MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to give us any kind of notice that those fees were going to be a size or that they could be assessed honestly it's common practice to file a claim that you may not have a full absolute number knowing that that may come that was his client that was dealing with that but i don't legitimate claim that there was which which if it had been filed that there's really not an issue i've got a cook county court order there's there's no way i'm going to go back to that but the idea being it has to give sufficient information to determine what the reason for that is to not have things over the edge and not have this continuing it's to put everybody under is it's to make sure this gets wrapped up that it's expeditions i don't see that the trial court had discretion to go outside of that claim period period putting us on notice that that's what was going on that that may come through or it didn't have to be definite i mean i would ask for more information but we certainly were entitle to that but that would have been noticed to us we had a very strict window she had other attached to that petition to terminate independent ministration this email but the email clearly states that there is a proceeding pending for divorce the judge granted the petition t spouse there was an order declaring her shit saying that this fellow was divorced while we amended the order declaring their ship we filed the petition and in that petition we put a case number in compounds and hate read that page them or you were you not a little pregnant she was there and it was a minor portion still a portion she knew the divorce was pending she knew the divorce was going to affect the state she had to do to do something she never gave us a demand to terminate our perhaps if she had submitted something to us directly especially being represented during the queen's period would have wrapped that whole piece up it would've been the neatest way to deal with th had the motion to vacate pending in cook county this is her burden this is her responsibility to pursue that that should have been handled in a way that the state was involved that everybody was i noticed she didn't do any of that i don't feel that easiest most straightforward way to handle this nature everybody is on notice the executor had to had done her do diligence we knew that that could come in divorce was pending we had had no idea whether was going to turn her down one way or the other it was going to affect the ultimate distribution we're aware of that she was waiting for that to be resolved and then to come
only a few months and passed before he filed his first federal petition and then the district court held onto that petition for over a year and meantime the statute of limitation had expire looks to me as though he didn't file the right papers before he got to the district court and improperly failed to inform him and also he didn't act with reasonable diligence to exhaust his claim in state court after the district judge acted so even if the district judge had correctly informed him you'd just at the same place no i that that answer instead of supporting your argument undermines if he had no business going to federal court at that point he had not exhausted his state claim so to say that  time that you're exhausting in state court i don't see why you need the equitable telling argument actually you look at recent cases d limitations under your argument there's an exception for california there is no statute of limitations in california i don't quite i think quite understand impossible argument under under some of our precedents perhaps though welsh may change that well but i'm thinking that's what my problem with that is it looks as though that's a coherent argument under a precedence but it can't we do in other states you file your petition for post conviction relief in a superior court to appeal it within a set number of days or else there's no jurisdiction to the intermediate appellate court and you well again i'm not i'm not sure that you can win everyone every petition for rehearing you still don't get any usable rules when and again because you are like i said we are attempting empiric for this issue it's a waste of time you feel like you have to publish because you're saying something new but the random walk of the next pro se is going to be a little different so ok controlled by what every publi your average felon without the advantages of a fine law school education even though he has perhaps more time to the both of the case and we do could figure out all right while he's in federal court improperly his year ran out while he was in federal court and it just doesn't matter what happened subsequently that's i guess that's that's our youth but look i think that would you make the same argument if you is whether california can treat them as being in the california appellate process when i actually he's in federal court i think i think that's a great deal of that but i also think that there's a federal dimension to this it's really interesting kerry talk about the personal markets did you lose your time thank you
hello and welcome to our period for creative projects or kiss today will be showcase and create creative festive and humor filled videos all created by students in the period for media class the students had two weeks to plan filming that at their holiday videos i and i don't have a co host with me today but i'm mrs claus by my side as always first we have committed comedic video to showcase created by morgan and elizabeth this year morgan was with create a spin off the post the popular christmas song is training on you tube the popular video showcasing expensive presents typical you to receive during the holidays elizabeth is a diva she says off her expensive holiday gifts from her friends and family here's morgan it was both project  wow elizabeth was quite the diva in the video but now we have a group of students who made a video of two guys trying to get a girl's number with some cheesy pick up lines please welcome d him wow just wow really must of work hard to capture the same perfection that works so hard to get and how about that acting i couldn't tell if it was me robbing or ends or robbing if you haven't seen the original video it can be found on you tube and details and time to wake up here's in the morning star in the one and only holidays which is now become worldwide no but
them when if that were the case and i think what you're going east if then applies here then everybody's a merchant everybody's emergent for the purposes of machine business for spots there are other exceptions that i still i don't understand if we accept your interpretation of this part of the statute in virtually everyone becomes a merchant for price which is the the only thing under consideration here is that fixed the fish private purchases there were two winters one of which i was fulfill and then the second one the defendant terminated the marketable capacity not for his own benefit irv you know not having expertise in the junior practices involved in the transaction so i think i think the i don't i think it's it's taking fifty percent of the contracts are all identical there's nothing you need to modify or not this fixed price contract looks like every other first part of what his point was is i have a limited market in which i can resell this  goods if you well i can't just go sell it to you were to gain it back there i have to sell it to a prove a or a very limited amount of purchasers so why doesn't that make it about the natural gas it's no with the market that's that's my question that's really asking you to respond to he says the market is different and because i have such a limited place to sell this particular type of goods i mean i just can't start a food truck on the corner i can't sell natural gas that way i have to go through either to the end user for them i have a contract or i have to sell it back to one entity so why doesn't that man's w would be specially manufactured is a market which i don't know of any where the price never changes it's always the same price no matter up can't think of any market like that every market that calls for delivery of a certain time prices change and they're subject to  she said last they have a sufficient writing which if you're a murderer merchant can be something more than signed by both parties but if you're not it has to be so good both parties which we don't have
what is wrong with this response that if you have a view that somehow saving their head it's impossible and needless to identify particular locations geographically i think you need to address forever because that's what the statute
hearing what would otherwise be a difficult situation
out there operating as a police officer in that area and then when a big news cast generates about it he explains he was just doing his job is in every area of your honor i mean because balancing that speech against a very important departmental concern that the operations of the police department not be disrupted by the speech well how can they maintain that disruption evidence in the summary judgment record that they were out to get him in effect they took an action that was only adverse to his employment does not suggest it his speech was the motivating factor and that gets us back to this kind of running around and chasing our tail
wheat bread baked in the oven this was the interpretation of the aztecs when they tasted the bread brought by the spaniards to the americas during the conquest maize in mexico which is mainly consumed is considered essential in the diet of the celsius on a usually metal pan called it is not known when or who invented tortillas but archaeological studies have discovered aztec manuscripts dating from thirteen hundred eighty with drawings of the preparation of tortillas it was so clever successful and appropriate creating the tortilla has lasted to this day turning consumption into a real tradition in our diet the taste for this food continues to push boundaries and revolutionize the cosine of my grandfather served in world war two spending time with him were the best memories of my life i became a physician in v a because of my grandfather so i can help others like him i can't imagine working with better doctors or more dedicated staff fulfilling my life's mission with the help of my team and thanks to these veterans i'm proud to be a doctor in v a i'm proud to honor my grandfather every day search v a careers to find out more here something we bet you didn't know nearly half of all cancers can be prevented that's right half nearly fifty percent mostly by making small everyday changes in your diet and controlling your weight walking more eating less and eating foods that help you and your family to seriously reduce the risk of cancer and of course by not smoking visit the cancer prevention together we can website and get a free thirty day planner filled with tips recipes stats and more about protecting your family go to prevent
said is that it has to relate to the circumstance that the statement doesn't relate to the circumstances because he was shot three times and if he was then i mean that's the sticking point for me that i know yes everything with the victims the witnesses said and the grand jury names and then there's this story of coming on this man who happens to be standing there in the street with this car reading him bleeding and me brings an emissary to the car so that consciousness of  realized that he was a kid who did factor in this car when someone who had been shot he told patience mooney's to that hope for him and he ran away didn't trust the police and i think that's reasonable given the
to thirty six be the is it in the report that you were complaining about your finding prejudicial directly from the police report what is it that the green vehicle why is that critical to this case if the defense claims that that's why they needed the police report as more or less an admission or even when in fact the police maneuvering in that manner is approximately  even if it was the son well i'm trying to struggle with where i'm struggling with is assuming that the it was some impropriety from an eventual standpoint of my good knitting the police report if there's testimony from the officers themselves and i understand  client is challenge that that he went there to obtain marijuana doesn't that present a problem if he's there to obtain marijuana which is not something worth his injury right as an hour of his normal activities how do you to respond and seven was offered for a limited purpose and that the pleece reports were already in evidence at the time we made the offer this court knows we submit proposed memoranda of the solution and all memorandum obviously didn't concentrate on response seven of the police reports because again there is the nurses note in cook county hospital from the next morning around ten am where it's mentioned that he went to purchase near a lot so there was no badgering involved there that's that's in the record it's in our in our appendix so we had all test officers testify  disconcerting though i just would like to point out that the rule two thirty six does say although police say so reports may otherwise be his miscible into evidence and again he offered this seven as an exception to the hearsay rule merely to show all that there lot i think it's harmless error we have the testimony of these these gentlemen and i would like to point out first there is a there there is a host of evidence showing that the man did not go take a fare down to that part of town he did a bad ni kicked off the tree because the one day or one of two days of the year when you could take alcohol out of the train the same path speed they were with another witness who testified that she was with the showgirls they had attended a party together and they were all out on the train out who would deal in roselle and the interesting issue about mr sutton although he was there there's no point in the future for finding or for the proceedings required by the status of your point  mr games arguments are rejected there's no point to go further if it's the same manner as are my turf out there but i point out again that at no time for any of the people i represent organizations i represent
discussed there was a name given the court representation by the public defender that he was on his way just running away and so that would be the only thing that would suggest that he wasn't ready other than the other than the fact that there was a record made if or when he had that it now contrary to defendants are in here before this court the trial court took extraordinary pains to accommodate the defense desire to retain private counsel and we've given them to say that time now court case the supreme court noted that the public defender was appointed as defendants counsel approximately two weeks before the hour both in full time to prepare the defense this one that for the defendant could not be heard to complain that the denial of the motion to continue embarrass his rights or prejudice to his rights now to save it trial court didn't
i think so your honor at least exhaustion was excused the caves came off in a variety of different sort of ways originally rose as in ordinary course the v a and there was a position for review file as a as a hideous corpus petition or i think the idea was at that time that there was no jurisdiction at the nicer and then after that time real i d came along well excuse me there was no jurisdiction probably at that time of night  well i agree that they would have that jurisdiction but not in direct would be able to review the situation but at the time i guess it was their idea idea was it would be better produced receiving devious corpus in the court i think we're still in the same sort of mode to a lot of honors my name is rebecca cohen assistant of a minor the only thing he had been arguing as it relates to this issue was that a state missed american action for sexual abuse of a minor can constitute an aggravated felony under federal law so there was no question that the conviction exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to that argument actually with regard to any of its arguments but specifically here at no point heard today did the petition argue that he was not convicted for a crime that was the sexual abuse of a scale that's far as i know there's no pres gather that doesn't pose any problems opportunity that it is never had to make and i would say that the for the for can address that statutory construction issue as director activity involuntary departure of the v a under ventura and thomas needs to be given the opportunity to do so in the f rich on the issue
massachusetts protective custody law allows police to hold someone in custody for up to twelve hours he is incapacitated by alcohol as defined by that statute on his way in to a concert in mansfield mistral from it was stopped by security guards and led to a police compound just outside the venue there the defendant and lynch had him perform field sobriety tests and handcuffed him and placed him in protective custody  handcuff someone from moving to the scene from the scene transported to a police station and lock them up for five hours without probable cause that is something that any reason no police officer would be aware of and so the isolated mistaken nickerson which is easy to trace back to the mccaffrey case and other appeals court case that was applying the reasonable suspicion standard probably in the context of  of someone's liberty as to be the functional equivalent of an arrest this court and the supreme court has said over and over again that that cannot be constitutional on less than probable cause and here again the facts are not even close to whatever line it may be between a detention that would be ok on reasonable suspicion and and one that requires probable cause that this was a full blown custodial arrest and all but name was his failure of the one way stand which means nothing more than he could not make it he could not stand on one leg for more than fifteen seconds and that i submit is not even close to suggesting that he to attend the concert that district court case in massachusetts that held that or stated that even if the standard for the massachusetts protective custody statute is a higher one of probable cause in that case it would say the seizure would still in the context of court i didn't say it needs to be shown that the existence of probable cause at the time it least arguable i think the facts here even taken in light in the light most favorable to what mr alfon you know would tend to show that there it's at least arguable converse and understand instructions being given to him i think the fact that physically he failed the one leg he was unable to he was the one like stand that could be it's not in the record that he hit one it's not alleged that he hit one or felony one on anyone but he was on his way into the concert and caught the eye of the security and when asked to perform the field sobriety test harm i'd like to just quickly here state that even in the event that the standard is proper probable cause cause he's should still be entitled to qualified immunity if it the sense that it's arguable there's an existence of probable cause he was not shown to be cleanly incompetent and he did not knowingly violate the rights as massachusetts protective custody statute has been held to be constitutional thank you
massachusetts  and the massachusetts statute here demarcated there are terril difference there could be material difference is that could be well for example we've never brief this issue i'm not aware of all the different reasonable person would perceive the risk yes it does it squarely says that it's really states that it doesn't matter the difference is negligible in terms of the definition of a crime involving or turpitude and that's what requires the chevron to francis the worse interpretation of what that term means the crime involving moral turpitude and i think it goes beyond simply the board having opposed the decision publish decision here saying something that clarifies this but there were actually foreshadowed that reasoning in this decision and i think the key to the board's decision in the board's september seventh decision here is that knowing the facts that would cause a reasonable man to know the danger is equivalent to knowing the danger that's why that's what they're saying in this case they else but i think you get clarity there from that parent that it was what the saying is that they're the same thing we're looking at the same thing even under massachusetts knowing the facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that knowing and knowing of the dangers there is the same thing instrument other than a firearm or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury the great bodily injury the deadly weapon purses dangerous weapon are negligible differences here it's really substantially the same statu would use of a deadly dangerous weapon or instrument is current conduct that magnifies the danger posed by the perpetrator and demonstrates his heightened propensity for violence and indifference to human life these are the things that fall outside the bounds of what is acceptable in us up into the range so the board has been very careful about marking where and where it draws the line on these things and then you see that in the analysis with most assault and battery that dangerous weapon cases is that we say look you know song very generally settles that and i think the board's decision here is consistent with with what was said in if there are no further questions thank you thank  different than the one nine hundred fifty one analysis the v a seems to suggest that just because a dangerous weapon is used in conjunction with an assault battery it to sixty five section fifteen b is always involving moral turpitude but your honor mentioned
of dead ends in that you can't go on to it but you can live around the back of the parking lots to go out a different sort of a different exit that's so now like ok so if you're driving your car in the meaning of the act  the piece of property at issue here very easily could have said any alleyways that abut or adjacent to the property a parking lots that a bike or adjacent to the property the legislature chose not to do that forever reason of this is just the space behind a building that is in parking lots and so sure there's parking and people also walking if there's a walkway as you say can you define for me what that walkway was it's not the entirety of the parking lot it's not very briefly on that there's no nothing that delineates this is all a walkway the bottom line is once we conducted discovery it became clear from the person that cleared the area that it was a parking lot that the reason this i c slipped was because he  parking drives that would be a walkway had she walked around a corner or sped that would be a block away if she you know that the entire piece of property does not convert into a sidewalk under the act
not convicted of the entire section of thirteen forty four that doesn't have a tension change and what have you but if you do rely on them i think categorical approach if you can for purposes of determining whether or not he was convicted of a crime in and that line of cases yeah case and we think under the supreme court's decision in