MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
error or legal error why don't you hit first off counsel or counsel ops it straightforwardly says we don't have jurisdiction here because this is not of order from just the court and if we don't have jurisdiction it will never get to the other matters that you grace so help us understand why if at all we have jurisdiction to even consider these other now that's a that's a fair start   fifty four requires applications to see in fourteen days and local rules fifty four research on it and i felt as a third party that i had the right to follow the collateral or appeal and the fact it's a they can't get the snow to like it's a case directly  they can't defeat us so the only issue here is whether i can vindicate my my good dame howard however difficult it may be by taking an appeal from what was obviously settled with the city for seventy five thousand dollars and he just was he would be seen to be outraged at the fact i went on vacation and left the case the hands of two supposedly competent lawyers and all i had to do didn't know what to do so what i did as i did as you as you could see in those appeals i did research and this isn't a collateral order and also i also knew that there was a there so it's a pretty it's a pretty egregious case that he wasn't working on for the for the city at the particular time which is why we were able to settle with the city for seventy five thousand and not more so the only know there's no question but he did it he got disciplined by the eternal affairs they they they they fired him i don't know what happened with the with that with the civil service but  know i did jury charges cited opposition so i did everything i possibly could from dominica but i couldn't physically bring paper but you didn't towel it down with him when he was supposed to do before you were dead before you were absolutely he was the one to do it and you'll see the september twenty sixth e mail where he says he's finally getting on it i thought oh i'm saying before you have to go on your own if you or i said i said yeah yeah i wish we had we i resigned to him the duty of doing that he was the one who sat through the criminal trial he had all the paperwork he everything that was applicable to that i thought the whole thing was peculiar but i didn't really know what was going on you know you really know what's going on all i knew we had to get copies of that i had sugar saying in a head i head i had access to all the material but i do you know i didn't step in i didn't understand what was going on so this is just not a situation of contempt circuit from one judge on the plane man that he is not responsible it seems to me that the interests of the attorney in this case makes   that's why you don't you don't you know see the players make much of an argument regarding players claims that the court's order sanctions exceeded the
raised in the complaint i sent a letter to the attorney and said that if your client's really in this matter is something that needs to be resolved through mediation arbitration in the contract then let me know  expensive and best option for the respective parties were not at an impasse i mean we can go to mediation and that's fine and after the court's order
income it's clear that all four were supposed to get something and only one got anything so there's your i'm just in richmond right there because the others got nothing ye
zero so here's my problem you have filed on behalf of your client no affidavits of inconvenience from say the i think police responders  emergency personnel whatever the that's an understand it there's maybe twenty two witnesses in this jury that you would like us alternatively to a transfer the case of missouri we we have nothing about them that's great and a judgment tows ian in a one liner he said the night and it must recently you've been keeping up with our cases we have been citing the supreme court that says if you don't give us some information about how you made the decision what are we supposed to do my question is to you if you have provided the trial court with any evidence any any substantive documents like an affidavit that we usually see and we're just arguing about the fact you know what you think and what the other side thinks what are we supposed to do how are we supposed to decide whether this goes to missouri or stays in epping him county because neither of you have offered sufficient af is what justice jan and said you have to show inconvenience as to all the plan that's correct and we don't see that from the driver of the truck but in support of all these other factors you're talking argument that in today's world you can do video depositions well and i mean you know there's there's arguments both ways in that regard which is in fan all the courts here are clear that that they would like to and you are very experienced in the submission of affidavits and proofs seen pages and pages from your firm about court statistics but yet in this case very  manage or further proceedings are there discovery requests that you believe would assist you in fighting air whatever this format of convenience i think yes there are  these from my perspective i'm not sure what we're supposed to do you raise all these problems with missouri and opposing counsel wants to send it to missouri but this has not been
probation under certain specified statutory provisions and that's not the case either well could received was a sentence of conditional discharge which is different than the supervision didn't have a public sale you had a private sale so those kind of mysterious kinds of acts were not follow here you have as a person who under the so the court could have jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter but can exceed its jurisdiction which would make an order void do you agree with that principle of law  sure fourteen days from whenever you can receive the case we're going to fourteen days ok please group provide that promptly to him no thank you thank you so you are in summary
is relatively straightforward the supreme court has recognized three and three areas by which a person who wants to challenge the this is car title in indiana and i use it in illinois isn't they had a legitimate topic for the argument to investigate even if they have a person in indiana when we came in illinois just  an argument over a breath you go to with the ministry of hearing and you say to an administrative law judge the department's overreaching they're concerned about one car we'll give them the information about this car that's what in the administr annoying that's what an administrative record is for that's how you develop an administrative record you might take the position in the administrative hearing but somebody drove it back to illinois twice and happened to get that service in the first few months go to the administrative agency and then figure out that it's going sideways and then run into the corner to enjoy it because the courts are not supposed to be involved in those it mistr administrative law review because this is not an expertise regency issue this is the company how the contacts necessary to succumb to an audit from the state of illinois and the agency it's not
to use that idea of the trinity in this next piece originally an improvisation on a well known christmas came to pray and create a picture of the nativity scene in three sections first we will probably never know what it sounded like when the angels appeared in the sky that night singing praise to god it must have been a glorious sound unlike anything ever heard on earth before and probably never heard in and while to me there always seems to be a little bit of a disconnect between the infant christ that we worship at christmas time and the man who would be slain for our salvation there is a passage from a sermon by dr james alan francis that is always particularly meaningful to me during the christmas season you're probably familiar with this dr francis said here is a man who was born in an obscure village the child has and woman he grew up in another obscure village he worked in a carpenter shop until the age of thirty and then for three years was an itinerant preacher he never wrote a book he never held an office he never owned a home he never had a family  never attended college he never set foot inside a big city he never traveled more than two hundred miles from the place where he was for he never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness his only credentials  himself while still a young man the type of popular opinion turned against his friends ran away one of them denied him another the traitor he was handed over to his enemies he went through the mockery of a trial he was nailed on a cross between two thieves is executioners gambled for the only piece of property he had on this earth while he was dying and that was his coat when he was dead he was taken down and laid in a bar and
can be found in the joint appendix at page two to triple zero one this is modification name one that was a modification by which he contracted the officer agreed to release to know what the law will cost so you must know the exact number of any one level and that is what was purportedly computed in motorola three by the board and your supplier twice in the decision here ish we also note the board's own words in this because the contract was in a nice so the way i understood their claims were good or even they said that any time after april third the information could have been to do and that the government has an obligation to present both target  i would like to know what we consider to be
the city of new port violated her personal security interest by not arresting kalends they had probable cause some birth nineteenth as a violation of the restraining order and  of his control and that is why it's so necessary for these mandatory rest provisions to exist which is why they were created in the first place because they wanted to take away that discretion from the police officers points that i want to make is about the violation of the restraining order on december nineteenth one thousand nine hundred eighty at that point officer case called up officer team and said yes i had contact with del and you know he said some other things that he was going to call him and report it and she in fact did call and report it so officer team at that point instead of investigating he came and he ridiculed her he had officers drive by and so to try to show that there's no way possibly that she could have distinguished one officer from kay and and he fell to all personnel to have no contact i hesitate to even discuss this without making the argument that this isn't in the record but i'm assuming by your questions that you want me to disregard that threshold that's the way it's written but i but i believe that the reasonable inference based on the context is based on what actually happened i mean clearly it's the policy of plaintiffs is interpreted that way then car the fines that are left there are it's not my issue your honor but i would do my best to explain what my understanding of those issues are there are a number of individual defendants who remain in the case on a discreet for the m the fact that there were two cases in which they were not authorized to situations which they were not authorized to go with carrie to to have her home toledo and new court were involved in protecting mr kay and not not protecting this goodell and i'm informing her of her rights or
this be the only sort of justification given justification that i can see even in the judgment were awarded this low is that mr or who cared for the children allowed him to achieve a doctorate degree while they were married she took care of the house in light of the fact that she's sixty years of age and caring for example may not be  that she doesn't have but we can't consider the income that he does currently have because he may not have it in the future so i mean to me that that seems a little in contrast  while on paper he's been worth three hundred twenty five thousand dollars house it's one of her income by a large mortgage in a war that's good we did go over to refinance if she wants to remain in it given her income and given the nature of the housing market perhaps is now raising their angel she's now over sixty years old she's in a position where it's not easy for her just to resume full time employment but mr bill seems to think it's perfectly reasonable for him just decide to slow down
would use the space same driving in order to get access to the property this is the only means of access to this property with the will you are describing as it is good those people who use was in a general state of disrepair that has all been invented to play have testified she was aware that the driver had broken pieces she said there about thirty to forty broken pieces and she also testified that it would have been clear that the pieces of driver were breaking apart so not only were they broken but they were breaking and he absolutely has argued that the open i v s question is a question of fact rather than a question of law while open and i mean it can be a question of fact the question of why and why there's a dispute regarding as a condition so it should be a question of why and and because there is no dispute regarding the physical condition she testified over and over about knowing about the state of the strike way now if you want to get specific about property they also say that appropriation of a right away doesn't occur merely because a plane owner uses the property more than the public at large that's basically what's going on here again there is a a little bit i discovered see in the facts here i saying that the plane or bus coming other activities they were doing going on this driveway and to do with a landlord who is behind it she was not on the property she didn't use the property she never went on the property so really there's no control here also the a tenant versus a landlord it's important also as some of the cases we talk about the reason that the promises are made at the time of leasing rather it at a later time is because this is all consideration for saying you know there's no evidence that said oh if you don't fix this i'm not moving and i'm not saying this lease and all of these things there is nothing stopping the tenant from repairing the driveway also in most cases shows that the duty is on the tenant to maintain the property they are in control occupant and that's the case here sal i really you know i know that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove her case but they do need to show a factual basis i know which that they could that it's open obviously that's a question of fact and not a question of law or use desperate discrepancy in fact whether it's open and obvious or not second again if that private property and that piece of a contract so again that all of this nothing but the issue of open obvious that the issue off better this was a private versus a public right of way they just feel different issues of material
examination in any event the triggering event which led to the to the appeal was the imposition of a judicial way which was not only  it isn't the distribution it's the receipt it's the proceed by the beneficiary and his ability to do something with the money because the distribution or  assets the beneficiary cannot reach right so the beneficiary can't reach the assets then the creditor can't reach him right if assets are distributed down means they are able to be reached by the beneficiary correct when the beneficiary exercises that distribution or does not they're accessible to the beneficiary whether they're in the end whether they're on the way to the bank or on the way that is the answer or whether he says to the in they are for the better betterment and benefit of the general feeling the exemption can continue in those limited circumstances regarding pension players and retirement creditor extended credit whatever they did knowing that there was these money in this trust so it did so with full knowledge that if there was a default they couldn't get it they'd have to wait and while it may be hard to do so and that there is the digital provisions within section two this were to go through within with regard to this to child support but i think the significant point of short is it looks yet to fourteen or three
ok and then it proceeds over to the right as the career ok pursues the right and what is the line here that you're having issue with
intentions today knowing questions from the court about the other issues is to focus on two of them premier the first being the first issues raised in the briefs be the trial prosecutors attempt at probably insinuation and the who was last on the grill so that he didn't hear any confession so i'm not sure if this were stuck with trying to decide what's wrong of course now officers recollection of the events is more accurate it's not some sort of cut and dry case where there's the credibility on cross exam boaz said that she didn't defend it started dating again after your mileage out of jail in marshall twenty fourteen and they had lived together for one month from august through about september twenty fourth team but on yet he doesn't have anything to say or the question that he is and it's not referencing her she was absolutely consistent she said i don't know anything about what's in the safe and we had the police officers testimony that there was no photo in the city your police officer of a given your given consumer was improperly communicating to law enforcement officer earle witnesses during the trial but that's not what his is
f you leave me for three years you only get your initial five percent if you stay for three years you get an additional five percent for total temps to monitor it's not a complicated agreement to understand i understand flavor in terms of his knowledge of the business and his expertise that in addition to getting a good salary in addition to getting a percentage of the profits of the dealership just by running the business he was entitled to an additional five percent played in the alternative the truth clear to the lower court as i said before that there's room for debate about the effect of this a green the fact of the agreement isn't really an issue here but the the i don't know the answer to that question as i said this issues was never raised in the trial court mr sullivan never really raised the ownership issue in terms of mr sel me that looking at the facts as alleged it's fairly clear that there was some basis for covering either under partnership theory or under contract theory and the  knew going in that this was a bogus agreement because there never could be immediately the mind because the meeting of minds that was necessary under the circumstances would have been between the  not necessarily partner but it i don't think that they're mutually exclusive and if they're playing the easy the way described is sound so anybody that buy shares in a corporation because of her with the chairman of the board and lesson that is i spelled it out that there the business would be purchased and mr sullivan would be permitted to buy five percent of the business for a hundred seventy five thousand dollars in the
i'm just wondering how we distinguish between a caregiver under the definition of the act and someone who is responsible for maintaining order in a prison like mr sowerby well how do we  where in the course there are a huge list of rules and regulations a life and they couldn't help wondering when i was writing this what kind of case this would have been we were dealing with a parent is if we somehow construed him to be a custody and that's the only word in the eye i see it wouldn't would apply to him is it to me is there any other i hundred two point zero six they talk about a child care institution and they specifically examine any state operated institution for child care and it sounds to me that that's what you're talking about a juvenile detention fully established and operated by any county or child protection district is not included
evidence that proves conclusively disproved these confessions that were at the heart of the state's case at the time of trial of this new evidence these three pieces of evidence and everything else together along with the o examine it but that it is extremely unlikely if not you know impossible that a fire was magnitude could have started with this amount of gasoline because it was her dad was confessing to having done is taking you know a beer bottles worth of gasoline that's a very small amount of gasoline and again of the house and that sometime after she observes the fire and again dr will says we have to take that into account that will is that was that the fire beginning or that somebody adding to something they'd only done upstairs we really don't know but there is no correlation for opinion but it sets forth the law it was asking this court to apply as well which is the receipt legal question of the time of trial as to whether we civilize needed to be unavailable in order for this testimony to be admissible you know because counsel didn't call her and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they made an attempt not that's and was even violated this is a question of whether he made his prima facia case to demonstrate that there's an issue about race being a factor in jury selection the best evidence of that frankly comes from the fact that you know we have these notes from the prosecutor different demographic situations there you know men and women different ages there's not the you can look at on the face of this court record and say well here's what was going on and so again that's the question of a prima facia case should there be a hearing where this prosecutor has to provide his the r is an issue of that he believe these witnesses are what were the outcome be if the jury heard you know from ten people didn't know each other and had no particular reason to help john gallant and many of them said there wasn't in it anything in it for them rather than them said you know i did the thing i was right so that was the motive asking for this court to send him home he is asking for a fair trial and he's asking for an opportunity to show the jury all dissidents and to have a jury deliberated about it and reach a decision and it is more likely than not that the jury is going to look at all this evidence and say we cannot return a guilty verdict
i ranking member percentage sure what percentage