MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
if you wish to respond right absolutely absolutely how much time would you li sure absolutely to this issue and illinois supreme court judge has no power to impose a sentence to run consecutively to an anticipated but as yet on him almost sadness another jurisdiction and that's what happened here i think it would be much easier for him to do that to win in federal court without this state the illinois courts for that must be the second well a direct attack i mean sentence the court below ground there was still jurisdiction there was no jurist there's no vehicle to attack thirteen years later a sentence and this court's review is basically confined to was the court below the rack to find there was no jurisdiction and if this court finds there was too jurisdiction there's no court below did not it mom age the defendant that he could do nothing for thirteen years the court below and much to me if he had to do something within thirty days and the defendant did nothing at all for thirteen years the defendant would not have been prejudice had he followed the admonitions that was given that he was given by the court that is to file a motion attacking the sentence because one he was and it would have been and his appeal rights were not basically his appeal rights were not prejudiced by the board's imperfect admission if the the if the defendant had followed that then we wouldn't be here today in this position the defendant is only prejudiced because did he utterly fail to follow any admonition that was given my word an technically it's improper to impose a sentence that should be concurrent to a sentence that does not yet exist however the defendant was the one who procured inside and and induced the court to impose th going the court could have made the sentence concurrent or consecutive and it is presumed even if you look at the statute that was in effect at that point in heard from her yes yes ordinarily he could apply except by the terms of his agreement he agreed that he should be made consent so he's a start from complaining about that one of you courts should have considered this matter or rule six zero or the motions to reconsider sentence it's just a continuation of the criminal case that had been going on all
isn't it almost twenty seven twenty twice oh yes in this the actually yes this currency actually is driving over paddles the speed bumps wiley down the jet right that's correct ok here's your problem the commission didn't believe him ship they found causal relationship with the petitioner sustained soft tissue injuries to a cervical spine and aggravation of his headaches which was a preexisting condition as well that's consistent with the medical records with mercy work s with the physicians chiropractic position as well as the independent medical evaluation by dr mazhar counsel claims that the petitioner was not trying to hide anything from anyone in this case and i personally will agree with him because we all knew about the previous motor vehicle accident and that was not denied by him just her and his testimony however what it was by the petitioner because he did not tell marcy works about that prior work prior motor vehicle about the petitioners credibility arises from that maybe twenty twenty a lot of that date the petitioner size chiropractor who he was seeing for his prior injury and he also saw mercy works who he was seeing for his work injury to the chiropractor he seated at his his symptoms were improving this is two days following the works and he said the system his symptoms are improving his bilateral neck pain where it was a proving his headaches were improving his lower back pain was improving he was discharged by his chiropractor two days after the accident due to the fact that there were no examination findings to keep him there this same day he went to mercy works and claimed he had pain at the level of seven to ten due to this work accident he did not tell r c where it's about time that there was a prior work prior motor vehicle accident that he was involved in or that he told us chiropractor that same day that he was  when she suggested that would have been a way to proceed with treatment in this case again as you all have pointed out already the standard of review in this case is manifest weight of the evidence and it is within the purview of the commission to characterized the accident indicating that it was a minor minor accident and he was doing totally fine after that and in fact the medical records and the records do indicate that the petitioner's car was total citations to the record as to why those opinions are not credible are based on the record so at this point i would request that this honorable court affirm the commission's decision in this case
want well that's that's the other question what language in the statute is the best evidence of the legislature's intent with respect to reinstating a withdrawn petition but what legist what's in the legislation i petitioner is allowed to automatically refile a postcondition petition within the one year of a voluntary was drawn does that give him an unfair advantage over a petition to file  s so if it's simply easier and more often three or two to a look at it that way when you say discretion counsel do you mean that the judge need or need lists and that's and that's actually will unless this court has any further questions i would ask  exercising its discretion the permit withdrawal at that time had the park contemplated the control reinstatement that would more arguably be within the scope of that but how would the court be able to to be futuristic about that and it's something somebody with return but were it worse the standard for him to do that i mean there's no is it in the statute that he has to give a reason we would argue that that this president would be constrained by provisions of the act and i think more arguably if there is any discretion to permit sort of a reinstatement procedure it would comment it's kind of the withdrawal now when he comes back at the point of having a motion to reinstate you know at post h
will in your room and hide some drugs and you don't know what it's found then you're guilty absolutely no absolutely not but what we have to understand here is that the context of the record that i'm just s
he noticed two individuals right off are in the public roadway that was directly in front of the residence with the burglar alarm going off so he problem focusing on the second
answer any in a be happy to answer any questions you have
they're just like others that's good only you'd hello i'm alive to the world i'll be buried here beside my brother and my friends forever you all alone i'll follow tao to assume that you're safe all right r like that worth more than others in the world and if you're out the door you should be  or me for a very special reason but why most likely one of the murders to look like a local affair i'm certain him will upset his plans if you're not around accept the blame for the judges that or who or
think any court in ways ever said is that because he was a jury at the time and because he was an apprentice at the time he should be not he should not be allowed to attempt to prove that he based upon the facts realm of speculation something could also happen to preclude them from the painting of it so can the commission basis decision that's speculation because there's an element of speculation in your view but you're right judge i don't think you could ever and you know the to judge i can say as i understand the commission's decision as i understand the company's arguments under the second scenario you posit the individual would not be subject to  this argument and that's not what that or says every three diagnosis you have least have the opportunity to prove now you may you may agree with the result in this case but i don't think you can agree with the process i think we have the opportunity  argue lawrence construction i guess i'm reading the wrong decision like curves or ignite i'm hearing that they didn't get an opportunity to prove their case and i look at page six and seven of the commission's decision in the conclusion that that was an illusory harm the union representative wailing testified that if we don't follow these guidelines we could lose our certification for our program that's pretty significant to me it commission considered that and said this is illusory we've got someone from the union saying we don't follow the rules of the board sets up we lose our ability to certify people in there in big trouble and so you cannot downplay the two and a half years this man had to complete in his additional time whaling testified on several opportunities in his testimony that many people go through this program and for many different reasons don't complete the time even when they take the task we don't know what he would do and they can say oh yes he reasons the commission evaluated those additional reasons and said no he wasn't a dream and because while you may have taken the test yet significant time requirement put in hours and you did not match that well let me ask a question i wish you the same question in this particular case weight of the evidence case we've cited shortly after authority asked what the law is commission must first determine persons occupation at the time injury and then once they decide what that occupation is then they look to see what the weight of that occupation is at the time hearing it's that simple they presented proof they had their opportunity they came and the union rep said he met the standard on the test but he didn't take the time and that's a significant factor and that's a fact that the commission ha looks at what a person did it what their work status their work capability is that's why that's why if i'm injured working at a job and i make one hundred eighty dollars an hour my words different than someone who works a di true some degree i don't think you can just interact let's say we have an iron worker here whether he's a very man whether it's an apprentice is a skill difference or skill difference for a reason and that different asian justifies the difference in the
shout out to george will let loose on the camera work do the camera work for the west  never thirty four that true early in the season feinberg will try to make it a three point  out ok lots of contact with the play the first one is good eleven point advantage after one twenty nine will be right lots of our lots of speed for number twenty one a senior i believe ok trying to make something happen
any further care for owner nerve condition so this is essentially a prescription coming from the commission for a doctor that they are same has continuously trying to perform surgery for a condition they do not believe credibility in a determined way to be given the medical evidence and they decided to adopt keeps opinion as to the only her condition and so now the question becomes why is the opposite conclusion now the conservative award for perspective medals very reasonable and within the recommendations of not only doctoral keith but if you take out the causations opinion as a ship in the dr at laurie it's his doctor keeps future medical recommendations be only nerve condition complains excuse me a two thousand five b no more than references to the left fifth trigger finger injury in the negative energies which
testimony on that subject totally established that that was the primary the only information is sort of paramount or all
or now is to protect our sacred from spies you know another hour yesterday when you're out our radio show the thunder riders were riding to the rescue well here's what happened after that oh boy i don't see how any of us could have done it what you take off your helmet get a right back then still i've got to cover
any amendments to the underlying bill me the committee on oversight and government reform
and how would be implemented
first item on the agenda to an update of the contracts be so it's a level playing field there are terms and conditions that are set by one mayor or one council for one individual to be in the code and everybody would know what the cel collections and they get offered to continue to work with us i think probably if you look at the actual time i mean that where we could look to implement crosswalks in in the city and so should we be looking at this with the same perspective to say well maybe we're going to charge one hundred thousand dollars profit off for a specific request even know that crosswalk might only you know
in conformity with their particular statute didn't have absolute reference to t c p i don't think so the point being is that they allowed a specific type of cause of action now could it be something other than the legislature enact nod to the fact that state courts can have their own procedures and rules and there are neutral rules of neutral application they don't have to create any special rules they can see the lines but otherwise if you can bring a case about five hundred dollars pla creating a cause for action and they were saying and yours senator hollings said in the beginning of the of the paragraph says because a constitutional constraints were not telling the courts the state courts in which court they ar the power to do something less restrictive to the state say we don't want that cause of action that would be less restrictive so the safety deficit a good thing about preemption and it says we're not preempting more restrictive regulations absolutely correct consistent with the home water except here here differently we have a congress with a directive saying we're going to divest the course of jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction we congress can do that
versus going to the county they are doing some work on broadway we also have some interest in linking up or union street and some of the others are trying to focus on what our viewers are in the city that we want to focus points on we think that the previous study of two thousand  the generic resolution and that was what we had approved and in committee and then you came up with the idea of hiring both karen and the other one is in this is giving me right now and you know as i said since that think we just have to be clearer land we're doing what we're what we're looking at when we improve it and and make changes then not you know wait until you're ready for the you know couple of days before the actual you know redo things at the last minute is tough to do so so i'm fine with that as i said as long as it you know i think we're going to i think be better at reading the resolutions in our packet and i'm just as guilty as others as anybody  other people out there celebrating a particular birthday or are we setting a precedent with something in that i guess to something again i just we just i just need to pay more attention to you know i think that we have a lot of people  and we have seen such an outpouring number of people who really want to work together creating a new vision and are excited about the changes that are occurring and ideas that for the future they want to work  with us in the resolution we have some young people who are part of the council who are making a difference and they are hosting a kickoff event that they want to invite everyone to so this is not only just to honor all of these
if i'm not tied up i'm starting keep you waiting what can i do for you if you can do anything for me i just want to tell you now that your bills paid my partners we're going to telephone  the on any minute now you can hear washington much better must be great to be a detective you talk with so many interesting people yeah are you in that much of a hurry  but i want you to do it to get a picture of her as she comes off the building how would identify i have a photograph of her here crazy don't you realize you'd be putting on i've been danger she could recognize this man he knows it let me worry about that no one can pick up this man it's our one chance to draw him into a trap by long gentle look at this way supposing playing a very dangerous game one way of drawing him out into the open ok i really miss riding your custody but remember if anything happens to or hold you personally responsible if you want any help i walk over to the two big mikes and knock the head together that's how i got the ten thousand dollar reward i don't like that story i got another one ever got the one about the mama bear on the papa bear the baby bear at the time you gave him the receipt for your gun in the drawer he also got the idea of removing the bullet from your gun and replacing it with a blank so that when you fired the gun you would think your bullet which actually killed mrs mor
into evidence that was not asserted to be based upon in one's personal knowledge was testifying at the time did anybody object to it going into evidence until i was working through the arbitrator because no one is objecting is going into provide an item a listing of the hours the firm spent in the case exhibit one so every phone call just thursday actors so you're saying under the law they have is a matter of one has to be declared insufficient that could never stand  what do you say to that argument i see is incorrect i think this is a perfect example of why the ro
that case we had to do something about  a something you'd better yes baby but don't say it again a nice word for a lady seen me before understand nothing from friendship but even in a friendship such as mine which you turn that must be mutual trust trust me that's my  such as you've never tasted the grapes with selected by the royal hands of my great great grand  you do not like my tonight the magic trunk the trunk of life i wish to call your particular attention to the fact that the trunk is entirely empty then if you gentlemen would care to inspect the trunk now what if you magic words i should step inside the tru well what happened  or
if you can't sober up the boyfriend why you lose your job that case we ought to do something about from friendship but even in a friendship such as mine which you tell that must be mutual trust trust me that's my you do not like my had no rivals no one can do anything transform a man into a girl a girl into a man a patient a wall foul or a we are convinced my friends for both the greatest in the world but please let science the agreement and i believe i will sign nothing until i prove my point bulbul will change you into something  on your chest is small you'll have no phobia and i see no reason why you should not wish to be someone else or
me before why gentleman your chest is small you'll have no phobia and i see no reason why you should not wish to be someone else in the navy so
case number one two four one nine seven it's all i need to vent the american bombing company versus american contractors and demi argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr smith you may
property just one question mr hooker do you are you arguing that if we were to find that there were fine would judgments with regard to the a rigid the claims that you talked by using counts as your standard is arbitrary and it will lead to inconsistent results and subject to manipulation by a pleader conceivably a plaintiff could plead every allegation of merit and the numerous cases she cites in her brief didn't support her argument but kind of does make a very interesting argument in your reply brief that you know look here all these cases and statutes that preclude the award of punitive damages in various types of cases and wendy very very brief and counsels opening argument to you in made the point that the defendants had all admitted liability this is a very very important point in your decision in this case in my view we admitted liability for if it disposes of the rights of the parties either on the entire case here it is or on some definite in separate part of the controversy the green case that we say to you in our brief says punitive damages are not awarded this compensation but serve instead to punish the offender and to deter that party and others from can committing similar acts of wrongdoing in the future the burden  point that mr walker made to you that we admitted liability is exactly the point here we had needed liability as to compensatory damages the punitive damage aspect of the case is a separate and distinct part of the case had been dismissed and that  r was final for this reason my only other point subject matter jurisdiction mr walker has made it and played of his made a point and i in the brief and today that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction and it's disingenuous to come before the court and say that the trial court had all subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether punitive damages would apply in this wrongful death case when the subject matter jurisdiction of the court was invoked by the plaintiff bringing a wrongful death case before the court with the right wrong or indifferent on whether the hearing should have been under two six zero four point one there's no question that the trial court had subject matter  case that is compensatory damages thank you thank you mr jones m there are there's about sixteen or eighteen cases before cooper and two after two and those cases are posed hudson cases you know the thing reconsidered so that you have the same result in slightly different language reflecting their analysis this court recently had a situation where a matter was set back is three o eight is only a clickable to non final judgments and to the extent the defense counsel you that we could have got relief under three away they were in our case for us as you can see