MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is because the consolidation of the probate case and the litigation in the prior proceedings was darker purpose of convenience and judicially in judicial economy without merging court cases it was single was a stipulation to dismiss but there was not a stipulation to dismiss to prejudice which is what the original green and call for in other words if everything was complied with it was to be a dismissal with prejudice but here there was not full compliance and therefore a simple dismissal with apparently the belief that we could then file additional claims some sort of so it was dismissed pursuant to the terms of you will have an opportunity for rebuttal and thank you for answering question look at both the the order itself the language and the order and the settlement leaves the order is in agreed order it's an this want to use those terms no it clearly was a final or would prejudice when when we look at the settlement and release agreement the settlement and release agreement agreements that are contained both within this agreement and which are contained in the memorandum of agreement plaintiff's offense and the minor child of the time nicolette wire who was one  that there was there were some accountings do the my clients in their reply to the they had the ability and in fact reviewed in obligations to take care of those in the underlying action not allow the underlying action to to be vitally closed out when  was closed in nov rd scene without raising these issues that they chose to wait some four years to raise when they were all actions that clearly could have been brought cleaning itself if you look at the face of the living there are allegations contained in the face of the pleading that that all talk about the timeframe when the action was correct to say that they certainly had an opportunity after they were appointed trustees to make a walk through the premises to determine if there was anything wrong at that time and if any if they of the property after that after the state was close which my client wouldn't have had a new responsibility for at that time  you're there was anything raised with regard to that and there were court appearances in september and october after the  extensively and agreed in order i think on the circumstances and if a final order doesn't fit into any of those other categories that i and a judgment on the merits at the very least is a complete determination of basically i mean it's a separate action but it was more or less the same lawsuit for saying interesting facts because his negligence claim had already been dismiss they're not trying to
seeing her monitored by the officers and swore he was recorded and then of those four things were true there was nobody wired that was ever discovered he wasn't being monitored on an audience channel there was just trial and if i did before we had the james sent material which certainly has officer mitchell in his eye page a grand jury presentation talking several times about how we wired then i don't think this is traction test this is totally appropriate where the prosecutor or the the officer is exaggerating the degree of control that the government has contacts mr brown arranged on telephone calls that were recorded that were incriminating contrary to mr tatters representation and that show that mr brown was there for the purpose of shooting for us on those two occasions so there was enough probable cause in grand jury transcripts to proceed with the indictment however ms had a did observe but it ultimately was discovered as a failure to report that there was an issue that had to be addressed when that was discovered we had to watch the government we could either because they call it the guidelines doesn't mean that the judge isn't there as you read the statute and that he is exposed to a greater statutory camp is his exposure and
with regard to the effect on interstate commerce why didn't they have a full opportunity to raise the lopez as applied challenge on their direct appeal and why aren't they part now on twenty two fifty five prior appeal the ability of the government to try to bring this case in federal court because there was insufficient evidence of any impact on interstate commerce and i'm not sure that that you can continue to raise that issue if you had an opportunity to litigate it once and didn't raise the argument it's the same theory that the evidence is insufficient to show an excess between the use of the building in interstate making a sales call my homework that judge lecture has got to be on the panel in the united states versus one month three thirty said third twelve forty nine which got to deal with an issue regarding interstate commerce and i believe that was th building itself and its nature that's why my stuff in my tree excerpt of record i provided you with photographs of the location of this building and its use it was next to a restaurant a parking lot an alleyway and a post office if you look at the building it does not look like a home in the suburbs of kansas city or some other location in this country which would indicate that it was used primarily for homeowner use the building itself the site giving you in my excerpt of record plus in my argument was registered as a business address for echoing a price list which was the nature architectural firm so the building itself was not meant to be a home it was not meant to be a church it was meant to be used for commercial purposes and underlying first second level of purposes and we know that not only because the interstate phone calls that were made in the business were but we know that because of the the fire mrs armstrong was nice enough to meet phone call the f one hand you could say mr i think you're arguing this business was going under it was the funk and that's why the verdicts to get the insurance well that's what i argued on the other hand my argument is they still thought it was a business it wasn't a very make use of my felt great march second one nine hundred ninety five we received a letter actually the u s attorney did i did receive it is said an hour and a half after we left our building that morning there was a fire that destroyed everything in our apartments and wiped out my business we had heard was arson then she went on to go ahead and represented a week before the fire that she had started twenty five thousand dollar contract for a model and would have to fly back east with one within one week notice to get the details on the model and she lost this contract and another one was five thousand two hundred dollars because of the fire i go on to provide you with a description of the type of testimony offered saying that there were numerous interstate contacts an architect at least that's their next to quite sure which day and yes result in the contract and yes that building was the building they represent where the architectural manager was going to be built to the architect was just testified to trial so without
stabilized and dition he can't lift in his work more than fifty pounds there are certain sorts of things you can't know and you roughly summarized accurately and we can do heavy or very heavy work i'm not sure that that in terms of whether someone is disabled but the fact of disability so i could be disabled in a small town but not disabled in san francisco with exactly the same condition  carrier you know somebody when the construction site carries heavy objects are those times he can do that right why isn't that a fairly good definition you know i know i know you've been around this barn before but i'm reflecting on and i'm trying to see if i can get any further along with that and that's to say i'm just i'm just looking at the regulations and with respect to major like you have to be a working in the mean significantly restricted in the ability to perform your class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training skills and abilities in addition to the factors listed above geographical area which the individual has reasonable access well there's the case he can do heavy or very heavy jobs and apparently at least regulations qualified by training and experience say can't do heavy or very heavy work with training and experience so that may be a very different matter whether i can do heavy lifting i'm not i don't  having difficulty understanding this guilt graphic business and how you want to limit him to the small community looking for a job and yet have him be wanting to show all ok i was going to go
this court today is that in that earlier case my client intervened at some point time years ago to the case or sometime later cases in the statement of facts the only relevance today is that between the time that she intervened and the ultimately in the case of the paternity test done to determine that the party mr macdonald was not in fact the father of this child the g a o chose not to to to to change that in other words it was voter enough for paternity basically said administrative leave there was a parent of this person in the court proceeding here was a d n a test was done and it was the child i don't have in history exactly when that occurred so i guess the answer is yes from time to time we did see the child here he had time that he did later on the case got moved to washington county because that's where the child was living is regarding his living saying this to been too long we're beyond the two years provided instead you that my client the guardian had knowledge of the existence of this non fossil and therefore she was barred from bring that actual i think the initial guardian ad litem who was appointed when this child was one day i think their knowledge is imputed to the child because that's the point of having a guardian ad litem it is to protect the interests of the child we had that i didn't like and here in jackson county from two thousand and discrepancy and it was determined that when we got biological father we have known that since two thousand and ten the guardian ad litem this particular guardian shortly thereafter because she intervened in the case in two thousand it mom tried to land that there was a hearing and it was denied that litigation never has anyone come here and said i'm the biological father let me be dad let me prove it that's never happened because with the opportunity to file this motion they had two years to do it no one did it and i know that when you look at the statute you know that this is a factor but i think it's important there isn't another dad there isn't one the statute of limitations should continue it doesn't make sense there's no long to say it and it doesn't go along with public policy at all this case a petition or i'm submitting two years the child and it cannot be the other is the steps are limitations cannot run against a child till they got to the eighteen i'll say they're not restricted by the tube but that's the issue of the case kind of whether or not that applies to this child is arguing that the because a g l with the child knows it but this is not a case where this action was brought on behalf of the child as this act was brought by someone else involved the child and then when the mother room action to declare
question that your client was in bristol borough the bucks county investigators could have provided more information that they didn't suppression that may have been favorable but i think the whole question here is how does this become that's in the possession of others acting on the government's behalf and there's no doubt  i made that decision out of the real decision but i did ok but having said that the test still is whether there's a reasonable probability probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense the result of should i be disturbed people because they're not cruel or are less i just want to dig out a little further here on one point the question of where this brady evidence w much you can do if you don't have all of this there's only so much you can do and if hundred ninety other benefits are denying the bass for a benefit having this additional material would have been helpful and show you with the jury that these witnesses are not true for not credible would have
that there was the tape was too dark that they didn't have i think they referred to it i can't remember the name of the device but some type of device that would confirm it right what about that i the statute talks about a certain amount of light that passes through window and it says nothing about whether we should be able to see inside here various lighting conditions that might exist that's not  and i have a question as a follow up just just like was asking about whether or not the core question the credibility of the aphasic do you agree that the court seemed to rely on this notion that unless the  and he goes to get in my wife's van and he's waiting for it in the van and i'm thinking about this case my wife asked me if i will get something out of here i walk out in the rush to shut the door behind me i look at my wife then i know my son sitting there percent like we're not going to be able to see through that window because we can there's nothing in this action that says we should be able to see inside we're reading things into the statute that are it is to have the reasonable suspicion that my child is leaving aside birds for the moment just is a matter of i don't know about with the you're saying he also says i should be in the city and so is someone inside the car you say that's the wrong standard maybe you're right but what is the what is the evidence is this record to demonstrate that the officer is wrong that's the fatal flaw in the state's case is there is no officers testimony and you're absolutely right it's the state's burden to prove that the officer had a reason or to suspicion but we have not been rebutting that nothing challenging that such as another officer who might be called in to say actually the training goes this way like what you describe in that if you know you see that night then you have to be you know cognizant of whatever i mean someone to testify just i think about at the trial court level with duis you might have a an officer come in and testify for the defense well this is actually how you do the feel to protest and this officer did it wrong but we don't have that here and we don't have anything i just assume that it's illegal in texas even though i have no training on that issue then i don't need to call it circular expert witness to say what he should be able to do i've got a witness on the stand facts based on this training can't reach the reasonable suspicion that there is a violation of his or her and then on these facts we have an officer who does not have the training does not have experience and is completely he sure should be able to see inside a vehicle at night under these circumstances very close to the services you trained under bright sunlight then i'm going to say that st of all that there is there is no evidence of the
your motion for dismissal and we may get to the merits as well dismissal as to the implications of dismissing a big protest should the protest be of sufficient merit that the government on its own the agency solicitation was determined which i take to mean that the contract was never anything at all so i don't understand what the basis is so you're saying this case is moot and he couldn't at least go after good preparation costs when  self as compared to a terminations for convenience of the contract and you have a contract for that contends that our national award was inappropriate and two years later that contract is terminated for convenience but why does that moot the initial demand for good preparation costs in conjunction with what they contend  your motion is predicated on the fact that something new and different happened and that was the termination of the contract just that when you responded responded to judgments question how did that determination the contract what is that got to do with whether or not he ought to you're saying that because two years later for whatever reason the contract is no longer in existence any let's say that there was a clearly illegal aspect of the procurement just to make it easier was not in the chain successful then how do we know that and i mean we've got to go on them i mean so this appeal before us that deals with the merits that we've yet to decide and you don't know how we're going to decide so you're saying there is would be preventing i mean the contract been in effect for two years i say it hadn't been terminated and we have this case he still could not retroactively have performed this contract is performed by so i understand if your argument that somehow was necessary to prevent to prevent some some honked given the fact that your motion for judgment on the record thought you read an argument in your brief about this granted at the if i've got it right at the at the the time that the representation was made about this employees the person made representation had reason to believe the presentation district correct but shortly let's assume hypothetically that that is the case but shortly thereafter they find out that it wasn't true is there not an obligation on  the potential contractor to come to the government and tell them they made a mistake or if things turned out that wasn't true because you act as if well because technically when they say the time is that it was correct that's fine met when the going was made and i include the representation that he would accept the position if offered by me saying they knew then or within two days after that he said no don't include my resume but he was going to work for the government
identified as this this is individual and whether or not it turns out to be that individual or someone else on the will attempt murder case law in i p r instructions in possibility or any argument that it was some other individual that the person intended the shot it was some other individual well there was no evidence clearly there's the funds protected against double jeopardy correct i disagree because the charging offense does not include those well the specifics of the the offense itself the recording the proceedings because the motion withdrawal was insufficient we obviously think there's much more than a just a constitutional claim we think there's enough here for simply reversing his commission outright but at a minimum this needs to go back to further second stage had to base the out already to even touch upon this claim i mean i don't know why she doesn't want to touch on this claim you can surmise why she doesn't but we know overrepresentation was deficient in the typical situation and then removing the victims knew if the name of the victim was required and there's no evidence at the time of the run up to the time of the amendment that mr ramos was the alleged victim why would he why would the defendant object to anything because the case is going this way i'm seeing no i didn't say anything about the indictment and i've seen that the case wasn't proven up until the time supposedly when they were going to redact the name of the victim and so if supposedly the resolution is such that a verdict of guilty could be given for render took place at the time the amendment was made and prior to that it was a catastrophe for the state then is it doesn't th the commission of the murder they didn't do that here the trial court erred direct appeal counsel erred by not bringing this up and i think opposing counsel admits that he cannot be retr alternative we ask for the release person of the second issue as to post conviction
after they committed the crime but he knew that did the facts are in the record reflects that he knew that it other than where he was driving them was rival gang territory and there was discussion in the prayers wanted to get she moved all of these things and she just as much facilitated that being there i mean ok she wasn't behind the wheel but her involvement in this piece is very very small only from your cd i mean just because he's a during the the dr birth in the context of being a getaway driver is different fled he drove at high speeds he did not say to the police i had nothing to do with this once they finally caught him he tried to run and get out of the car  argument they clarified if they maybe were implying that there was no agreement that need to be needed to be expressed in their opening argument by this example i think they clarified in the rebuttal argument when they said remember we don't need to prove words expressed words so i think they clarified that they weren't saying there doesn't need to be any agreement but it doesn't need to be in words per se so i did the jury of course got the correct instructions here and so it would be hard to say that they would be misled by this let's say the shark example for one well i don't think it's hard to say because if you look at the question the questions are specifically on the issue and you don't have to facilitate the transaction to be if you're part of the examples that were given they were on the central road that this is until the issue in this case which is criminal accountability why wasn't this clear or second from i wasn't this year so serious whether the driver was accountable when he does during and before and during and basically this is part of the question and so you know they have obviously had some questions about whether
not accept mine captain what choice do we have the least to tie it to the german secure as a sample in isolation retrieved i trust everything is in order earth but other exception is susceptible very good professor you have done well in five days a bank account will be opened in your name in brazil fifty thousand pounds will be deposited into that a vaccine against it comedically there's a lot of vaccine in the world that can stop it not likely to be one either extremely low temperatures the virus is completely dormant but at minus ten degrees centigrade it begins to reproduce itself by my was three degrees centigrade it's reproductive rate is increased by a factor of one hundred above zero and start growing at a horrendous rate reaching its peak infectivity at about five degrees centigrade at which time it's reproductive rate the speed with which it multiplies bridges mass of proportions it's reproductive rate is now something on the order of two billion times greater than what it i'm scared to death of this thing it's not just a vaccine you want to develop from this little monster a virus is it i don't know what you're talking i know how the system works kernel developers have a weapon here another part over there the trigger someplace else again and nobody involved even knows what the hell they're working on until it's all put together so on militarily a vaccine when we have a very useful defense of elements and that is all you're being asked to develop come off it colonel why is columbia being asked to do a study on m m a needs resistance s how does that leave us the bad plus the soviets install the same system now neither side can employ their missiles even if they want to so this is just a moment treat your present richardson's is more of his political soap well we are back to whom he's figured it out he should send him over to letterman this afternoon routine physical