MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
jenny call for two or three g call for three it's seven fourteen in the game in the first half first quarter that is goes up so good bounces solve and goes over tries to go to the guinness because picks it up twenty one light body goes up for two no good solid and solving goes back up just a little short out of bounds stays ready possession number twenty one by that's our first team first belmont will keep possession it's just a four e to call t i was intended for solving the mix up there filed she'll go to the light for two she makes her first and her second is good as well so two more buckets for belmont seven zero for forty in the first quarter emily a large number fifteen checks in for  travel violation reading it's their first appeal got that right he tells me and ready takes the court and here comes belmont she misses the first and she misses her second got i got a direction from the truck that i was trying to listen to and watch the game before so if i could get jeremy to relay that direction again in my ear that would be great thank you very much behind the scenes for you folks at ballots number eleven sara stewart that's her second a possession twenty eight seconds to play in the first quarter point four seconds and there's the first quarter at the end of the first quarter we got thirteen when we got  so we're going to replay the last point four seconds with a belt on possession hey look at that we actually got that bad to stick around for the girls game tonight down on high school pep and also the cheerleaders it's very rare that i've seen the cheerleaders come out for the girls game usually come out for the boys game but this is twice now i've seen them come for the girls game glad to have the pep band and the cheerleaders here tonight as we get ready to go underway with a new eight minutes for the second quarter of our game tonight against five to belmont marauders and the one in nine reading rockets here at the wonderful house of double high school goes to reading to start off this quarter i'm sorry back to call a little catch here guys looking for help over to call call goes in she goes no good rebound going to try to get a prop she will get the two two to play in the half belmont on top by a to travel violation r defender she goes in puts it up no good rebound reading but there's quickly back to adama and there's call goes up for i'm sorry stuart is up to no good violation is our belmo like boy goes up no good she takes her first so she'll get her botha second coming up right now twenty one fifteen one forty seven to play in the first  she misses her second she gets one as she misses her first of the one one point five seconds play first half
and he also admitted he was involved in killing a pretty ron paul as i'm sure the prosecutor is well aware you can certainly be convicted on the basis of accountability so even if you didn't judge told the truth or in those cases it sounds like he was guilty of newly discovered evidence says judge when you're competent doesn't excuse the state still here i don't know why six months after a trial someone decided to try changing the transcripts of the federal grand jury the attended a few meetings and he made it sound like he was an underling and i don't think there was anything speculative about the
allegations he's made against our office or something like that i think there might be a conflict there and they some c ters representation that might be a conflict there this is of all cases one of the most important cases to actually make sure th made on behalf of a indigent defendant i think spying important that if the public defender doesn't say something about it the court is to say something about it especially given the given the proposition that it's a de facto closure based on the size of the courtroom yesterday he's also seen as the proposition that to fulfill the constitutional mandate of the courts and on her court to provide space public defender indicated will some of the allegations get her against her office as if they were concerned about a conflict later the state's attorney in the courtroom one of them indicated that there could be continue for the purpose said determining who would be representing the fund be the public defender or cons the council at that second date when the court asked the public defender told the board who's different interests i think the what you're saying if i'm understanding you is that when their time was taken between cases between the first time and the second or third time the language or is it just a son's i want to read because i think it sums up what's going on here it says his in there talking about the judge really for others as to the practical challenges of such a small courtroom and the limited number of seats available were not sufficient to demonstrate an overriding interest to remain in such a posture to the exclusion of the family members that's exactly what we're talking about here the judge needed to do something because we do know that if the bill was asking defense counsel into mr
pursuant to five slash twenty three days twenty three two because that is the only section in the election code that provides for recant the language of that section article seven because article seven governs that nomination the significant part of this is that twenty three two specifically said it involves those a bit more about how you grew up in our favor of this case in reverse the trial course judgment that he's going to bring an action pursuant to some other part of article twenty three to see a different clerks were openly as they were served copies of pleadings they were served copies of the paperwork in the case in which the election the scale under circumstances where there was no control by the legislature and if you continue with that the cook knows that the legislators power to the fan and the cliffs jurisdiction purpose of the election who would be satisfied if we interpret this is mandatory as it was discretion yes it should be it should be mandatory his argument to you because well it's very clear in the screen court decisions we've cited is that there's no question about that and he didn't argue to the contrary the entire reason that we are here previous appeal they were all provided with that so they were all aware that the current test was spinning and so i had to get anything
position the position w off for example those would be contractual defenses that state farm would not legally be entitled to any money right all right i hear you saying is there were no legally contractual defenses the issue was how mean that's the first part but under under the contract and that was my question to you do you agree that state farm and a duty to its insured under the contract to act in good f from reading it right and then all the costs used do you think that offering five thousand dollars as mr stone argued is a means of trying to get the insurer to settle because the cost of arbitration i mean if you don't pay a lawyer and you've got to pay your own attorney fees and the arbitration cases in this district anyway seem to look at that whether it's procedurally or s
there isn't there is simply no substitute for living in the environment in which one's family is used to direct a home is where the heart of this home home  testimony that the stress of relocating somehow caribbean any preexisting underlying physical condition they were not claiming damages for property damage or the living expenses their claims are beyond recognition and i think that is precisely what counsel is doing in this case i think it's a very unique case as far as what i just recounted as far as how the damage claim is evolved over seven years and by the time it came up for trial what it started out as a as exposure for a bodily injury claim became this nebulous concept of inconvenience and discomfort or as i think  running water and good food in what may be maid service or if the hotel has a swimming pool i mean they're not not trying to be dismissive of the claim but it's not the same situation at all and if you look at this one which is there are other the other cases they have cited in this but again the damage comes about because they are occupying the whole different situation where their exposure is to something that is there in other circumstances would not be considered damaging all they want to turn with total destruction the damages include compensation for the difference between the value of the land before the harm in the value after the harm or get his election in propre case the cost of time we got to trial they had nothing else they didn't have any property damage they didn't have a living expense they didn't mean bodily injury they didn't have any reasonable fear at all injury and they couldn't show that iow i would have to say that at least as far as i have seen you know michael they would be correct i'm not prepared to go beyond what some other jurisdictions certainly know cases the question came up during the depositions about revoking oh about moving out of the house it was always done in the kind of text that they were trying to show that the stress of course i think correctly they did physical evidence personal injury action on behalf of the minor one would not go forward however the trial court ignored the other aspect of damage to this
community did but before the sale he did not determine the purchase price but who cares who has standing with respect to the limited partner park with respect to you two seven zero because comparables around that time and so forth building soonest a community approaches sons who run the community and associates business and mr communities now retired from and said here's an opportunity for them would she like to have the entire floor i know you have to move would you like to they didn't get ownership interest because the testimonies uncontroverted they wanted to buy their own business their own build their business that they understand the tax write offs and so forth they wanted on ships so abatement what do they care about if they could get three million dollars
an independent contractor defense forced the trial
duties require he is required on his own to live off one hundred pounds without assistance and engages banding bending and klein what does it tell us that he was able to do that conditions he was fully functional for this employer for thirty years july wall two thousand and eleven he's at work station sitting in what all slip or sit in a metal folding ch ridiculous feat but it's quite is that natural progression the doctors all of the treating doctors expressed an opinion on causal connection that's in the record did they say  had a criminal case you need didn't look at the d n a evidence one would wonder why would you stick your head in the sand and not look if it says here's a case where we have compelling evidence and in our report which shows in fact that no diagnosis with respect to clean the cervical spine normal range of motion creases the my opinion there was no significant effect of diagnosis in regards to his bilateral children plan then it turns out this guy's got credible consistent with the medical evidence in to carry the day before the commission and so in light of some of the camis in the criticisms of the findings of the trial court how do you avoid the well settled proposition
was present the only thing that there is a question about is the proof of service last statement that he had sent a copy to the chief officer of the institution in which he was incarcerated a speedy trial and long established constitutional right was somehow compromised was there any attempt to supplement the record with a certified copy of the notice that was provided to the board  claim that the lawsuit should be dismissed because you there's no summons indicated a service that affected or he would do what you suggest which is you could come in and affirmatively state after the summonses return and it says some individuals serve it six o'clock in the defendant comes in and says at six o'clock i was in puerto rico i wasn't in h county so i'm having a problem are interesting to taylor at the rate of the same time the war would be the only person the one person actually in the state of illinois that would know that there were those conflicting demands placed i've walked out of the two legislative history of this particular statute and it was passed at the same time as explanatory i think the reason that we should copy other words simply put the word is the person in charge of the defendant now when she said maybe service is not the appropriate word to use and i think a lot of the confusion for mr for whatever you want to call those cases because defendant has put together evaluated the mayor and he said if you know my first amendment should count it because when i didn't show up on february tenth the state should know that i was a fugitive from justice that i was in custody somewhere but there's nothing in the record to support that there's no proof that the state knew a thing about where the fed it was in february tenth and it would be nice if the state's attorney's offices the department of corrections and everybody in the state for that matter you know kept in touch with each other and the previous argument somebody distances the juror who had raised the complain who's extremely violent and there's an inherent danger about brain outside of outside of custody in any circumstance i think it behooves all of us who do administration handle public this administration to know whether or not or for at least the  defendant's constitutional as well as statutory right to demand a speedy trial this wasn't a motion seeking some particular course of action it was an amazing i once tried an hour and sixty days in the state comes in and says well i'm not really sure it doesn't is not that just a notice to the state it notice to the core the court that the language is to treat the information requirements information requirements for of section three eight ten get surplusage would be to infringe on the legislat you know whether or not the work actually received the power here the proper thing if you're not going to wait until after his speedy trial term is actually wrong to try whether or not there's a violation here at all anyway we're probably going to determine whether or not it actually didn't
by evidence that the manner in the the item in question is what the proponent claims it is that's the only rule of evidence nine a one a and in this case i think it's pretty clear that the victim in this  case the person who the prosecution claims left this message testified quite clearly roboto that this was the message that the recording that was played during the defendant's testimony was in fact the message that she left on his phone in january or february of two thousand and thirteen informing him that she was sixteen years old it was her voice on the phone she testified it was her voice and  remember correctly writing this brief i had a paragraph that was going to that point and i couldn't quite tight together because that i believe that was a kind of a fault of the prosecutor in that point for not pulling that went together that nothing in the presentation of this voicemail and playing it for the jury undercut the defendant's defense at all in this case the defendant still was able to testify as he did that  the evidence was already before the jury that this evidence by way of testimony from this victim was already in front of the jury that she had left it at eight benefit that the state got from playing the message was minimal if anything because again the defense this was clearly still in play that you miserable reasonably believed her to be seventeen years of age or older and clearly they to the sentence that you got and maybe i think that's what strengthens the defendant's argument here is that in the relationship to the actual punishment that he was given under maybe days in jail four years of of sex offender probation when he could have gotten seven years in prison i think strengthens his argument in this case but i think with with regard to the the restrictions but i think that the case was established including the cases from the first district in the last couple of years that there's a there's a reason for the prohibits sex with with individuals that are under seventeen and that obviously the legislature and the courts have permits that there's an inherent risk in individuals who do these he said have intercourse with certain age individuals and that there's certain psychological as well as physical harms that that are inherent so these acts and that he minors have these types of issues going forward when  how to have sex with this person there are harms that these statutes are supposed to eradicate and supposed to prevent them from suffering going forward and based on that i think there are dangers and there are risks to every defen who are a fifteen year old who has you know harmful repercussions from that for whatever reason there's nothing stopping him from doing this again even that even with
no no no and um
here and profits prior to march of zero a six shareholders share the distributed profits equally six equal share distributed year a that are there is a difference in the briefing just as far as the standard review will you give me just a summary i know there are a lot of issues but where are those differences on the standard if you have to
the condition no property not a recreational type of facility i think in this case we're dealing with the protective screen similar to like a giri a football helmet a piece of safety  and number one approach that he in his eleven year employment had never seen the problem through and number two you just used it after you had been inspected before they used it did you know are you saying some it was reckless for him not to inspect it after the since well as before the use or did does he have to put a note up on it that says this is now safe for you mean what what attached he would say neither of those needs to be a piece of equipment used on land for recreational purposes sensually it has well it has to be a piece of equipment on the layout the land fences that were knocked down and you were down to three months constructive notice found that case because there was evidence that the park district did daily inspections and so on those daily inspections they would be deemed to know of these these the the batting practice of the summer team and was there the entire time and saw the balls that were there hear it and saw the net during that particular time i mean is there any issue that he walked away to talk to somebody else and could have missed it or  did i think counsel said he was there through our he was the practice either preaching watching so was he there the whole time to see everything that happened the evidence is consistent with that he was there the entire time to see and he saw no problem with the net obviously if air and the testimony and his deposition would have been different than if he had walked away then there would have been this maybe there's an issue but there isn't one we don't have anyone leaving the city of the now we don't have anyone seeing anything that shows that there was any kind of issue or defect with and that is this is an unfortunate incident but what we have here is no facts developing constructive notice or steps you can start to notice there is nothing to go to the jury the only issue that would go to a jury is whether or not
and the judge said to review no reason to think that he wouldn't comply with change in circumstances able to find that employment and reserve jurisdiction to change the visitation schedule if she did not in fact a judge and we explicitly stated on the record if you think i'm going to late go out there without any kind of job and have her for a week that time that probably verbal situations are not sufficient to concert you substantial change in circumstances the evidence presented at trial is more than sufficient there's no clear line as to what actual scenarios would constitute a substantial change in circumstances
it most of the evidence in the other two cases though that would be considered consciousness of guilt or something of that nature generally occurred afterwards didn't did it didn't occur as he followed her in because it's he ran afterwards and in the case of the girlfriend ex girlfriend looking for the exploit friend the theft occurred after she talked to the guard here although the conversation occurred afterward he didn't is there anything that indicates did you know did they call out did not they did they use their phone apparently there is there some anything more than inconsistent statements in order to have  defendant statement against each other he told the jury that they had to be given instructions or these instructions for this particular type of situation oh is it the inconsistency is best we were looking for university village where we were we were going to get our banner at walmart and we got lost what's what's this significant implicate i  be well ok but if they sent you you seem to be giving those examples that this didn't happen in this case and therefore you've got an inconsistency here maybe i
that wasn't a big issue but the issue was really whether or not there was a valid and knowing rejection and my question to you is do both statutes regardless of when they were pass whether it's the two thousand for the two thousand and eleven stance or do you believe that both statutes require that there be a knowing and voluntary rejection i'm asking about whether you believe this to counsel for the two thousand and eleven statute that under either circumstance in order for there to be lower limits that make a knowing rejection a valid and i think the court uses a knowing and valid rejection or selection in both of the statutes require that  indication of rejection would you agree with that berger ok so regardless of the statute both statutes require evidence of rejection yes look good ok so my question unknown individual as a rejection for mr davis because i mean i understand what you're saying about the statute there you know without having to bruce originals anything else did not initially make a valid rejection or selection of a lower coverage limits i'm reading from new york if the court found that in two thousand and four they did not make a valid selection rejection and your company follows a statute that you didn't need to keep it by using them and just renewed the contract then i get back to my original question why in two thousand and eleven are you entitled to a finding that  initials by the side of the rejection the evidence is not illegal no good the evidence is that these are the initials of an insurance company or that appears
guy however that understood that it was breaking the law for which she could be punished by the definition of statute that would be blacklists cash well after the fact that someone commits a crime i did have more than one component you probably know as you indicate your awareness of it in your brief so it was reenacted and in addition to heightening the burden of proof from a preponderance of the evidence to suspicion that side the psychiatric profession is somehow more accessible to one of the employed in the service of the party more so than experts in other areas and i would think that was barely nouns with the fact that they had no previous encounters that did the found and i had set up no personal involvement with the neighboring or any of the neighbors in so that the whole basis of the crime has got to be something that was appeal that was at the trial for the hearing generally