MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
seven through february twenty fifth two thousand and eight mel nothing to the letter is that probably it is not a brilliant assumption on his part but it didn't prove to be correct because it's a current form what do  governor given the resources available to the state police and defense and that it would not be known to burden on the state police if they were notified of the condition has been overturned to determine whether the then computes his time serving in the department of corrections from that day forward and so when he was sentenced in greene county on may ninth he was receiving credit from the department of corrections grundy county jail to the will county jail in december to face the will county case for which he was sentenced on february twenty fifth of two thousand and eight so he is in constant custody of one county or and mr fisher have neglected to look at the authority on this issue and that's the stand she did sell the statute says any person convicted of or found guilty of many offense classified as a family under it doesn't say any person the sex repeat offenders work except the city list and nowhere in this statute does it say that you only have to do this one time and it clearly says any person convicted of shall as a consequence of that any person required to submit the samples shall pay the analysis for you two hundred dollars now whether or not we think that's watching  mr fisher say since logical is irrelevant what the statute actually says the purpose of the statute is the creation of this criminal d n a database and it has several goals one of which is a tool used as a tool in determining whether or not someone might be a suspect of another player he's saw in all cases  brick to a building that's on very shaky foundation that's not the way we handle stanchions we have to look at the plain language of distinctions now the defendant the statute was yellow flag so i checked it this is not a statute it's really not authority in this case because there is no one
the second lawyer from the florida state commission was supposed to review the local commission's decision under an abuse of discretion standard and that's actually outlined in the act and that's been the capital case as well and can reverse term modify a medical commissions act or action and they have to look at three separate questions to determine whether the local commission abuse its crash and those questions are to the local commission proceed in a manner the decision of the local commission if they don't try and abuse of discretion and if there's no evidence to support them abuse discretion in this case we don't have any evidence to support and abuse of discretion we have three s who looks like a ten year old kid just to make a profit perhaps that would be something that would warrant revocation that's why discretion in the local commission they have the discretion to impose a penalty of their choice behind that and that is the local commission is in proximity to the situation they have better control and they need to have better control of their own licensees in this situation we have local kids purchasing alcohol i do not i have to not know if it was i cannot answer that nations reputation are there any further question basis for the ccs ruling we concluded that to be in the country board air because it failed to implement the purpose of discipline in the form of a license suspend them before revocation correct  weren't bards that was their business selling alcohol taking away their liquor license wouldn't necessarily shut down your business if that wasn't the case here and my last point would just be that say that this penalty was too harsh because it's a bar and it's going to shut down the bar but you know we've made an argument that this case we're talking about the gas station we're not talking about cashman this business it is to sell alcohol
first because a broken line call based on the facts available to the officer should not be treated as an emergency as a matter of law and also because the op by a protection and rescue services article should not apply to this case at all i'm should react to this case with the information available to him  says dealing with police officers generally treated under section two drugs to which the general community for law enforcement but we think that the the the fact that all the boards are in agreement in illinois bats section to t is based on the the information he had available he didn't expect to be responding to a traffic accident there was no information that there was a domestic battery response even at the police department policy or the officer says that he thinks it should be an emergency that a department policy is not equal to the law but a and yet it might sound like a pocket call and nobody would be able to respond and that's the part that's always curious to me is they surely can't take it can you know the officer i can't tell for certain whether there's an emergency or not that's that's pretty of the parents i just got to rely on the limited information that he passed out which the nine one dispatcher listened to the thought it sounded like a pop dial and she didn't if there was no cause for urgency based on the information relayed to the officer the final issue is whether we will mi an adoption or something i mean you could look at almost any police activity and just saying she tried to comebacks employs male i mean everybody nobody at least that i've seen treated it as something that was
because you're charged a plaintive with being aware of the facts prior to filing a complaint and your firm sought to represent both driver and passenger so what i'm wondering is that wife was your office not possess of the facts and when you became possessed of the facts that would have pointed towards conflict i mean you knew that britain was the driver of shannon burns vehicle of the time the complaint was filed true yes ok so  so what i'm driving at is when did you become aware when did your firm become aware of facts that of eliminated this potential conflict began it was not during  for what what had it been a year how long had you been out of the case if you're married you're twenty two years ok did you seek to intervene in the elk case after the case was sound we had a lien on the to perfect that lee what can you just tell me since i haven't seen the motion or whatever it was denoted of what was it that you were seeking to do not just the route of your client here and we were just trying to get our costs of individuals and organizations or corporations that have a dollar amount next to him but it doesn't say anything about what the the service was that provided or why it was necessary does it isn't that what the law says is necessary you have to establish the evidence for it whether that's a affidavit or testimony as to what these services were and why they were necessar you may not even have to go there when you look at the listing of the costs that were sought the only listing in fact there is no cost that let me take that back prior to filing their on line three costs that are shown one for the police report on august first of two thousand and two one on may the fifth of two thousand and three from chart one represents the medical record request oh is that reasonable no i mean that's what i'm asking i don't know just looking at that chart one thing records does that add to your knowledge and you may not even notice medical records and deposition transcripts so we should
my question is if if based on his getting between those years now support at twenty percent it would have gone by forty six to sixty nine to that's more than two percent difference not just a little increase some within them in addition your honor we believe the position is deficient because there was absolutely no testimony whatsoever that the needs of the mother ha the court was could still award the twenty percent per year and there were no deviations when the in the court's orders when it was originally set to child support right i'm sorry when the guidelines and what were the reasons for it worker about what his actual net income was at that time and what twenty percent would have been it's great to try to calculate that in hindsight i don't know that my body had information or knew what his net income was at  imply are an added burden to in two thousand and eight are customary provisions that are ordered in every case even when twenty percent child support is said you know not a single parents have any obligation to provide health overtime and additional compensation at his job as well but at some point over your years when you are eating leaves eating cost of living increases your child should receive the benefit that at some point it becomes  concern certainly that happens in cases where a participant purposely stop working overtime to reduce their pay knowing that they're going to work o
an official public official like that prove it to do what is correct but there is an entire line of kate and that was just on the castleberry too but there's an entire line of cases that also says that where the defendant ok but we're not i'm not talking about increasing i'm talking about doing what was supposed to have been done in the first place for example if there's a mandatory fine that should have been imposed th you just don't ignore the mandatory fine because it's a step story fine so it wasn't that you're increasing his sentences but it was improperly imposed by someone who had no authority to do it  career so you're not really increasing it you're just doing what should have been done to begin with your oh these  the court believes that it shouldn't sentence on three or four whatever reason it doesn't and the defendant appeals to you are you saying that any sentence that would be imposed on that third conviction would be an increase and the defendant i mean because it seems to be that the reasoning is that since it was the defendant who fall of the appeal as opposed to the state that the defendant's appeal where he gets opposed to fifty whatever the other is that i kept saying ok the court system is fine doesn't say with some medical costs fine of ten dollars these are mandatory i'm just trying to figure out what's mandatory and what's not that charge for labor or services especially especially professional services i don't know what this is if it's not there and it certainly did not
the language quite simply the language of document doesn't say that all do the same that and they did so i mean the mere fact that they went to the extent of valuing the pension which we would so by using the coverture form yet you have provided for things that were not included within the scope of the original language of the metal settlement agreement put into the  coverage i did by the fractional form it's not there i think i can go on i mean for night because the issue is is limited to how you are going to determine now for any reason he determined that this agreement is in pictures because you can't determine if i'm right she's right i think you have only one choice yes to reverse and then send it back to the trial  i do not believe you would have at that point in time if that was the intent of the party at that time that that the scope would receive forty two thousand dollars and then i believe at that time the judgment would have been around forty two thousand and payment  that the entry of the cobra reserve a specific amount of value eighty four thousand divided equally i believe mr let's give argument that it's kind of a hybrid is something that you can buy into we believe in argument is that that shows that whether the party content to just restrict or to fifty percent of the approximately four thousand but yet to give her half of the marital m portion you cannot determine until he's retired because it's calculated based upon the total number of years he's pursued participated program and salary at that time so even as we stand here today say for sure because i was not involved in the case at that
about six months ago i like to suck my examination in my own way everything will be fine and get some special friends get a little pictures like that bankroll like you can make an awful lot of trouble for himself i just forget about everything days some of the best sorry i won't be staying around to do that again show you know
hour i am a songwriter i write a ton of songs and i have c d s for sale so come and see me if you like what you hear on dive into my stuff in a minute our trio warm up song is a song by ali is the leader of that band his name is jacob he wrote this sound for glen campbell and it glen campbell performs it on his newest and last album goes down the canvas it's got a very cyclical chorus so please fight on the picnic table nothing nothing nothing in the and the girl in particular that this song is about thank you very much i have a website music dot com so be sure to visit and see where we're playing that's the full band the super chargers chargers are playing in taylor on july twenty
next case is international data products versus the united states zero six five zero eight three government already paid for these warranty services or have a word and that was when they purchased under the contract with a warranty included in their purchase right so wouldn't the warranty under the contract their contract to sell their company to a non section eight and then avoid all those massive warranty expenses that you say can amount to hundreds of dollars in each computer i assume that their act that question meant that these wouldn't that be the law the law would say you can do that in that instance then if we would follow your line of reasoning right the is a lot of you would be applying absolute from from you and i say something that doesn't necessarily make it so except if if they had the right to terminate that obviously was so but the stakes of warranties continue group more for that words i'm looking by the way it's the the warranty clause and he looks at the red briefs on page sixteen and it does include a two year upgrade warranty on software so upgrade warranties seem to be included in the warranty along with effect warranties how would we make that distinction page sixteen and i'm just looking at that warranty fall contractor shall provide a three year onsite twenty four hour fix or replace hardware warranty and a two year upgrade warranty on with no no no you agreed to provide that term as a warranty warranty why doesn't that run separate from the contract they'd paid for it they bought it they they are entitled to have microsoft comes up with some fancy new upgrade answer is that you cannot deal with an expensive upgrade comes out once again you have a real incentive to shift your to sell your company to a non section eight and avoid all those obligations well maybe th
dad was on the way to the hospital he never testified that she heard him fall but that was in the message that he left my
based on all of us looking over the entire case
so i think a reasonable argument that comes from that is well then what about this language that they did to the static what about the new version of it which does controlled substance that these are not the same status the fact that they may be considered at the sings high the fact that they both feel we are in the pro so the real property and you have now money here's what you're going to do with how that language in the statute if real property could not be  which has been the primary focus of my argument here there is even if it will by the older then there is no logical interpretation of the stand other than the fact so if you're going to sell real property and distribute distribute the proceeds under the same s stash it must be strictly construed in favor of the property  existed for twenty years to say that the legislature and every attorney and every judge that dealt with these representatives for the first time now we can offer real estate and obviously they made a mistake in not taking that out and that's some indication isn't it  earlier and again i have found nothing in there to indicate that that was done was the sponsor of this bill i think if you look at the cases that the state has cited to you i find it interesting that
people they know that up control solutions is the only one is the single source for this particular product that there may be other orders and maybe something else can be done only one providing this particular i can't remember what it's called to control you can't control control and so they're going ok they want three point seven let's talk about what might be happening so that we can have a full they were already in breach is it now anything to do with the fact that you had an obligation for your clients and now we're going to produce on may seventh and nothing happened until the twenty third me twenty eighth do you know everything and superior difference between the parties and as far as this is a sentiment discussion on the settlement communication actually alexis who forms their in a number of and this was highly prejudicial because that is an unknown the it was picked by the jury and then he also did this fifty percent loss potential investment they go they cannot be an organized with the evidence  indicated that if fifty percent of that was the proper consideration for the jury the jury was supposed to figure out what was the last opportunity less expens going on and then when he received it will he have control solutions and terms and conditions because they were already in a contract with the marines they knew this was a sole source plus this goes back to the civil war tradition for convenience required to hundred units per week and they didn't ship when they did do was tell us in all these communications which i cannot find for you that packaging is in process logistics  correct because what happened was on a motion to leave the trial judge said wait a minute there's a number of documents here this ninety three thousand dollars piece this fifteen percent comes from a number of different places it was disclosed  clear it is requesting him to fill out a form for the government now after one of the things that my opposing counsel mentioned was plain as trial exhibit ninety four which is so in the proposal inventory basis you won't be able to see it from there number one it was none of these concerns and you're saying it's definitely his concern because you need to get this information from them in order to fill this out so i'm just wondering who would have called on the army because
guidance on how that's implemented the procedures used the implication right are potentially that that information right and the agency issues a new and new guidance that says here's how we're going to deemed not to have a credible fear or and says hey this is this this implementation this procedure or implementing consultation right is not consistent with the statute and there's a regulation a written regulation that  implements eight as a bar to asylum eligibility and that operates in the credible fear process so if somebody is in a credible fear process and says and is barred from pursui so those are those are two examples i do want to be i am trying to be careful and precise judge edwards because each one of our points is as you know from the mark our briefing and the points we've made is that from from this statute is very important under this provision to congress that he the right kind of plaintiffs be before the court somebody can actually had these removal procedures applied to them somebody who has a do think i think i agree with you judge rather i can't see  approaching organizational point of approach in this context you have a situation with a particular situation of a plaintiff doesn't matter and there's no confining influence of pleated who's actually affected so the court was saying look congress in this very coming in with you're so sure they surely can come in very with respect your honor i think congress did not doubt in this statute that it wanted more than the organizational center where it could be a case look somebody who could for satisfy say the i think that's the next group of argument your honor after the three it is fair we have we have a number of arguments on that point but  designation basically the process then it then there's a risk that there is it creates a situation where the designation the decision is not in the discretion but it is subject to really extensive review and really eliminate government a very consistent twenty years we were in the beginning after the very st regulation we have consistently said these are not regulation and you have never
who we've got to fight to maintain our position with any weapon we can utilize we're called out on the name but we're going to fight for what we've got and more what are the chances of our engineers hitting up on the same idea remember we've picked you for a definite job it's worth almost anything to the company that you make it where you can be valuable it's pretty valuable man and but how little must realize that when he begins televising a regular schedule he's liable to run into difficulties you know what wait you may not be so fortunate in securing men like yourself when he increases his in doing a little thinking ye the few of us who are fortunate enough to have television sets have used them many years and often when we had nothing else to do we tuned in on whatever program we were able to pick up to the almost  spencer leave the laboratory i sure did with a suite shortly after that i started to like me quite when somebody got me from behind although i like to get me hands on the all right run along come on let's take a look at the rest of the to harlem collette talk i didn't think i was polling at the time only yes i called my office but no not that that makes three people that were out of the rule of course you didn't leave the premises i know guilty until he proved himself innocent you wouldn't campeon anyone you know i'm liable to get the idea of the you know who did it how do i know that you  that i don't know i get them but he's given us a lot of proble that i was watching his brother get when he collapsed i telephoned here but couldn't get any information so i telephoned headquarters where i want to know if he died from natural causes already  interested in and never mind the preliminary get to the part of it rather difficult but i try a certain part he came to me who was a man by the name of  you know with death you're lying you know you're feeling there didn't seem to be anything in th
i just stopped off a couple of days but i'm going to be ram when i look you know what i i just stopped off a couple of days but i'm going to be rambling on but if you know what's good for you you'll start rambling now understand that making that attachment covered everything on this property including  dangerous i guess there's nothing more i can do i might just well turn into yes you might as well you see while i was dressing the wound that you gave me you try to escape see you know ways i've had an  yeah i got an idea to to worry about skater or friend talk you i suppose he'll be all right coffee i'd like to meet up with that band if i may need some help myself from what i hear going to attach my wrong weather this morning she looked at me like i was dirt under a feet i just got to do something that stopped the fall of burton before i'm thrown out of here he's a tax and runs cattle  the shot came from back a little rock headed you'd better right down to the mason ranch tonight what do you want me to know at least not until she's far enough on the trail so that we can get it for russell and break in the that's right i'll be out the first thing in the morning  thanks for another one
not what this is not what they thought you were you were presenting saying it presents some other surprise to them you know that's that's that is certainly right interpretation and let the sprit sense and week as of course we have to did not get an opportunity to put everything before they try a fact to establish this pattern of behavior that when you've given the jury more complete picture of the undue influence it was intended over this