MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
or wasn't testimony at the motion to suppress that the defendant actually crossed the second line as opposed to writing down the center line if this bench trial it was stipulated that if the officer were to compared to what the statute seems to have been trying to if i grew up both prosecuting and being tracked fortunate when you had to prove both ends of the state's twenty three number one that you stayed within your millions nearly as practical and number two go on you know you've written a line and have a feeling as i read some of these cases that the supreme court was interested in tennis because in tennis if you're if the ball hits the line it's you still have to get it back you're going to lose that point so well is there any distance that a car should travel in order to have this violation or is it a near movement and back moving you see the ravine over here you may move through the center line did she testify that there was anything in the way she didn't testify to that there was no testimony to my knowledge as to the roa client do anything did she she could be in big did for the jews or and more often than not the officer will say no defense attorney sits down and says judge no more evidence so your client could have
when the court does this court the favor right here written opinion explaining its decision if it doesn't suit all the evidence that was presented that means it ignored it or wasn't aware of it welcome back to  probationary period it becomes clear he can't get along with ms were birds and therefore it follows that mr bragg was not retained because he couldn't get along with
so you're looking at it fees for the administrative letter it's take the reasonable statement of denial but without reasonable cause and i believe that would be to try to document that was merely in the administrative administrative review the issued a a sweat i believe was called a century fine and it's found around the beginning of the record and they found mr griggs to be guilty or a library for a section twelve a administrative proceedings here placed side of her word against the secretary and the attorney who represented the department during the administrative proceedings sadly for contesting allegations made against them in the administrative notice of i don't think what they're hearing officer in the recommended decision found was that the allegations were baseless i think after the five day administrative hearing what the hearing officer recommended was that the charges brought by the agency want to prevent the secretary disagreed and then the final administrative decision i concluded that there was a violation of one section of the act and there is a remedy for that bass side it may widen as statutory judicial review of the final administrative decision it is true that ben's also reached an additional conclusion as to what allegations are denials at the administrative level i mean the factual allegations and that they because someone was requesting sanction based on illegally rodimus arguments that the primary constitutional authority to govern and regulates circuit court proceedings and it does this through its rule making including one rd is that it does not have constitutional authority over separate agency level administrative actions that are governed by statute inactive by the general assembly indeed that is can review agency decisions whether authorized by statute but there is no constitutional provision requiring judicial review reasonableness of this reading and this line in the sand perhaps of relieving a separation of powers problem is there must be misconduct at the circuit court level that the circuit court has with in this discretion sanction that the answer is yes there are two avenues one is rule one hundred and thirty seven c e but there are precursor awards that have to be mad and findings that have to be made and plaintiffs attempted through their sanctions motion dressed complainants go to the court of claims on and file a claim for a i'm expenses against the agency in that venue you know which again plaintiffs have died and half pending an action in the court of claims proceedings which construction of that statutory provision is an issue that's at issue in there was proceedings that the court of claims would construe that arguments were being made there any proceedings resulting from that determination on that point that the it exists for any type of conduct at the administrative level six there's no either you can reach either circuit court can reach it conduct toward can't it section see
if you just read on the plane over here you probably know the reality is that we don't know because nobody had any reason to think about it a lot because they didn't have quite of us so nobody focused on whether the father there didn't have mention children but only servicemen that structure but when you look at the statute there did not mention children and yet there was an interpretation by this court saying when you consider the strong family ties which are inherent in our whole immigration policy that is not relevant and we we will we've made the decision that we did not i but i'm getting at i would like to point out that that the language of the servicemen exceptions but if you read the elian referring to the person who asked the actual serviceman the person who actually was serving the united states navy in this case and i think to
personally you your client they paid close to million dollars the bills you know that doesn't really answer questions and i mean how much was the billing for that isn't in contention here o ver three hundred fifty thousand dollars believe yana and zero in so there was one point three million that the district court found should have been paid by your client you know the district court found that the total fees that should be paid to to the former counsel by my client are two hundred seventy seven thousand dollars and change and i'm just looking for the exact number six hundred six seventy four and and nine cents here and two is the lump sum of all the other matters in which they represented the company to which they sued very cavalierly dumped on the district court without really distinguish really is as a matter of principle this court has no authority injured and to set fees in cases that are not in it and this is directly quoting your honor if i may its feet what the judge actually looked at were as to the decision in the gulf stream and in a third circuit that laid out a specific standard whether the result of the work product well i understand that position in in principle but in this case because of the nature of the records submitted and our painstakingly bottle that was done you you know we did ask for a hearing and that was  spew with in continuing jurisdiction of the district who are over the fees of counsel who have been made as counsel for a party in this case zero four seven four which should not have been included on that bill or in those statements because those statements on reflect the names of other cases in the work done by the attorneys on this case judge a magistrate judge cole was involved with this matter from two thousand and three when the start first group of lawyers who represent acme until today he is perhaps the most familiar person with the entire process in this lawsuit as part of maffia up location we submit this monthly statements of account the checks paid by acme american repairers which paid all of our legal fees in one of the various lawsuits both on state and federal level to try to resolve the case at the end of the day the other owner of acme used sorry could not be found to cooperate i won't go into that and he and the court they had a payment plan that ran through march twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen they stopped paying on that and your friend sent them a notice and said unless you pay we are going to  findings in their entirety and fluting is one of a quantum narrow it feet for the time between october two thousand and three teens and january two thousand and fourteen when the firm continued to represent acne at the direction i while a magistrate changes order does not mention interest generally that something is considered after a verdict is issued and it runs from the date of from when objected to it and then we check once more and we said a letter in a post judgment including prejudgment interest to december twenty eighth two thousand and fifteen to the work and that's in the supplemental appendix that was filed with
had not been a single bad committed by mr stevens during the ninety years that he had been incarcerated since the previous sentencing hearing and it was in the countless pieces of new mitigating evidence that the judge after hearing nothing but good three on the first degree murder right consecutive to six on the aggravated battery so that aggregate of twenty nine whereas originally he was sentenced to a average of twenty five years he was sentenced to two consecutive to confine twenty five one sentence for one offense each conviction results and interesting says that must be treated individually in fact each sentence in this case this is actually decreased the defendant receive twenty five  including all of these reactors on so i don't have to do a substantial having a sense case to show the judge the trial and it will be considered mitigating evidence in this case in addition to the aggravating factors that were presented by the state in this case as far as the north carolina versus pierce garcia carved out exception to pierce and help that one in a legal sense is originally in paris and the case is really ended for the imposition of mandatory consecutive that there is this concern that there might be some vendetta when the twenty eight case goes back on the for the sentencing now in this case there is no concern because there was a being produced for those we sent back for the consider the aggravation remember this judge is doing this from the first this is the third doesn't she get to consider the facts of the east doesn't she get to consider this criminal background going to be at three
employee and he's there for a purpose of work and he's a consideration here all this young lady is the child and an owner of the property it isn't their home it is the if one of the owners children is on that property after hours nobody you know is is that a permissive or a situation just because they have a blood relationship to one of the owners live in a rural area where the kids we have and we have a park where they hate intermodal cross racist and they travel over different farms that situation is permission by payment and then there's other situations you know snowmobiles have these tracks and routes you see little signs same for the kids in my area they will drive across our property w
regulation so then why does it apply to her franchises in a country it's a country where the leaders of the country want to franchise it for themselves and they don't want to him they don't want to give a hammer they want him causing trouble with their plans to keep the business it to themselves so they threaten them about us and what i understood the judge to say is that's not persecution of a cat or political opinion was the conduct was such it would be persecution it's got to be persecution on account of one of five grounds i graciously religion political opinion or another i'm not questioning at this point whether the conduct person that's trying to exercise his rights and weighed what in a western society to compete he poses a threat to the government his conduct and his beliefs are forms of social proof whether it's capitalis well i think you could make that kind of an argument if they were pretty killing people in general who are opposing their policies there are a lot of castles running around this country and the government was going after them because they were capitalist that seems to me somewhat different from going after an individual who's trying to get the same business that the president's wife wants or maybe the secretary of defense or whoever it happens to be i think that's good also i think capitalistic competition i mean that is nice tactics over there but it's a question of who gets the business when you're in think this goes not a lot of former soviet union countries and a lot of eastern european soviet bloc countries in the losing capitalism they learned some of our bad habits
rehabilitation but he says if he is sent to the california department of corrections i would strongly recommend consideration of a facility such as the one at norco is the drug abuse program there is not as effective in some of anything you can point to that occurred in the second trial there's a mistrial on the first one right ok so in the second trial was there something that you can point to where it's clear that had he had the full trial transcript he would have avoided some prejudicial episode here and as a result the lawyer was not aware of the issue and get an object and the evidence was admitted right and we have a number of average how prejudicial the introduction of gang testimony is right it's right there in on the nature of  so there will be no mention of gangs or gang affiliation and was clearly unless cleared by the court out of the presence of the jury that was came after the hearing which it was made you might avoid a mistrial on the second round i bet he would i bet if he were competent he go through everything in that record to avoid a mistrial the second time around learn from the mistakes of the first so don't you think the defendant would want to be in the same get the trial testimony i wouldn't if i were taking over a case from another turning on the second trial be content not to have at least the closing arguments how many times have you argued that it was harmless  because we didn't argue to the jury if you look at the closing arguments we didn't arbel members of the court we didn't argue this look at the closing our him and see what was argued so
harmless again discord issued their order on march twenty fourth asking the parties to address when you at that time had already begun addressing those course concerns of the circuit had not taken any action on the petition and that at the time that the legal things for the moment dollar believes that there is a plant in pennsylvania that is causing across state lines a violation of federal law regulation disconnect here and truthfully we believe that if they had wanted to expedite their petition from the outset all the needed to do at the beginning of this case was seek a stay pending appeal if they had what we would respectfully submit the role of an action is the section one twenty six petition and not this procedural extension which is why we point t seventy six or seventy eight which states that procedural actions that the administrator takes subject to seven six or seven d are not reviewable accepted as part is now final for purposes of agency or here we would also point out the over the court doesn't even need to reach that issue in this case we're talking about an extension of time to exist on august or section one twenty six process and issue a final determination on that petition they are or may not choose to base it on determinations of national significance if they do aware one way or the other at this point  should be resolved and i think at this point we will stand in our brief with respect to the construction of seventy six or seven determine if that's the court determined that it was str
started off with liens are we agreed apply i mean i'm just trying to figure out there's never any question but i mean i'm going you know it just seems to me like we should have never even got to this situation and you're leaving should have just been paid because of the total of all liens and of the act did not perfect it williams did not exceed forty dollars and nobody else appeared and you're the only and that's the only one that's going to be paid you know five dollars a week then into the act are we going to limit the attorneys fees and costs to thirty percent because we started off with more leaves aren't going to be paid you see what i'm getting at i mean i mean i mean this is we're talking about how to divide the money here and if those when they're getting paid anyway why do we divide the money in a way as if they were being paid because the language we have to interpret agreed two thousand eight hundred ninety one dollars and sixty four cents southern only medical services emergency and the non responding potentially holders failed to establish liens and are not entitled to distribution in the settlement proceeds so i mean the trial court found that they didn't have lanes so i mean i get back to the total amount of lien holders being less than forty percent
question and the question is clearly asking what the contractor paid we treat that as a literal false statement yes they're ok since they're so everything turns out what the form was asking and whether it was clear in asking the question maybe she's wrong but if that's right how do you put that together with great conditions to transform in kind services to something that you had to have paid for because this form says that the allegation you are making  individuals she chose not to do it to use the money for whatever purposes she wanted to but to get the money out of it out of the government she submitted favorite places to get now money and she certified that in accordance grant recipient benefits from what is almost the imagining the grant recipient is asking for from the government in response to having gotten conditions so she knows what a great conditions are so she therefore knows outweighs can mean in kind services so therefore all it could mean was the expenditures and
factor that is it should be overly into this analysis as well as the fact that we are dealing with an issue of of government the process component of the government's actions and this particular jurisdiction addition relates to the government taking somehow yes we are as well as the fact that i want to try to have any idea that that was the patty she was going on so that there was would not have been something that was defended not something that was tried at all it was an argument that the government made the government constr going to the integrity of the judicial process with regard to the material of the question again now that we know that there is more to it if there is moot just a filing of a complaint that there is a poor condition it could simply gives all the more throw and how effective those punches will be in in a criminal case the government was very concerned about it they knew from the beginning of this trial that our defense was you could have all these people coming years later and saying that  became complete specifically identifies mr peak as a member of the conspiracy it places him at the orlando conspiracy meeting at which there was a great deal of testimony as well as corroborating documents introduced to try him and introduce his role unable to thousand aid we hadn't been in touch with mr solmes in toby's october twenty twentieth's and the reason is we already had three percipient witnesses who were members of the conspiracy with mr p and l with mr peek in conspiracy matters breaking issue you know we rely on the government the system has to i think rely on the government more years to when they come across this kind of information to make an assessment about whether it is  prejudice i suppose is more of a backward looking factor but materiality is typically looked at up front so you know but your argument is looking at it prior to trial we were able to balance whether it would be material or not although it's plain we were doing a backwards looking analysis that it would not have been material so we were  two parts to branches of the justice department are involved what should the obligation be on the part of the prosecutors if they have a hint that somebody is perhaps going to pursue or actually there i still have question and if so if if if the prosecutor in then what the government knows now what do you think the analysis would have been in terms of materiality not i don't see how you're going to be able to show likelihood that it would have changed the risotto so how do you get past the brady standard on the trial again because it's a constitutional standard rather than a you know pure reasonable probability right
yourself i'm a native pittsburgher i was born in allegheny county been in the township since two thousand i have a wife and three daughters that are in peter's school district ak i grew up went to devin j graduated forty some years ago been a resident of peter's township for twenty nine years now i mean ploy by bank of new york mellon for forty two get slightly larger it's hard to see here on the screen but this last line the left side yard lot line is shifting a little bit left and then on this lot this is originally the last line from la three thirteen this around comes back out here so we'll see in the next year or so we'll see phase five come in so this is a simple what line shift they're creating in making these two lots lots three twelve three thirteen a little to be proposed to be a two thousand two hundred fifty square foot retail space and a two thousand four hundred square foot bank acquired car parking is being met at fifty six faces required eighty nine are provided for this site in park will have a drive through lane to the rear of the building and the building is proposed to be in character  style reflects the one nine hundred forty s and fifty's when the restaurant was first open the purpose of tonight is for the planning commission to make a recommendation to busy h b on one variance request on sign the applicants eight and park hospitality group would like to have three building signs which is one more than the allowable by the zoning ordinance the ordinance allows for two building signs in this case because it's a corner of law the proposed signs are forty square feet seventy square feet and seventy square feet for a total of one hundred square feet and the allowable for that business is two hundred fifty square feet so it's seventy eight square feet less still in park stated that the reasoning is to prevent blind facades on the hidden valley road block facade and the third sign on signs the freestanding in the buildings in the front and those traveling in both directions on hidden valley road will still be exposed to at least one or two signs meaning the free standing sign in then that adopted so that developers can start using so we hope everyone can you'll be getting a package in the mail will you please to be delivering it
this case raises important issues with respect to the district court judges to honor the requirements of rules and sixty five result in this case you have a tremendous impact on whether a reasonable defend be able to have something that's of course law each time we have to keep selling our customers something somewhere else within the scope of our prayer of the injunction and what we want after the first time why should we have to continue please these guys and separate you've agreed that i'm just going to terms your honor we're fine with that but one time that we wouldn't want to be based on the pre november second proposal that we rejected you know that's what we were going to do and if you wanted to hear what would you have a hearing on i mean it's it