MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
an effort to invalidate well at a fact my client wanted the benefit of some of the provisions of the will what is your point but whether it's involves a partition that was never visited in the trial court but there's plenty of case law that says yes that acceptance of the benefit does not foreclose the challenge for public policy reasons i'm sorry i can't give you chapter and verse that was not at all dealt with so up no that's not going to that's not going to  that portion of the judge so that it is that so that where you
or and or
the legal conclusions drawn by the court will not support the judge here now on the piece of discretion side taking all the facts that the court relied on and string them together there is an abuse of discretion because those facts under this court's precedent and under existing precedent will not support the extension of an all or its injunction to these facts so we are where is it say what casey sa jurisdiction of trying to set up so the judicial panel's decision was not directed to this notion of jurisdiction that governs this controversy in fact it wasn't directed to entertain any issues as to the  one when we come back to swing if we will only begin the legal effect of the scope of the release of the district court will have the opportunity to determine whether it is a defense to anyone it the district courts injunction here which essentially prohibits us from participating in settlement activity is in the florida case the pennsylvania court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over these claims but was very clear that there and the fourth is attempting to use the all writs act to bring in generations not basically prohibiting all the parties from participating in the settlement discussions that are going on in florida and as you well know that some companies that actually reach settlement in florida none of the companies that are here before you today are part of that settlement mr martin mentioned the time mark is not and i want to make sure it's clear that the clients we represent also are the cases have facts in common but it also looks at the second component which is the most efficient way to handle this stuff and we believe that the cases did have contacts common claims and really all should into the florida to determine what claims aren't dealt with in any settlement there i think as you all mentioned earlier you noted that in the settlement that it's been entered by other parties again not our clients in court there were numerous lawyers from case of this somewhat similar to the prior case who appeared at that hearing and to put objections before the court about the scope of the release the very issue that we're discussing here  they absolutely have the right to do that and that is the protection that the law gives i know i'm out of time but i wanted to make one very brief point with your permission about the sort of second appeal which is on behalf for them either in the third circuit or anywhere to justify this injunction second these cases undeniably overlap i think as jeff fisher pointed out all you have to do is look at the complaints the  overlapped the same counsel being the doctors who were in the pennsylvania class are also class member is the national class in the florida court so it's important to keep that in mind they're going to be deprived of some opportunities because of what's  twenty three provide sufficient protections for them just like for everyone else there are cases all over the country and many states and in pennsylvania well twenty three pretext the people that are in those other cases they can opt out if they want to pursue their own
where in many of those clients would evolve by the defendant i believe in the testimony that were there is that some of them were developed by her efforts on the other hand they believe the testimony of the others also was that the clients were always considered to be personal one but i think that in view of the contractual relationship that existed for eight years between this long this particular stylist that there is you know that's a secondary importance the  business interests is just protecting them from competition per se what about the investment in every time some train on supply lines all of which were provided by the employer none of which were provided by the employee room for you or your situation what is it restrictive calling in this type of service industry and that's where the oil seem factor which there's evidence of in this case and relationship factor seems to draw on the other factors i don't want to specifically point one hour and say that one has to shoulder you have to look at them all as well as we see makes clear but if you look at them all in l c c that
thank you that's all right let me give you a tip back but i know too much  just don't know anymore when you do so you will be in the staff office and i should be your superior officer open your eyes but about the game you go round them all up right now we could of course but that wouldn't give us the how is it you can catch some of the goods exactly and you i suppose the cheese in the trap i resent that i prefer the innocent la all then why didn't you also when i for me and now you want me to check it but you do not understand you're right i don't i've been wondering for months but i didn't bother about it because i was working again paid for it there's something screwy about the whole set up c
matter what happened in the morning now it's all right groover let's go he comes back to that club we want to be anywhere around here i think drink a lot of rain you gave it to me over years ago we would not them and he's from another age another i don't know what
decision issued in the southern district of illinois the shangri case which i believe is on point in that case the government soon numerous bodies including the owner of contractor architect and other priorities for failure to design contribution under the f h a and they specifically reviewed the congressional intent which is really what's undermining all of these cases and they found that congress intended for each codefendant to have certain stances such as this where you expand where the owner of the building expands money to rectify alleged handicap accessibility deficiencies and then they seek to recover that center of california vs so they have rising angeles two thousand and thirteen case which they have consistent with every other case that you cannot see indemnity or contribution for handicapped accessibility violations t about duty and u k accessibility requirements violations of those requirements seeking to recover the costs of those retrofits from third parties every single case that we cited is an system based site to not a single case that a single case involving a da f h a any type of federal handicap accessibility country addressing this exact same issue ruling the exact same way which is how the trial for a rule and in terms of this being a case of first impression that i would like to point and they also say that one of the critical factors there is uniformity of the law there could not be more uniform law on this issue of handicap accessibility duty and the inability to pursue an indemnity of contribution claims if a spirit were to use for some reason reversed the trial court it would be going directly against that well established law that's the issue with the consent decree and the fact that they say that there were no violations there number of cases that we cite  agreements are encouraged by what in their regulations because they want to resolve it upfront and set of having to go to d o j enforcement pursuit that's the purpose and in all those cases their rescue no final determination if you were there was no judicial determination or violation and again that the timing issue is irrelevant right then and if you are found liable or just the allegations of liability the p fourth circuit equal rights center i mean you could take all kinds of cases and see you know that have nothing to do with it and say that this is this dance that but when it comes down to it all it looks like equal rights in here is it's about all that we really have that there's a case that says this and there's a case that says that but what's your best case the best one yeah best case that to be a little more murky in terms of what was pretty creaming i believe put the agreement it doesn't go into very much detail but it does go into the detail that the architect as in this case was required to
patients and reimbursement rights leg in the grand scheme of things according to this health services mean at first it's my position their medicare and medicaid exhibit from the insurance company and it is a private insurance company but those of us who are on medicare message yesterday but here is the best we all  needs to be determined we need resolution i run into these balls all the time is this i i am the last two years i think i have thousand there are reasons for
for those reasons
through three sheets there which have exactly the same kind of watermark as it appears on the receipt document kind of plans exhibit thirteen there are other examples of american family stationery opinion mr store hey you might say closely related to him but but what he said specifically was that there was no evidence before three and six american families but means in this your response it might be best to pick up exactly where the orders left off with with councils argument with regard to the claim that claim number was assigned to the entire accident and it's it's true that it is the correct play number but it was all used in would have intentionally sent a case back down to a trial court and said you've got to consider something that you didn't hear in the evidence and i think if you look at what the judge does say her giving her her statement at the end of the case she wasn't saying images under the statute here of this company whether whether you believe that they got the letter and i think there are three options if you believe they got the letter but they did realize that the claims department didn't realize that was
the count so we we question the parties to be present half hour before the case is scheduled just in case we might be ready to go we're ready to go and i want to thank be an honest guy found this to be sound advice leaving aside for the moment the idea this is a good thing to do or not why should transactions were about because fact of the matter is that under that kind of scenario you could have a good intended transfer say to mr hill and then the next day he decides he wants to go to the assistance to add have access to assistance for their healthcare needs if needed later on i think it's to provide a secure avenue for the hiltons to live out their final days pay was used for that instead put property in one person's name because you need to be able to deal with that property without dealing with in person all the many good advice to say i'm going to take the money and use it solely for my benefit rather than for the benefit of the was that a mistake could he read my would that be appropriate for him to realize a lay person can always rely on a person buys whether it's number one followed through with and whether it was good advice or are two issues that i think concept in terms of the notion of justice and beyond that then we have it up in my estimation judge finis push it into this notion of this patient can only hear that determination significant factor to his iraq yes because his life helped it transferred all the assets so there would be absolutely in effect in effect to have any assets for her because he he depleted is a state  is supposed to help have absolutely nothing whereas a person said he was doing something or someone else got the best of all of the property so if i understand you correctly if that's your figure of one hundred fifty thousand dollars is transferred from the person bound by the notion of what the spend down from a legal standpoint me it's i don't think we can change by simply saying what spelled out means that you can transfer your assets to anyone wait thirty six months and then get better  i want to take up a few minutes just to review three factors presented in my brief and the testimony of this case that support our our position this is sort of core first and foremost two thousand to two thousand and three when died in two thousand so where did he live the rest of his life he lived in his home in lincoln separate transaction that it stopped there when you're talking about where this inhabitance you're talking about this been a farce one transaction you're not talking about this transaction and transactions on to the next two or three years in fraudulent after and sits there for thirty six months that it just sit there in this case an audience of throw what it whether they still do the money he as best as he knew how he made a decision that he was going to transfer part of the funds or transfer all the joint financial accounts to mrs ross and that solid house and used the proceeds to make accommodations for them on campus he thought that was  coming to the nursing home doing some bad things
the nine months after they received the committee of tens petition there are also no dispute that the school district submitted their petition to the state superintendent of education to take over the preceding after the reach of petition upon the submission of a picture ship to the state superintendent under section seven deaths six subsection one of subsection paragraph one of the on my school further there is also no dispute is whether the school districts are considered school boards under section seven desks supper section one of the illinois school it is this position of the school districts that we are school boards who can and did file time to share with the state superintendent of education this specific language issue that is the following language it reads the school board or registered voters or expand the bridge to move voters from just the people that live in the territory to everybody all the other resistor voters who lived in the school district but are not within the territory or potential parties to the detention proceeding so you wouldn't be expanded to all school districts it would be limited to the school districts that are in the petition listen up the districts affected the final proof the board school board petition in the perspex first we feel original who are ignoring the uncontested evidence on the primary detriment in this case and that is the new pattern on the racial and social economic distance from the territory to military schools here by granting the petition the kids will travel a longer distance from the territory to the elementary schools and districts thirteen both at the k five and six  indicating that you could show some benefit to the educational welfare the educational well for portugal are really to increasing the safety of students as in travel to and from school which was a factor that the supreme court in the gulf case relied your presentation of this number one we believe that there is an additional factor that has not been discussed here this morning it is not a dispositive factor but certainly one of the factors that should be considered which is the wishes and desires of the parents to file a petition material was part of the record in terms of the introduction of the school report cards were all of this data is way out of this there but there's also considerable testimony by balls superintendents from fifteen and he said as to what that means when these numbers are
insurance proceeds issue or one of the most important things that i believe the work should focus on is the general concept in the law that the ownership interest is the beneficial works etan's the interest and that's what this is all about insofar as insurance proceeds is concerned and there was no waiver of that there's no reference in the judgement and the test is very very specific so very clear with respect to life insurance proceeds the beneficiary of the policy insurance life insurance has no interest or right to those proceeds until the insured and that house  amount for his own area and there is that corrected i think that's a fair assumption i don't think that there's anything in the record that actually is directly discussed with your question your honor but that is my experience it was only used to divide it mention this was not dividing a pension this was a separate asset in some land assure a hundred before the divorce no whatever was necessary to divide that already existed in his own name assura winter there there isn't any issue that  for his ex wife i mean it was said she couldn't force him to do it she couldn't make him give it to anyone else she couldn't stop him from changing the beneficiary but if you want to and that test was not applied by the trial court and it should be reversed in that respect there was some discussion about the word any eye test or touched upon that in my first argument i would just like follow up
doesn't get him out of his case i've heard again that point but it does i think give us a framework of how looking at this issue how would you suggest that the department do it could take into consideration her criminal liability well it comes into play if any were it that there is an issue if the provider can't produce records no dispute there now that happens if there's no records you know it's a different issue than a bill being sent for payment that has improper billing  electronic yet at all that's just what bad language does to say anything about whether or not he provided whether the claims were submitted electronically by somebody other than him it says that he's liable for the looking at then just i'm reading from the code ok because there's a there's a previous version that was no longer in effect and that one does the one for twenty five i'm looking at doesn't refer to ethern issue of promissory starr judicial stop i think everything else that i think that we don't really have an issue of somebody was saying the car was red some ice in the car was blue i don't think we're really too much on the facts i think it's forget about whether the alternate paid remit was valid or in fact what difference does it he also with liability seems to me because you based on the greenough that he reached with the department at his your  record it's i mean if in fact they the department says it think the agreement that he signed that the provider side with the state you may have a point he don't know i'm just assuming that when he puts things in quotes as he did slash four point two five well a's amended in order to explicitly regulate all trade and then in turn in january of two thousand and seven the department amended its regulations which it basically explicitly that would regulate the to proceed against him within the administrative proceedings and indeed even there in response to the argument was made that hey there's something there they don't really fit within the framework of the three parties that are identified there might be something defective about this because they don't they're not a hospital they're not a group practice now that doesn't still mean they'd even that there were different as actually believe now that i would actually rendering ballot but even if it did it would only have a problem between miss the agreement sort of criminal fraud or active fry that's now this case is about it's not about whether he joined mr adams in her criminal fraud and that it's about his violations of his own responsibilities his  properly i mean if somebody stole some prints and it bills i think i don't think that's what they want to see but i think they want to be you know when a doctor properly gives that white to somebody else that he'd be on the hook for all you know and but again you know it would appear to be almost and have to live liability agreement that he enters into with the state in exchange for the right to receive money from the state for his services ye
believe that the best interest here and they presented evidence from one of those there was evidence that the mother was doing several of the things that she should be doing and the judge at that point in time or been hearing all the evidence and that was the only witness really called by the state was to see this worker and then end of the case that paragraph three of the forces who responded parents are hereby found fit pursue it to seven fifty fifty sessions one day and then it gives you the reasons but it doesn't say i find that clear and convincing next court hearing she's testing positive for math so that's the that's where our time frame prejudiced in all three of these and that's why i wanted to spend a moment going through th is unclear to the attorneys the judge and everybody over the legal professionals involved and nobody seems to know what's going on and i guess they all have questions about what the deal is i mean should we really take that and go it's close enough you know there's all of the judicial concept that if you look at something like this sometimes and if it's deprecating the judicial system it can be your turn it is while there are a you started one pull off and do the best interests here and they just need to be two separate things and it needs to accurately and clearly delineated what standards
facts to the well first of all i mean they had the facts that were relevant then and second of all they made the argument that the core ignore were those facts to the extent they existed s except for this one again i can't explain it but the point is who cares let's assume that she did actually say yes that is not manifest weigh the evidence that question does not overcome of the rest of the evidence that's presented there to deal with this argument about happy being alive first of all that was never proved kathy was not proved to be a liar yeah she had some statements made view the entire record but i believe in your brief you made the statement that there had actually been a will there turning armstrong pending seven years prior that was very unequal and very similar to the will that was finally appropriated correct you know it will be made by that were consistent with the will that we have now contemporaneous with the will that was really two thousand and ten as it is the same will be made minor changes about pieces of real estate you know like and stuff but fundamentally his will be the same as elders will so reason to know the facts testified that he was surprised by this well he was surprised that she would surely die and so this argument really wasn't fair is a red herring because it was fair armstrong
third there was no evidence nor any finding of the buildings were beyond reasonable repair or any final need regarding the required mining of the current value of the buildings and in fact before it did even expressed any concern about the condition of the buildings itself themselves except for covering one window and then for finally the defendant this case present compelling uncontrover a they cannot basically pick on like you not selectively enforce for reasons explains to that at least not consistent with the fourteenth amendment well and certainly we welcome an order  really bad a stand for the prosecution you don't need the magic words or even better yet on reasonable repair let me give you an example if there's a car sitting property owners or the city then they were deliberately not pursuing condemnation action and just going against her and is just west and pointed out i think it is the