MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the record just clear the trial judge admonished the defendant regarding his right to proceed pro se and his right to have health and then explain to him the reasons might why he might not want to proceed for  trial in june he had represented himself on these motions a promise in april bench trial then was set for july twenty fourth and in the interim they had a hearing the defendant represented himself there he filed another motion motion for evidence deposition he told the trial judge there was some video evidence that he had seen wanted to see the church allowed him  that in some surveillance tapes and throughout all of this the defendant is proceeding produce a not a peep until on the day it set the bench trial the defendant asked for a continuance so we off keep in mind of course that the court was advised the reason that defendant was of being denied additional access to the county law library is because he was tearing pages on right the trial was reset for joint twenty four so he's doing on june sixth and although this was the only time he really asked for the reappointment the tron judge said how many times are we going to do this considering that the defendant is asking to revoke his waiver of counsel the trial judge then reviewed all the proceedings that had taken place between may eleventh and july s two thousand and thirteen when the defendant had asked for counsel again and he then i guess his view of the proceedings that had taken place was that something that will pop up not the kind of stuff walk in the fences i don't know what i'm doing i cannot represent myself the bench around the court again denied the request for an attorney but that you know there was a day or two around now the first week where you know the day of trial right and i told you that back in april but does that then say and because i told you and i know more than you would in fact the b b c says to say you one was proceeding to venture out that's when you get to the record one fifty two one fifty three one forging it never stops with you enough is enough you know when fifty know that at night if if the request which were i feel very differently under the case law if we're just going for the first time this guy was doing this you know on july twenty fourth really really different that's why it's based on the facts and circumstances that's and they are one hand you don't let people abuse the process game the system on the other hand you want to preserve a person's constitutional right to either have that's one standard the standard the defendant has to meet is whether or not this is structural layer and thompson does not cover the exact situation here where defendant is attempting to re
permanent or temporary whether it's a component of the overall system whether the value of the properties increased by the improvement and whether the use of the properties inherent but all who go to  clearly this this constitutes an improvement a real real problem under the facts of this rebuild was meant to be permanent it enhanced the value and the enjoyment of the property b  because visiting nurse association sure had and had to pay twenty seven hundred dollars to fix this wall and how construction company felt bad because they did build this building for the visiting nurses so they called a lawyer who created this in more ways and senate our construction companies lawyer and said as a matter of who created the physically that they didn't hire a boat to do it they didn't do the repairs they had nothing to do with it except trying to help visiting nurses association out and recover some of their money back because they're rich area and he felt bad about
campaign well i think if you look at it it is somewhat difficult to do to look at that by the answer but if you read the full context of that when he was being asked about it was do disappointed world having a credibility issue i don't think that comes across in the transcript at all that the judge felt that either mr simpkins or his client were not credible no i understand this recluse argument is with the presentation but i will point
for me it was and gave us a statue it's difficult for me to believe and there seems to be a lot of travelling that i go on for instance when you have in the hearing section b two hearing and it continues to be an us i think regardless of what you decide whether or not the hearing refers for a probable addicts think the difference between this case and the case that went up to the supreme court is here we are asking for an opportunity to cross examine dr smith at the real probable cause hearing looking into you know his compliance or conforms with the sex offender management board for firemen's looking  be able to exercise that right current there was a waiver and that i should try to trust that as i could and at the time that was the last i thought i could do  that what we have here is two separate order out of the same hearing i tried saying pleadings that are intertwined just by their very nature that that report the proper smith prepared and that was actually five is what triggers the petition for just charge that w there is no way ever that that's a limitation on me but not on the court and i would ask the court to consider it i think execution is difficult and causes problems that need to be solved one problem continues as is the probable cause and what does that statute mean when it says in one place avoid continuing stumbling and bumbling in the trial for that action and interpretation of what the statute means it's necessary and i think it's necessary need clarification so for those reasons either because there really hasn't been a waiver because it's an intertwined or there has been no whatever that the court does have jurisdiction distract they were two separate questions really that were separately brief separately argued and that both the parties and the court recognized as separate when they were before the trial court and i would refer you to our twenty four sixty reports not just the most recent one so with this not a change in condition it is a continuation of the same condition and in fact in the standard of matter the illinois supreme court sadly that way to its was something that was quote already debated by the experts testifying the prior proceeding and rejected by the jury and quote that's not evidence for a petition for distress it is not evidence supporting probable cause for district it's not change it's not changing  instead what we look for in a changing conditions situations we look for evidence that respondent has participated in treatment and thereby actually change this condition that's not present here evidence that we stopped that there has been a change court's previous decision in the sampras matter finally even if the rule as i know this is for a change in response it's condition it's not a sufficient change to allow the trial court to reasonably conclude that he is no is that the legislature wanted to continue to have an annual review or probable cause hearing and that probable cause is important the standard is not asking for  probable but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to a hearing where there are witnesses witnesses and witnesses cross examined and that's what he's asking here is for
that they would get back and they would have to provide notice to the corner so in this case play what should happen if they are claiming that they have an overpayment instead of coming up with an arbitrary number for what they did here with twenty three thousand dollars the former attorney with you and the only we do not have anything within our record they claim that they can send letters to the office saying that there was a sidebar but there is nothing between the former like we don't want to sue their client they don't want their clients to there's there's no doubt that what happened here in the trial court would be more expedient and it makes a lot of sense and all those kind of things the point about the till versus home depot insurance or something like that you know i mean the money got paid but they did you know that the courts actually disagreed with that there was a case the high school one  time her testimony was basically undermined because there were records put in that show that mr guber was communicating with his daughter with this necessary to issue the federal benefits and she's saying no i never spoke to him as opposed to saying to your client i'm going to give you this money now but don't spend any other because in the end they can see it every penny and back the reason you're arguing it's not a settlement just because a settlement has to be approved by the commission right it was something she appeared somewhat which obviously i think she was doing the cases have been going on in her family from way back in two thousand and two until the birth so her confused about things and do this or it was some it was the wrong theory it has never been the case where the employer actually issued compensation to the person who was supposed to be getting the money on a grant and basically cases to go through the process to have them determine first of all whether there was an overpayment second of all how much that overpayment has and then also to give notice to minor minor then we'll get money back where the state in this case to
of exclusions and inclusions insurance this is pretty standard so we never have and again i think if the court would have gone through it it would have been difficult to reach the result a lot of these problems can be solved by spending money on expensive lawyers tracing the documents so they're there clearer they're older in print it means something there  your for medical treatment procedures drugs are given their vices and all related services or supplies that are experimental or investigation no medical treatment or procedure results this is the one that applies to those cases reliable evidence shows that the drug device medical treatment or procedure is the subject of ongoing phase one or phase two clinical trials or is further research experimental exclusion to apply shield their alter ego issue is is alive and well it hasn't been decided yet but if this panel decides one way or another on i think could have a major money can pay back the doctors we lose because we've had to pay for weeks it's an incredibly important issue and it can't be decided without a trial and it can't be decided based on what  it back it's going to put all of these put some of them under some will probably have to go into rehabilitation unless the blue cross people when others buy cars in this state well just in the short
as observing or a religious holiday today so he really i frankly know he's already read the briefs because that conversations with them and he's going to listen to the listen to the and so what you're looking at the man more rights they are the consumer that the only evidence because as you see it's a balanced ordinance against rights and clarifies the responsibilities and rights between the two contracting parties the terms of coverage if they could just you know there's no doubt your position is that the insured was providing professional services right can act and the issue is whether the exclusion which is not correct it's a failure to attach a failure to the task isn't the same as failing to get you going get the lease and the salary to the tenant at the same time and if declaratory judgment action was already pending why is that important it's important because of the very reasons your honor has stated and mr bevan has stated and that is because the complaint has the litany definition that is set forth in the that as so you men must recognize the definition of a professional service is different in the d n o policy than it is in the professional liability policy the professional ability policy requires it to be t services there's a myriad of professions this is out there practicing law you know doctor or engineer or whatever but are not professional services under that particular professional services policy however under the d n o policy professional services is not defined it can be a doctor it can be a lawyer it can be an engineer and so there for that you have are an accountant or who have had with us a professional so that you have an apples and oranges in terms of what is a professional service
as it can be is that what you said there's no question about it but i believe happened in this case and we can tell from the way that the transcript reads from across the board that there is an understanding that these charges would be reinstated that it was understood that just had the state's attorneys but since we met in the record
service tries to explain away why he has not either was outside a fifty mile radius or the fifteen decisions that were available were put in the supervisory position supervised one other member of the postal service there have been shown however in the evidence that there were other e a s fifty two question or notice and whether he had placed on a sufficient notice of these positions that he are to be given from february twenty fourth two thousand and four and move forward from there at the border still for the postal service still has not given any chance to  mean could there been anything at all and in between a five and a fifteen to put him in and to take him out of a fifteen and put him in a part time five seems like a pretty big stretch did you introduce evidence of any specific job apart from the collective bargaining one that were potentially barred by collective bargaining which ones were supervisory versus non supervisory there were conditions upon mr patel his new placement and so were there specific ones on that list that were identified that he would have been governed by collective bargaining but he's not able to be put in a twelve eleven fifteen governed by a collective bargain well that's the distinction i want to make there are two classes of jobs eleven twelve fifteen positions councils referring to are not union positions there was nothing higher than a five i mean that's just there's a lot of positions between five and sixteen where he was and i'm just having trouble believing there's nothing between five and sixteen that met the criteria where i guess what i would supervisory of any other employees when it became available and that it happened so i guess what you're arguing is that since we're construing the board's order and the work available on the boards or in some board is consistently said that  circumstances of the initial order are not directly before the designed for students he was given this opportunity to continue with employment with the postal service though in a non supervisory position as really an alternative determination and i correct so and one here on who faced losing all rights to continue health care benefits an opportunity for his
in this record that indicates what rock or pay for in any way nothing and they never said this is this is the offer in the us you look at judge adams or he did a great job in this case we tried t nothing they never presented a record of proceeding to the core never gave the just the opportunity to make a change with respect to the calculations he made and then they come to you and say these are the use of discretion well invested well there's things like nonfeasance where you don't do something right and you're saying they didn't do something right and i'm saying that well ok let's assume ar go hypothetical that they did but it was one third of what you had already a stamp wish was what was necessary so even if they had responded it made it offer if the offer was ridiculously
line are just doing family law cases but as someone who has tried cases for thirty years in multiple subject area we have multiple issues one is never the injury issue and i going on there for hours in the public housing complex or section eight housing or wires for the child the fact that she had not taken here for addictions and that driving i'm not trying to be critical of the judge who probably has one of the largest docs in williamson county to have to reach closure cases but in this case with everything that's happened i believe that what he did was islands and general concepts procedures that may well have led to a different conclusion and that the appellant and more importantly the matter child deserves to have that opportunity really i'm going to say that the evidence really rules should apply withstanding the statutory framework that recognizes the importance of having some treatment just to get another diagnosis all those things are great things to say if you have a nuclear family and you say that there are risks in the home and not doing it but when you have twelve transcript creation only five lines three to four where that fact was the test yes best interest is always the bottom line but in this case
world so i disagree with you that if we would reverse some parenting time that we would also have to consider child support in our example we reversed some parenting time and something it's only going to deal with that issue we can deal with the ten fifty a month then depending on what your mind gets or doesn't get on the thank you very much
quite a bit about this issue and the second district recently came up with the decision of people versus williams i don't know if you're aware that it's a net but they talk about when there's in adequate and as are admonishments the defendant still has to show some sort of prejudice in this case the trial judge incorrectly said you would get three years m s r and then he gave him three years amazon when does prejudice attach he didn't allege that if he had no he wouldn't have entered the plea and therefore it was involuntary he seemed to be making an argument that it was just an automatic  in any event we would not postpone the decision any longer than thirty days but we will discuss amongst us whether it will be postponed at this thing in
with no conditions structure on the property the idea is to subdivide off five acres leaving twenty four acres for the bastar property on the five acres we've already done the setting casting we located here for a new system the existing house will be demolished and new residence will be constructed here in the middle of the property most of the conditions that related to the modifications for the to allow the subdivision or the departure is t if used really will widen the building permit itself so most of those things will come into play when we do that but we just say that we're still continuing to agree to all those conditions in the right plan that work here for the single family house will go through a review that will look to have confirmation of those conditions a lot of and related around storm water side yard setbacks landscaping etc pumped what you have to do is you have to when you go to the activated the first thing you do is you you pump it dry so that you take all the solids that are that have been accumulating in the paying you pump that you verify that and which is testament yes we can here we can take an unfortunate situation and make it an opportunity at that intersection to shut down before that yes little disappointing words negative feedback on that but overall we were happy with participation and got mostly positive feedback and we're working on the next meeting with the committee in figuring out what the next step when they started saying some of these other areas in the statistics then they would relate specifically to peter tosh and i assume the interior of their studies and their errors would suggest there but i would wager you know what the
form different companies for the purpose of their downstream or so called marketing aspects of their business they then although they kept the business is separate in the sense that they kept the different  and except for me for a moment that the cost of the gasoline manufacturing the gasoline is the same for both well the ecology texaco or i absolutely do care what you think it seems to me you're saying the joint venture itself as well it's no good because competitors can't come together and put together a joint venture like this right now on our mind the prices even at the prices having one person said corrections instead of having two people independently where you might just not have arrived at the same price you have and owns and sells a product have to set the price for the product and who else but the one who owns the product would set the price for the product there's no rationale for sh get together and form a joint venture and those two with with their two products they form a joint venture they sell the two products together but they're not neither of those manufacture our two cars together using the same clive and once we use the same client then we can fix the person it's not just using the same plant manufacturing gasoline were caused by these ventures no evidence whatsoever was introduced on that point so it's an interesting phenomenon that prices fluctuate and fluctuate because a refinery has a fire they fluctuate for a variety of reasons but there is no jointly but they're still competing against each other and that's not what we have here what we have here as opposed to a citizen that venture owns the product the venture manufactures the product so instead and so put it in responded he wasn't sure of the answer is no the relevant record cites are a page forty of a pair of these brief and only record cites are paid just thirty one thirty two and thirty six of the record now let me just back up if there's a screen there is no nexus whatsoever between the plaintiffs in this action and sri the plaintiffs in this action are service station owners and operators in the state of california sri the record shows never owned any assets did any business participated in any pricing decisions in the western united states let alone in the west for the most s conspiracy action argument in arguing that arthur i was part of a nationwide conspiracy there is absolutely no evidence in the record that sri participated in any agreements or in any negotiations or discussions
low so that's why i am wondering why you were were talking about well he did this in marion county and then he did this and saying clear aren't we bound as the court of review to look at what happened the depositions of the individuals that were named and that as a result of that extra information if you will on the plaintiff felt a need to just close more witnesses and more case so in other words what i'm trying to say is it went from a simple slip and fall into maybe something that was more complicated connection with marion county is the accident happened there there was an emergency room visit there and i believe family physician was there and one of the crew members who did not witness the incident will in the same for what it really just kind of put two and two together here about what happened but i mean tell me if my understanding is wrong those shocking tree records or whatever you call them were