MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
did the the principal was two hundred ninety three thousand it doesn't match up well there's just a dispute or do your clients dispute that this might be considered negative amortization where the payment because empirically this is an adjustable rate yes so if they're painted to face their schedule payment does not meet the interest applicable at that time that gets in and back again and this is a pretty significant counsel from the parties right there see that information and ultimately need a decision yes so how if there is a decision based upon the information subsequently tendered plus the information that was already before it in a motion for mortgage when she will effect until the time there was a final full closure they get paid each year they take it as an insurance for each year below that they had not made a payment since march of two thousand and nine almost ten years ago and then that the loan would be happy the loan was originated about two thousand six hundred just to two thousand and six i think i have these acting in the record but exact number either was calculated based on its breakdown so simply responding in an affidavit i'm not sure how all these numbers were calculated to the penny isn't enough to create a genuine dispute a fact that requires something like a document to shows i did make a modification right so as to that issue first i'd point out that nothing about the loan modifications briefed on this appeal so i believe that that issue was waived in our specially request that if the court chooses to look at that issue that will be given an opportunity to respond meet the standards spelled out in the agreement which will see the records on p c thirty six for extended coverage the borrowers never put any insurance agreement or policy into the record at all much only applies in any case if the regular payments that are set out in a green that would not be enough to cover the interest in which case that would mean you know making your monthly payment you're still sitting on the interest as not the case here for the interest allegations about alleged misconduct by wells fargo other situations you were to come it was absolutely correct that allegations about what wells fargo may have done in other cases are not relevant here if there's no evidence of a record that there was some kind of misconduct here and there was not but moreover this issue was only raised in the pro se motion for reconsideration and that on first of all that issue that the ruling denying that motion was they also went on to point out that the horrors themselves have verified their income at the time of the closing so it's not any sort of admission that there was a failure to verify and even if it was that still would be relevant to summary judgment because the income all because it doesn't say and about any material facts because that income verification in any event is not an issue in this in this case because the act doesn't apply and it wasn't raised as an affirmative defense and even if it was this letter doesn't actually say thank you thank you very much and don't know well until two thousand and eighteen
to do that any time during the trial present any evidence or argument that the standard here required butterscotch to proof work for your client to a specialist or to have a specialist consult with her  men so there's two computer systems an advocate another person opens we're really interested in has from a policy we're interested in his testimony yet he looked at this on the screen that somebody else you know and they can discuss it with the family and the family says money that he never discussed wit radiology and maybe out she comes an open city and so apparently the pattern and practice in this merchants you only see just have it up and running the whole time is sitting right next to the one that they do have access to and people just look at it so that was a little trial as to write this out and what was in she said a number of times you can't use that this discovery deposition is in evidence deposition that's out but if dr proved it was a goal of all she's going to testify it's going to come in number of ways that the put the plaintiff was in control of how to try their case and how this testimony would come in first the crew stipulated to the medical records that was a big discussion in the early days children and ask them about the interactions with back to read she says that there was there's a reference in the record to your mom see a river specialist did she ever see a liver specialist no she didn't have the the tools available
recommendations really have to do with future subdivision namely that be subject to wildlife habitat assessment natural resource assessment as well as there's a comment there that it would be subject to the seventy five percent open space set aside i would now as paul most likely well that there comment is that the seventy five percent be off the fifteen point nine acres  drives be closed recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilston development via bylaws and having heard to the consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of september twenty sixth two thousand and seventeen boundary line adjustment subject to the conditions listed above this author of this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans to move these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based we're going to mandate one condition condition number two which will read the access but are not dr may remain
what i believe is a three prong assessment here are first we can look at the size of the defect which which we can agree is less than two which is i think secondly we can look at the location of the defect and thirdly we can look at some aggravating factors that we have just that defect is right outside the door the landowner directs the patrons and this is a commercial building it's not difficult for them to monitor a small area as it would be to monitor  more concerned whether the evidence that was presented in arguably establishing a private patient case was present at the trial for sure so i think what we can look at is the plainest testimony foot strip right outside of her building ok so that's my first question secondly something i guess it just struck me we don't have any of these other cases you say the commercial establishment has taken upon itself to direct th question i think the other rationale underlying the minister was the fact that the courts recognize that given our weather conditions which some sort of experience in the next twenty four hours is that with the changing weather conditions it's impossible to maintain perfect know if there's another designated smoking area over on the brain inside where the right door was but he we don't he didn't go through the left hand door in that area but i think the two factors that are significant as to why there are an aggravating factor here is because it was not the main door my question is what are we saying to landowners are we saying that you know you to listen to your argument not indian lakes would be better off if they didn't cover this and made the entrance way gravel i think you could look at where the other if it i we just had a winter where i don't care what was covered in a shovel snow way from the door so how can i assume that just because it's covered it changes everything well i think that then i'm going to go back to the fact that this is the main door that  times called a defect an imperfection in a sidewalk trigger the do you need to dig it up and repair you know where are we live got descriptions here of half inch to an inch and a quarter to the counseling and your question regarding the outlands and they have the half inch measurements very briefly that individual i think it's a point on their feet when no three and a half years after this incident to conceded that but whether or not it was inherently dangerous whether this was this was normal to be expected in northern illinois you cannot read that i believe that's that's all within the present a question of fact
differentiating there is and the close presence sizes are not going to differentiate these various concentrations we now see experts giving opinions based on testing as to whether a person wasn't very at a certain time and that none of these facts that are apparently necessary to make this argument were presented in the trial or because this argument wasn't made their defendant is arguing that he can rely on all kinds of sources that are outside of the the record in this law people would also note he saw from the general proposition at where the records insufficient to decide a point because the record wasn't developed from that point the issues more properly dealt with in a post that those you know now the any level of measurement of t h c just is too broad and it's a doesn't the in the make sense that it all i think the legislature could have made a different policy judgment alcohol i and there still a difficulty in determining for each illegal drug what concentration it is that at which point impairment exists and there's no preference or for drugs the urine off the charts high that the scientists had never seen them before so from that you can determine it's unfair but there's also the middle range oh well what do we do when it's a concentration that maybe someone would be impaired at maybe
my point is that your judgment basically adopts the prior work which is unclear and i think this court needs to address that some in some manner and i think that the trial court has to be i think impartial medical examination a perfectly reasonable thing and i think that that order of the commission should stand and i think this court needs to pay paul on the  what are we supposed to do with that and if it's not it's got to go back i can't tell from that opinion whether or not we should go back to the commission to have them further explain this or whether or not we should have gone on the manifest weight basis i don't know w you she couldn't just simply reince if you agreed with my position which was that the circuit commission was wrong in their second opinion then she would have had to say then what do we do about the original decision we just can't affirm the really consistent system so did she commissioner no words we need to fight for the commission before we can have the trial court addressing whether or not reasonable order rather than piecemeal well i'd like you to explain what your order was and and do nothing and then tell me about it which think i don't think anybody else makes any sense and so i mean i think we have to allow this process to finalize but in the commission and i'd ask you to order the trial court to send it back down mission and let him finish the order before the trial court doesn't
honestly don't i don't i don't remember but if you read the transcript of this truck going planning to come september what i'm curious about is how we were to accept the evidence that comes in without objection you're saying here on appeal we basically and exclude various medical opinions as well as of course the testimony of various witnesses and they were clearly gave to determine that there was not any problem with mr macy's as his medical records indicated that the claimant never made any depth prosthesis was working out for him but she notes no problems no problems in the very end she notes no complications and she even says to mr mayes's if you have any problems let me know if  in fact the petitioner in that case was found to be still disabled and medically there was no medical testimony indicating it didn't return to work in this instance if it isn't the province of the commission to determine to a position that he was suffering from depth perception issues after the surgery yes the the one visit the doctor for a word doc forced on the theory that there was a problem with that perception so we have at the beginning and at the end
or don't don't go to that proposition and we're asking the court to i consider what titian would have to prove this line is drawn this far out i'm they don't have to prove that the new injury happened at work as a result of trauma that the injury happened at work or result of repetitive or cumulative rahma that the injury happened due to any activity connected to work injury happened as a result of any general public states pose their case rests on risk that the general public is exposed such as laundry and day to day life under the around that i think the law is already fairly well so i think it's i mean isn't that the general rule that's a natural consequence or use of the other limb when somebody loses the use of the other limb is a natural consequence of what's the difference where the liver is being used we're just asking the court not to extend it that was at home or at work whether it happens at home or at work it's a natural consequence of the injury because the work injury mr healy was forced to use only his right arm has put additional stress on his right arm when he couldn't use a left arm for any purpose whatsoever  aggravated the preexisting condition which it was right shoulder necessitating the need for treatment ultimately resulting in the surgery this is a natural again this is the natural flow from that original work injury i would argue
if not the question is
believe those three contain the kernel of the elements of the cause of covering that issue or someone was contemplating an amendment to the lease that would correspond to the revised version of the trust agreement but that's absolutely speculation i don't know any of that i just don't know anything about the history of that language but five million dollars what the casino paid in so ho mental round was a lot of the point five million dollars plus interest not any more mr refills are and would have the court believe that they paid eleven point five plus seven hundred  and that existed until the bonds were paid off and not until that point to the amount of debt reserve fund was sufficient to repay the balance of the bonds until the bond was the bonds were paid off so what happened here collected may be applied by the authorities to the manner gathered decided by the authority without prior notice or consent is covered in them if you look at the trust indenture the debt service fund is to get out of a dish one one of the tour of unity air which will want to have one year statute of limitations has been held that the complaint was not one who are unjust enrichment for restitution that one year pay all that back how were you paid that back through revenue these are revenue bonds the revenue is the payments that they're made in other words what's the difference between that and maybe they say you know what i did we were we don't like the fact that you're not giving make which is all of this is covered by the contracts and since all the bills are covered by the house price with they're really asking you to do is say you know what we forgot to negotiate this term we saw because anybody can see what would have him what's rent when the principle of those bonds got down to seven hundred nine thousand dollars under the terms of the trust agreement the last seven zero nine dead in the news to pay off the bus what would have been the result that number one bonds would have been paid
question more
go situations similar to this and again you're not even though i want to differentiate between a corporation and to a limited liability company which is what the independent is called by her in pieces where the if you file an affidavit from that person saying that she was the authorized agent of mr westfall no i do not believe case i did not file will why would why would they have to file something that was nothing more than notice from the get go yes but it gets the case where is our authority given that legislative intent to broaden its stance you to say that just anyone who works in the office of the registered agent is going to put forward  agree here there may be an inference that someone who is sitting in a east area or an area that insists th may be might not rule secretary of navy mr westfall secretary one of the associates that to my knowledge i don't know who this woman is and i don't know what capacity she accepted this paper at us and i don't think this
confession from where the defendant admitted that he'd call him up and clarify that means i shot someone you further admitted that he was blessed in became a member of the latin
believes they have a strong medical now practice case against dr elias it's simply not so rare we have is a plaintiff who was happy with the treatment he received made except for exceptional recovery given the there was no storm that came out of it because of because of looking at the recovery in which the plaintiff may well be the reality is that if we knew we mean injury seeking going to have to decide whether those three million dollars a week seven of whatever was in claimed expenses were reason that's correct right so you could receive good medical treatment would have its orbit medical bills right that's a possibility right so why wouldn't the judge six creates an element of damages if the plaintiff is over the state interest that the medical treatment was both reasonable and necessary serve the common interest in proving that point is a common interest between the plaintiff who needs to prove that in order to recover and doubt the right to sue needs to prove that in order to defend against the allegations of malpractise at outset it but there's also the other element that the red road injecting into the case now that the injury that necessitated these bills if they were reasonable was not an injury caused by the real it was caused by the third party defense so getting her i don't and felt better after every single one of those treatments there is no testimony to suggest that that the rightness caused any injury to mr ross and it's quite the opposite the testimony that contradicts that is that the hi where you may be found for murder result of the century when he simply has recruitment for services that he provided or the businesses provided the three businesses that he owns and runs them so i think that's an important distinction prudent i don't think it's necessary and i don't think it prohibits one from seeking to invoke the common interest except secret and that they weren't invited but they provided no evidence or any view that they've approached the plaintiff regarding settlement it's it's i think it's a disingenuous argument that
he also had the benefit of basically after he had four days of evidence in this fact intensive case mr truly and i agree he saw the actual transcript and he saw the close of the with this so he had he had the best position to make a judgment in this case and he did the case was allowed march of two thousand and a party like richard not just teaching not only was his credibility question rightfully so he was shown to be absolutely less than truthful and would show it basically said listen you're done you're out of here you're going to fix the punch list or leave the complete the work because you're charging the interest of one point five percent which is the interest that was in the contract and know how this one when steve mcnally did it instead of just saying i'm done with this you guys are the police over these bastards if you come back if you really want to and need to go back to the record and listen to the testimony or you get the testimony of the other stuff they couldn't believe it either they said these guys were hospital police but but the kept changing things and almost it was trying to please them and it probably shouldn't try but they did and then i learned that this edition that was on a computer in the somehow crashed he transferred it to a second computer and it somehow crashed i mean it was just the most amazing story we ever her he
has certain obligations that they didn't perform because the
against the real reason to well he also has to look at it would you agree what's the likelihood of success on the motion and if i'm going to prevail on a motion probably going to have to call my client is that  that the defendant did not agree with the council's decision not to run the motion against him my point is the people versus williams the only supreme court twenty six thirty six only second one ninety four the court keating crucial piece of evidence against you and in order to open up his client to complete cross examination on the entire case would he not have to ask questions in direct it would open the door for cross examination in other words does the lawyer have the ability an emotionless press assuming that he's going to exercise their strategy to limit however we don't understand where it there was a substantial constitutional violation when there was nothing material and no it's that would have added to anything that was presented at trial defendant while there was a constitutional violation in as far as not turning over the notes what we admitted at third stage that that was discovery violation we turned over the notes and defended fails to show and i testified in open court to that effect and there was a video and a written notice in the video was taking the writing my notes and then no she didn't say anything about it you didn't say anything about the robbery you don't think that there would be testimony that she never told him about the gun free when he was recalled for that and they asked him the state asked him did they tell you or did lucy tell you that defendant and caressed went to chicago or  forget the discovery violations and all that how is it that the state was allowed to use this mc intrade as substantive evidence because it did it art if the jury should consider it to establish when detective dempsey was called he said i don't know if she said act i don't know she said that her brother went to chicago to try to arrest her for brother went to chicago to try to arrest and get a gun so i disagree then you don't know whether or not he's right or wrong when he claims that there's no say this or that the purpose of the rule the law is to see to it that people like you and the fourth and the prosecutor and everybody else reads knows and is able to understand comprehend and narrowly define what it is that are in the notes and if you can't understand what those notes say those notes are worthless substantively that he defended it minute to his sister that he was aware that there was a gun in the car when they went to the apartment complex defeat and when asked specifically his response was i didn't know or i don't know and so all this house a car which has someone on his hand was that is very incriminating is based upon closing comment which is i don't know
i think it would be easier and there would be a more reliable written decision for myself by reading it if i got out within ninety days or three months as opposed to eighteen months that we may all agree with you on that i'm just wondering how that relates to it's just it's isn't it just it's the running there's a running theme i don't like rob well i did i did pick up some credibility issues that perhaps he had with some of your clients testimony is not directed against the joy it doesn't client was seven hundred thousand plus assuming that we have jurisdiction i have a hard time understanding that that would be an equitable vision of opportunity