MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on to the second stage status but if we agree with your position is there any getting around the fact that this work would be saying that if there is an attorney hired for the first stage as in this case that you decide to hire one for a first aid that was predictable because you're not entitled to an attorney so therefore if you hire one that particular attorney does not have to p with don't you think we should hear of rules governing this very situation when you have retained counsel when he's acting on behalf of a defendant in the first page of the post conviction proceeding are you saying it's completely inconsistent for us to find that there is no right to counsel first stage but if the defendant ours council the council must be reasonable if a person decides that they can afford it or want you know maybe there's somebody who wants to proceed bruce there were i would imagine that in a case in which the petitioner says there's more meritorious issues than my attorney provided i mean you could argue that the the pros a petition would be more inclusive than the attorneys i'm not going to go back to this particular case it's work but we have competing interests right we say you're not entitled to an attorney but even if you agree if there is an attorney everybody expects the attorney that reason so that's why i know this is somewhat circular but we get back to the this court would have to say that if you have an attorney because you're not entitle to an attorney they had attorney does not have to have reason and and that's that's a very pro i think following up on justice thomas questions or concerns you know if if the facts were that a pro se petitioner had issues and was ready to raise them whether he was represented by counsel or not but chose chose to h we thank you both for your arguments this morning and your spew
very important because of the nature of the way that this hospital was that hospital saying we're not responsible in this litigation for dr lawson at all because he's not our doctor  medicine is litigation in turn the not that dr watson is their employee saying we're not responsible for him he's an independent contractor the allegations in the case against m ff the hospital with the doctors that would do all the emergency care there as well the supervise and control these doctors meds not a party to this appeal and the letters the two letters requesting that they're talking about those their reporting letters to and they don't say anything on their face anywhere about there being many documents not in any way shape or form austin essentially saying you're not doing your job and we want incentivize you to be filling out the forms at the hospital and doing your documentation in the record so we're going to give you ten down to an hour bonus we've been obligated mess to do the credentialing and the stamping of the doctors at the hospital from two thousand reef forward now two thousand and five or many of the back units in this case predate the asked him to do so he reached a different decision
two with regards to the conviction based on the big condition based on the fact that they say that became very upset that he was not able to get to do this farm work it's not something that's just completely unexpected the situation like this but a hundred days it seems it's not clear whether it means copies of the form but what's that number me there's dog it's in the record i'm stating what that means there on it it's in a box marked video but  so any prejudice that that may have resulted from the ruling on the opening statement has been there can be no i'm finding a prejudice where he kind of read that excerpt in his closing defendant was sentenced only on count one or a story come to the dealer and be predicated on an aggravated battery battery in a public way and because he was not sentenced on any count including the victim's age the problem you have is that if this was a video of the crime itself as charged versus an arrest that's your problem well there's no question this is a this
except you naturally uncle hard as i was a fine man why did my cousin andrew get out of prison almost about three weeks ago about almost to my uncle's mysterious death know because you you wouldn't be here now if he did that's how as i was saying this is how it  bullet in blow up was meant for you but why you're much too naive captain inherit the wreckage with me out of the way he's next in line he could buy a ranch a particular ranch that grows beautiful marijuana murder is a high price to pay knowing him no price is too high probably back in the big trade again drugs middle east far east china where everyone get th well i see you've made a friend is to experience i'll give you ten minutes he fell in love with the animals and we've been out here traveling ever since africa it's beautiful animals i hope we're not doing too much from your preserving in a sense it's bound to go sooner or later workers all the old oh no what are you working on oh just gathering th i believe you were telling me the story of your li don't care if it is abandoned no i won't do anything foolish call any time you know really isn't any of your business where  lark i don't want to write you how well my personal life is my personal life all right i didn't mean to hit the no the belt what do you doing a bottle of hot coffee this something crazy going here what are you doing up you're out of your mind the doctor gave you no shot to knock you out for a week and you get back into bed only if you join me you wouldn't hit a cripple would you now why don't you just sit and we'll have a cup of coffee together you got something to do and damned little time to do it in i thought you said this place was this it is yeah that's what i was told take me to be my guest i ring when i'm ready ok he's changed yes are you concerned for him he's also a private eye what's going on down there i see after midnight thanks job to do what to do protection like they don't need you anymore running off the way they did you hear anything call me name your price s cutter here do you do a squeal you didn't hear one word i said yes i heard was i think a lot of words brain to figure this
then the court would have far believe that he's the representative of some entity or person as required by the and so the question comes up where in the record where or in any of the file is their identification by the defendant of the existence of the state giving instructions or something like that but if we don't have to stay here we don't have a draft we don't have anything who is giving taking positions on man on behalf of whom i think that is the third question and since he doesn't exist as a representative you can't be taking any position on him now if he was representing his state of the trustee or something like that that would be a different story that going on for generations the problem is if there are no because there is no state or no rather anything else there's nothing to be depleted and if there is nothing to be pleated then there's the purpose of the rule does not exist and therefore could not be of y and there is nothing as i recall it five overlook something i apologize for there's nothing in the record anywhere that coupled with the custom over the years of everything they did and the other notes we referred to which i would not put forward is totally consistent with the visiti even if we could read once it was in his debt as whatever it was to raise the debt man zakk becomes a different issue altogether and there's nothing have standing even to come into court with their arguments that good bad or something in between ask does have some injury that is being protected or sought to be protected you've not heard anything from the but if there's no distinction it's an academic exercise and we all go home feeling good about ourselves but that if they don't have anything to protect it's an academic exercise that you've done a lawsuit against and then we wouldn't let us w the i argue for the right if we get the judgment to fail because i don't believe for america i'm satisfied we will succeed in the work now in that connection  reference to the mortgage well if there was a trial we would go into all of the gifting of the mortgage family did things but when it comes down to they don't have a right to be here because the stand and if they don't have a right to be here then it doesn't make any difference what they said and if they're comfortable with just letting them that doesn't be under ok i'm i'm very happy with that and in case it goes away then they won't have anything to worry about if they're not
the plaintive against a defendant for certain events or statements or certain portions conduct so only is based upon all related to the individual's exercising their constitutional rights whether it be the right to petition government the right to free action and so getting back to again why this complaint is not soley based upon what the defendant might argue is his exercising his constitutional rights as the supreme court also said the reason we have a c p is to prevent some sort of chilling whether or not it turning fall in that definition we would say no i think there has to be a distinction as far as a place that has an interest with respect to pursuing certain rights when you turn it into a represented individual they're not sharing the same common interest and the corset regardless of what you're going to call regardless of what you're going to claim to bring forward on earth because a citizen participation act it is if you want to put some sort of immunity or some sort of been wrong in their ability to seek redress in relation to this chilling effect of trying to in effect scare somebody in dropping the lawsuit in i think when you look at the whole picture if it comes down to it there has been a chilling effect the most clearly you know distinct and different in that regard and you have other points you'd like to make because we're not going to give you another opportunity since you're addressing the attorney's  a bunch of defamatory statements and then try to cloak themselves in the privilege and say well i'm trying to see a positive go result in the same case i think they specifically were the fact of these parents are individuals who  making these individual the family story statements against the athletic director who are then trying to come back and say well we were trying to obtain a favor go around having this individual removed because he was a danger to our kids and the supreme court says we recognize that but at the same time that initial step to determine whether or not it's solely based upon the offense actions is you looking at the complaint of the merits of the complaint and to address an issue of our complaint in this case again
bar what about the common law doctrine and it did except the doctrine in case after case we transferred intent you know we ask you the hypothetical you you just buy a brand new neighborhood that is clearly established by the record correct birth and on this residential in this residential neighborhood there's the street that has cars parked on it that was also established by the record grant and this is by the holiday weekend a saturday or sunday or possibly a vehicle or maybe worst case scenario another human being another unintended target right but the elements of the charge that he knowingly gam clearly evidence that he was shooting at the building this ak but if the legislature want to use the same definition in all of them then they likely would use the same route that
from the from the off been crazy so this is going to be our last one one of our favorites one of my favorites going to be one of your favorites i guarantee you this is
all right that he has agreed not to those two tests the judge in the later goes on and i'm in a hearing said i reserve ruling only as do all the tests  reporter who was behind me could not hear what the school did not make it there with regards to your bystanders read or on the last page it indicates approved by the court  submission on appeal who provided that language with did you prepare that language or you know the judge and now this rule requires that the judge determine that the bystanders report is accurate test was part of that sidebar she did not contest the issue of whether or not the subject matter was on those two tests and whether it should be coming on and whether or not the safest turning him or his witness not to mention the whistling paragraph two and three of the bystanders report in the transcript she specifically points out the last portion of each of those paragraphs is something that appears she does not remember that we do with the clues that from an article included in your she made the decision i believe that she had to send this bystander report in because she did not fully remember one way or the other do you agree that the trial judge has to determine the bystander report is accurate i agree that the problem as to say that it is accurate as far as she recall think that's what she did did you view the video prior to trial yes is there anything in the record to indicate he agreed to edit those portions of it prosecutor who knew the zap me what he was doing he knew he was born to run a mistrial with that he deliberately that i was correct that he had agreed that that if you want some kind of order from the gore that that was not supposed to be in there what about that  order a retrial and you stated in that case the prosecutorial or judicial overreaching needed for a defendant to be able to claim double jeopardy after his own what he did was not intentional well you know what she said and she said i think it's a misunderstanding understand misunderstanding because how can you have a misunderstanding one of the defense attorney has just brought it to the court's attention in the middle of the first witness's testimony certify an order filed an act or court proceedings absence to relation only the report of proceedings so certified shall be included in the record on appeal isn't that part of the hearing to settle what the truth is and then the judge s what either you've agreed is the truth or what she certifies as the truth i think that's the contemplation by the supreme court ruled that there will be some sort of a hearing where somebody can determine this is what will se heard during the recess before we played that video that we had a number of people on that jury that were not going to convict my client ok that that i that was is that the things that should have been in the record somehow and you're saying that that would have been in the record how if there had been an ac
tumor in the child's chest down in order to get the plaintiff had to prove that there was a reason to take the chest and the child was seen in this version here winning one for patients over a period of smokers is going to have some upper respiratory infections but that's what child seen so there was nothing that was with the testimony really centered on this was the fact that there was nothing wrong this trial that would have indicated need for he was seen by the regular doctor was from november two thousand and the other contradicted evidence was that there was nothing contained in that november two thousand and two medical records they had in hearing on s first of all the jury was in the form that at the time the expert was making all this money he was testing testified that ninety percent of his work came from the defense  see he consistently will take a question and turn it around trying to prove as a point advocate for his plan to the jury so within the confines of the trial our case this was clearly the central cross examination that these sanctions the destructive process and that's what this was was a destructive proff so from the standpoint of who has testified to before us what was the judge's rationale a little just a rationale was that allow all the way to the you know the last second and then driver board to build the response to what your expert said that's basically how the judge who did you know we got down to the wire here in terms of your expert deposition so i'm going to want the defen there's no record but you're the other thing is the testimony that he's complaining about the supplement it's character but those are separate questions regardless but when you started your argument you said there was nothing that dom would have alerted the doctor to take a chest x ray correct and yet the job was seen on six eighteen seven nine seven twenty three all within a very short period of time in the plane by the same doctor yeah and wasn't part of this issue of longitude and care the fact that because there were no records available in this three short time period it was went to the jury ok what he's complaining about is that the statute ten point eight licensing which says that a judge i'm sorry that a young doctor must be allowed to exercise independent the allegation or the aren't i should say is made that there was nothing to keep these people off that there was something other than routine phones other than upper respiratory infection bronchitis hearing the problem
you agree with that i do agree with that although i feel that they were already at jurisdiction and furthermore court's findings were actually reflect the big record there's there was a real quite a contradiction in the tone of the substance of the two warders could you address that as far as mitchell these husband had a good relationship with the child she testified that she took the child and as birth control as a birth control method for her other three children that she's adopted she she
improved closure and further providing the commission with civil penalty authority in creating the mechanisms to enforce the law it also would provide a strong set of tools to combat fraud in the prepaid phone card industry critically inviting them to migrate their business wireless products the nature of the wireless products and services as well as the advertising and marketing for them are strikingly similar to those outside of the context the same rules of the very much look forward to working with subcommittee and answering any questions you may have thank you
it was reasonable now you'll probably hear from within the fandoms i'm pleased that the disagreement is is not enforceable because he didn't work there for two years that is a a ploy by a car is a violation of your duty to heart it is it's an absolute violation of duty it's not like you know repairing articles of the girl remission or giving away since or finding space to do business this was a unfair competition in the case because you can never reset well would have happened had these people not been told these false statements had it have been given a chance to honestly compete for this business and these people not left us trade secret information and that gives us a lot of concern at the very least they should be required to be additional more to give back every single thing they have that could come close to and so about two and a half months before my clients resigned they started discussing running their own home sales company back and when they did that they didn't talk to customers they didn't talk make a case of commercial disparagement illinois law for its competitors the courage to call the privilege of competition and to make statements of opinion regarding creditors to divert business from one's competitors generally as well as from one's particular competitors of employees agreements that anne was just simply see there and see which was a bonus agreement and not only did it say that day and that he could not hire clerical police but it those mechanics were hiring and this is the only test they were hiring response to and and that this place is the southern illinois in newspaper which could ask the world hub mechanics it didn't say anything that would be specific to the problem so all of the employees where an er or judge had the opportunity to listen to everyone to hear the actual evidence the evidence is very in these cases very sensitive and she had the opportunity to observe the witnesses to listen to the facts that were presented to her and if you can get away from these broad generalizations that they have gone and are making in this case you can see that relieved or their they did not meet their b
are you kidding me come on and step out of it oh i don't think i ought to over come on snap out of this baby stuff that girl i can see where we're going to have some welcomes together you know that tommy's all hot and bothered about you sorry i didn't take you right home no i'm dry and it's lovely here women and children first tell me look at that i rather look at you crazy about you really  and now something special for us very special girl fashioned i like to have a with young people don't you think it also might be good for her to come home to our meals once in a while i'll put dinner on the table right away we won't wait any longer  isn't it too late but it isn't if you put all this behind you now you can still make something final worthwhile with your  any of the armor of knowledge of intelligence sex instruction protect th and i'll have to pad the i can't marry you for a while i'm not free that's the only reason i suggested what i did go through this honey and then a little while everything will be all right now don't worry well i'm ready for the little lady she's asking for you then she's better no hope none but surely there must be something you can do i've done everything but there's no use we were too late a clumsy unsanitary operation aggravated by some terrific shock
facing some very heavy equipment
the question becomes easier evidence in the record which if believed will support being made up of the commission is the opposite conclusion clearly apparent and if the given says in the record you may
is the president to you all right mr president the point is this when we go up to this guy's house maybe he'll give us some real dough so we can get some gymnasium when i know that most boys have that trouble sometimes perhaps you've been disappointed or something or perhaps we both miss your brother kids there right i never thought of it that way you never think period kill a lot of flamingo there's someone waiting here to take your