's just this drones and i would have put other witnesses they could have gone to the overall situation ever requested at that point did you ever request the hearing i requested afterwards when it became an issue of whether or not you violated the statutes that i want to put on witnesses and these issues that i was  members of the court good morning i'm john here from the department of justice for the united states i'd like to begin if i may by dressing in what i perceive to be a real misunderstanding on the part of the defense of government's theory of inject permissible for the government to behave injective lee only because such behavior would occur preet trial or prior to the resolution of the trial and i don't believe that that's what could possibly be a fair reading of the position we are this is what happened in this case is functionally the same as the government threatening to apply sentencing enhancement that otherwise wouldn't in order to obtain a guilty plea or threatening superseding indictment with far more drastic potential consequences in order to obtain a guilty plea here we're trying to preserve the guilty plea and the threat or doesn't ok jand and inference that it was erroneous for any reasonable either it's a sort of fuzzy gray area but there are aspects of this that to be blunt troubling me as well you mentioned during mr press presentation that you didn't you weren't sure that it was i don't remember your exact words your honor you weren't sure about the propriety of cracking it up to seventy eight months at a very and i think that what happened was within the four corners of the agreement and was within the legal bounds of what the government was entitled to do but i agree it's nothing that i would have done and i think it backfired i think you have a situation where you've got a very tenacious test and bring on my breach because of my comment that i'm going to raise it then i'm going to raise from the proper scale i'm going to charge whatever you recommend whatever sen the end is diminished from the way it would be able to obtain a contract the court did find in december that the contract was still valid and enforced and the government the ultimate resolution of the matter for trial and then subsequent conduct unilateral conduct by the government attacking valid attempts by the defense to undo the result a trial you're she grieved if she did not breach the agreement in other words her phone calls did not constitute a violation of the california misdemeanor statute assuming she didn't breach to be when the prosecutor was obliged to stand up and say we recommend that
case the judge did make a decision which is why i spent the first part of my argument talking about the underlying claim and i think that the judge th judges certainly the judge's decision should be referred to and in fact at the very end of her decision the judge found that his testimony was credible despite the fact that she had had certain misgivings and i  regulations that came out of no five in which the person is not only supposed to receive notice of obligation but notice of the consequences now another thing is that the judge in her decision the initial master there was no discussion involving chris the second one in june of zero two and their sister was involved the filing of supporting documents there was no discussion of  country conditions documents the only one that really talked about it was the name it's all three marriage hearing and this is on page ninety one of the record where it was set for marriage hearing and then fingerprints and even there it's it's a rather curious thing perkins claim he doesn't appear eligible for asylum in any event and that was based on having heard his claim and whatever her problem with her case and so for reasons that i refugee so the way i read that is that in the end despite your misgivings she found him to testify in a credible manner and then that forms the basis of the you know your honor i did not mean to state that i don't need to state they never gave continuance of that obviously they were given many continuances if i could just there and if i understand your question correctly you are asking well if you find that the immigration judge should be used for discretion and granting another continuance to allow the petitioner to the case because
deal they said that they used him as the finder but there's no indication he was used as a finder for this your client already had and was looking into the deal adams didn't find your client what line on page one forty three on one forty three they talked about how it was what percentage that was lined up just beginning to line in for this particular transaction that the same time that he was being retained by your client to his guy when he promptly now where is that right damage that was done well certainly  resisting ninety six with the exact same amount fifteen thousand five hundred three so you have three different indications in the records of the same amount of money going to balance your fifteen thousand five  ninety ninety five mr vallance you're right and deliver a check to mr kinzie for eighteen thousand six hundred dollars i thought it was for sixteen thousand or sixteen eighteen thousand or
billy batson also knows the way i will contact captain marvel very interesting i don't have to get batson and take him along with the girl to the shack on the bombing right right back here and call that's this coffee in a plane is taking off and will drop a demolition bombs on the shack in a few minutes leave the shack immediately come on the plane will be over no time