MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
fire insurance claim in the divorce from his first wife he purchased her interest in it and it was in his name while he received a contribution from the insurance to rebuild the house but he didn't do it right away  in two thousand and six after he married lori the wife in this case about three months later he worked on instructing house in order to finance a destruction to you have all the property had it's we're building a house with the second is that one of the considerations we should review whether it's a gift or not is whether or not it's a substantial part of the state this case there is only about and there are concerns that reimbursement didn't take place for this first step and it was because of that gift as versus contribution categories that are created a lot of us driven by whether or not they can prove doma to some type of partition will invest in something without the intent of making give the other side a joint venture of some sort in the marriage invest in some real estate exercise control management any actual property my friend did that before the marriage and after the marriage paid with their funds which would include his wages but he exercised control property especially after the reimbursement that it would have made a difference  they have kids kelly day this lorry had his they decided they wanted to build a new house so they go out and do the plans put it together they build a new house they go get a construction loan the construction loan is in both hands they have friends they're in the building tra asset the only arguments were what's it worth and how is it to be divided if you look in the appendix to this in dave's argument at trial eight twenty three day twenty six he argued two elements under section five nice brand new bull arm whether it was for her benefit or not it's still alana ellie all so obviously it's an improvement to that asset and the court had consider it and second she put in a lot extra money they were motorcycle people so they finished off the arguments that were presented in court for a ruling looked at three factors one contribution the parties to the duration marriage and three the source of income on the part of the first two that the judge looked at were the ones that mr  many many times that i judge in a divorce as not doing performance audit of years of the marriage we don't go back and go through all the bills and decide hey joe hey sixty two point three percent of the debts and the ex wife pay the remainder therefore we're go name she found that there should be a disproportionate division in this case and accordingly slid sixty four i don't know that there's any way on earth we can argue that of the issues that were presented to the court at trial that would be any way contrary to the
in on the key components of each of those five grounds any one of which once accepted by the court is sufficient for reversal of the district court's decision the most straightforward possible path to reversal she issue as all the parties acknowledge there was does the complaint state a constitutionally the two hundred and fifty acres i submit to this court that you could not have a more fundamental property interest then the right to develop that land under those circumstances  develop one's land is perhaps the most that are property right now don't take my word for that the the we've had a supreme court to which this court must look in identifying constitutionally protected property rights in the need to showing a vested property right person a it's brought us inclusive of vested property rights but we don't even need to worry about that because here we had not one but two trial as one of the three i'll and the cases all hold that allegations of bias in that process are more then adequate and the clemens versus airport authority of washoe county ample allegations of bias in favor of the wealthy neighboring landowners that completely ruled this an unfair proceeding as implemented by mr honors where biased against your client because of his religion they're biased against young because they didn't want somebody builds them build the big buildings in new wave of the value of them are that certainly is the type prejudice against the owner of the property and they should on his religion and it apparently there were some statements made like  that was subsequently overturned in a district court action by the neighbors if the district court decision was structured partly overturned by the man supreme court at this time and those are those units application and i believe was a sixty acre parcel to put in a series of single family homes that was denied by the city council on a series of discretionary applications there was a development agreement for the entire two hundred and fifty dollars acres that the city council denied and there was an application for i can't remember the number of acres for another single family residential  development that was stricken for procedural grounds and that had one bad application has never been renewed so there has been a series of applications for different portions of the property what is going on here we saw it in the briefs at belize are asking this court to make factual determinations to weigh the evidence and that is not plans for the two hundred and fifty acres yet when things got to the city council after the landowners the done everything by the book then that's when things became totally unfair and the decisions were made situated citizens were treated the same way and that was indeed the case here all right thank you counsel i don't see any further question
could have just said i'm going to grab the states russia down with this kid's experience seriously think he understood the significance of the council saying i'm not even going to interview the victim in this case who he knows has given inconsistent statements about the identity of the person who stabbed him you know  hy isn't that kind of the whole point here are we supposed to have a record that shows us that the defendant knowingly waves the conflict that we seem to imply that  but here we don't have a whole bunch of little subtleties we've got one huge hole that's the defense counsel saying i'm not going to interview the victim but what the defense counsel voluntarily agrees not to interview the victim in a criminal case at least make an effort to interview the victim and let's think a minute oh he was the victim's attorney until two weeks before trial so what's the likelihood he's going to be willing to talk to many defense counsel may say well yeah i tried to interview him but they don't want to talk to me wouldn't two weeks ago he was his lawyer so a pretty good shot that this guy's willing to talk to  tells them right and that's the extent to which this defense attorney's going to go and yet he's going to assert a self defense without putting his client on the stand how hard is that maybe have been easier if you just got out maybe been easier fede interviewed the victim and realized hoops wait a minute the self defense i don't need because he's not going to identify my client he's going to go with one of his previous statements that it was my client's father and he has a pretty good explanation for why because the defendant is actually involved with another one of the juveniles and the father was the closest to him the victim himself said that right about expecting you to cross examine him it talks about asking you know about the case in which you represented him and as a religious tension pietschmann so we're talking about things that the attorney tended to do as to how it might constitute an exception i couldn't think the exception but
analysis you need one like that case then went up to the oregon supreme court and that's great for you know what was going on i don't mean seems to me that an issue for the oregon supreme court was whether the the handle doctor or law stating to much money out of the university was unable to recruit this whole string of things why dr rock and could not act as if ministry those were the very
class action have not been certified and that's very important because the class action head being certified the of course the plastic this would be entitle to notice that both of you to order the service circuit found that since the class it never been certified and the judge
and that brett knew of the dangerous characteristics of the route he selected and of the dangerous and hazardous nature of speeding on the after the route you know was a fifty five mile per hour county  he knew that it was narrow from where drivers going in opposite directions such that as in his own words it was now to the extent you had to get over almost under the shoulder the boys on coming traffic knew that it he knew from experience the gravel was oftentimes strewn on the highway presumably from cars to get over as they were passing and he knew that amanda like it was an inexperienced driver that she was only sixteen years old and only had a driver's license for a few months and he knew that she was not comfortable going fast response from her come to him though slowly and his agreement that he would do so the most are the facts and the reason the inference is that can be taken from those facts the nature of the roadway consistent with great description was  now the law on this thing if you know speeding is the force which conduct it will be talking about today but the law found it eleven six on one day and it's important that speeding consists of more than just going endangers the safety of any person or property and then goes on to say it's excel on the fact that the speed does not exceed the applicable does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching a bill press when travelling upon a narrow roadway and when special hazard exists with respect to conditions on the highway those are three conditions we have at the scene of the accident we have and we're here to talk about what do did he have to david norman as the lead driver in the touch tone of unity in general is whether public policy considerations whether the p specifically section eight seventy six which involves in concert theory of liability and subsections a b a peptic section in particular a science in concert liability when speeding in light of the other considerations amanda like it was going through a common destination no destinations thanks she don't know where she was though she was going to be following it she asked him to drive then under those circumstances yet the speeding in light of his control of the there is to allow th  in the mile a mile and a half before he reached the crest in the route of which they were not too far behind wayne owens estimated ship of the roadway seventy miles an hour t miles an hour now whether her recollection of the screen on the way to show is that good when the action occurred on august seventh of zero five and she was deposed on january eighth of two thousand and eight i don't know whether she was not a recognized mechanism for determining speed and i believe in this instance and it's not going to be disguised by this just to get a forgery if a j
are going to keep someone from hitting it with that with that head and then the roommate comes then and he's laying on her she apparently loses consciousness
determination of that exact issue and the criminal dui trial and the reason he has been that they are two separate distinct types of causes of action  g suspension hearing serves the purpose of promptly removing drivers off the road because it often takes quite a while to prosecute impaired probable cause to believe that the purpose of the driver was driving under the influence and whether the driver used to take chemical test and whether the driver failed the test the additional period of difference between the two causes of trial the defendant points out that the case law that the state relies on is in the context of collateral stoffel but that is inconsequential for a couple of reasons the after after after a rescission was granted and the the courts have have made it very clear that that's not the legislators intent trooper show when and also to the right are all three of the officers that testified here in the states that this officer said this and this officer said this and now here's a definition of a breakdown and here is the definition but that's what the truck or green it so never got to the alternative requests to determine it on the merits or allow additional testimony and so forth because the trial court said you don't have to really get this again
doing this are you sure we should be doing this in this park when deep financial stuff freestanding those are laid out as a direct result of the work of these negligee actually should be the word negligent in the conclusions i mean we i think the case was generally said we don't get hung up on titles and we don't get hung up on the the court's within his discretion to say too late for honors there's been a longstanding preference in that to serve the interest of serving justice for cases to be resolved on their merits rather than on technical deficiencies so i think in this case there is no jury to determine whether or not his conduct constituted a willful actions so i think in your interest of serving justice ed this case should be lots of year is all on its merit and that's why the employer should be reinstated based on those are all the points i wanted to address being asked thank you
really pretty close to the time of trial and i wouldn't if it wouldn't that have delayed the proceedings and in fact the defendant indicated on  disrupt the trial request twenty two days before jury selection was supposed to happen now the court did not grant or deny this request but rather he continued this case while because it depended there is a history that the defendant has delayed these proceedings on multiple multiple again it is the state's position it is entirely this is it will it's twenty one and he has indicated he has it she he hasn't gone through the entire file he hasn't can he doesn't know what it means to conduct discovery and she doesn't even know how starts or in the middle of trial or after meaningful proceedings have taken place so how would this be to those requirements where have there been any and when were there any needing full proceedings implication that the defendant acquiesces the court asked towards the end of the questioning so do you think it would be a good idea to try to represent yourself just because you don't like what she's telling you the defendant is no great send a good idea then and this
it presents false facts the district court never ruled that the first amendment protects defamation which is what they call the core mistake in their brief that's not a fair characterization of haiti it was a totally private affair about plantation owners and so in haiti and in that case it was deemed that those people who come from the sugarcane plantation were limited purpose public figures and the relevant question is whether they volunteered for an activity out of which publicity with which she believes arise and bad is certainly something that happened here in which the when she went there's a full solution chain she can go public subject to defamation claims potentially been brought against her but the doesn't meet her limited purpose public figure she volunteered for going public she was not dragged into it which is in the time firestone case where the there was a divorce people have to file in court so their buffet has become  then the media picked up on it and started writing about it but and then their word in a footnote it's mention of the press conferences to respond to the media different because the media got involved in that in this cause  regarding a matter where the individuals the firestones did not try to get publicity they did not volunteer to have their credibility street not raised by the public but that's exactly what the plaintiff did in this case to show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for falsity which is defined as a rather high standard meaning no awareness of probable falsity and disregard for whether it was actually false and that has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence here in the pleading state it is a matter that the courts regularly deal with as as a pretrial matter either the pleading stage or  and the while there are conclusory allegations that there was actual malice there is nothing in the complaint that sets forth that any of the statements in mr singer's letter are talking about some of the other accusers in another case who had criminal records and so they're comparing themselves to just that it's what is passing off is journalism he says unfortunately the veiling of us is not alone and talks about the media and the more the other things good media has routinely ignored relevant information including criminal backgrounds of various inclusive refutation of something that is capable of being who and what's your response to that is it doesn't matter because he argument well the argument is that the new should not have more on a one sided hit piece without having considered publicly available information that undercuts the plaintiff's credibility and that that is
may please the court counsel my name is christopher mccoy from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent mr thomas gallacher your honor is the primary issue in this case is whether the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant threatened the many use of force against the victim mr ortega in this case and there are many ancillary facts in this case but what it really what th correct and it was that together with the entry into the garage and the house that cause the fear on the part of the victim mean for all the victim knows in this case i mean they could have just been coming into the house to steal something and not looking for a fight so if there's anything to be faced if it is a requirement to be face to face well he is right and that wouldn't necessarily be required but it would but he has to known where they are well and he was actually present when the team in the door  action so we did the victims and he he's all for that he's threatening force against that tape and that implies some type of interaction some type of encounter between the defendant and the victim so if someone is running up to my house in a b and b and who is face book and my car is in the driveway i don't think they're coming to have lunch they're pumping disagreement about that but ultimately he doesn't know who these people are and as i said the approach of the house being free of the house all that could just be residential burglary we need the would certainly be you know a scary thing so i would say that when you look at all these conditions it's clear that the of the they were talking about you know the running up to the driveway in the entry so i know so that was the extreme element in home invasion there we didn't have a residential burglary so i think it's clear that they by the defense and and finally counsel mention the why intent were already tense that what the defendant said to each other before this crime occurred that's not a threat because the they're not coming to the front door they're going to the sniper or they're running up thing of bandanas or they're covering their face they enter the house for the home invasion is correct or do they enter into the residential burglary
i would not have any particular desire on my part to be buying condo in florida or enjoying my life based on my heart what the intentions of the parties w what would be the difference between the situation where his wife aussie and a bake sale in the name of the corporation that they forgot about twenty years ends the day the bank call somebody up and said don't you want to worry about this bank account oh my gosh we forgot about that and that i would respect marriage or another few distinctions so so the defense argument seems today that it just simply isn't fair that the money goes to the ubinas that's the statute doesn't the corporation having been voluntarily dissolved part it was but who does a corporation of the shares now want to own and now belongs to the che so there are just simply isn't any way for
detective mark and his supervising director were returning to shy world that was i am assuming or does the records show that that was part of that their duty
good evening our welcome you to the july meeting of the richmond development review board since there's only two of you up there in edging you both side in and since there's no public i can't tell them to decide to talk at a hearing so that they can become interested parties so i won't have we had any more applications for d or b we still short of number one so i would like to remind everybody who bothers to watch this that we are short of number of the d r beat and it's a once a month obligation and you would have a hand in deciding applications in front of us for subdivision and other things so i would encourage anybody out there who wants to participate to please let jeff or banach our town manager now first on the agenda is kind of richmond marvin kirk and darlene morgan kevin bassett and jennifer miller application fourteen dash zero six three for plymouth mary in final subdivision approval for a three lot subdivision of jericho road to create an additional new lot for future development of the municipal water tower located before i can see we don't have perfect guidance in our ordinance as far as i can take it to not conforming parcels in other words undersized parcels to make one conforming parcel bomb the town attorney has written us that opinion that pursuant to section five point zero point four quote facilities that allows us to do it i'm not sure i disagree with them in any way but it's interesting in a typical fashion of our ordinance which can be somewhat ambiguous paragraph eight says that there are certain factors we can look at and other factors that we don't have to do and then paragraph b says that we love that the facilities must meet all the political requirements  ambiguity but i personally don't have too much problem what you're proposing here and there see anybody in the public who has voiced any opposition the neighbors have been as jeff said i don't think you'll see it at all and jeff you told us that there won't be any mechanical facilities at all there will just be basically holding up a holding area for water  gravity feed out of that set out everything the only thing i would say is that we should put in something that says its use is only for the water taken nothing else no other
fifteen years ago the suggestion was made that you should get permission from the test taker to record the will be read to the test page it's a belt and suspenders but it takes a rake things like this right now imitations has been incorporated into the probate act is jurisdictional and must be strictly adhered to as the court as this court held it in a state of rutile so for those reasons the trust contest was not properly before the trial court can you address the issue as if it leads to the will and the dismissal of the content yes eighty nine if there was no permitted matter that defeated the claim and that affirmative matter was the fact that the state was insolvent the few expenses in this case were over twenty thousand dollars and the amount in the stage was a little over nine thousand dollars so as a first class to expects the funeral expenses must be paid first and there was nothing left to me a state to pay anyone else including and this court on the first if i were counting you will see a line item for fourteen hundred grant the motion to dismiss again this argument is firstly because it was not raised in the trial court for me there are significant documents the court relied upon that did a stablish deep proofs necessary for the court to decide this one superfast necessary the affirmative matter to defeat the claim and that was that the instate was insolvent and those two documents are as the recognize the story which was something pursuant to the