MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
day she would could not have known he was consuming alcohol and driving under the influence but at most the knowledge of the revoked license but because it's not
put this in that exception and you've highlighted the ante in your in your brief you know that that's important to this decision actually if we need to look for the proof of the tax purpose and i'm trying to find it in this record just saying it's for tax purposes is usually not enough to fit anything we did i don't know what that means and that's why i'm asking you what what did it mean and candidly i think there's a lot of  testimony at court other than well this is what it told me or class i don't know you know just because he's told deadlines doesn't mean it's for tax purposes and i think this is a matter of proof is there anything else in this record that identifies the jeru the marriage is near the property and you have to overcome that presumption by evidence and as i said i think the issue of saying is for tax purposes is a conclusion it is not necessarily evidence and so for tax purposes it is is in my mind it includes it so the next question is where did the money come from and that seems to be the point how did he get the all part of the same transaction if you will the vicar who maybe ten twelve month period on top of that is part of the collateral or contingent collateral it clearly states in the clearly hit the nail right on the head where did the money come from and this also goes along with your point justice says that the only evidence that the defendant offered in this case was  self is self contradicting and they have the burden they have the burden to show by clear convincing evidence that it was not american property he says find multiple times of two hundred seventy thousand dollars in cash paid each to your point just minutes smith says or was done for a state or tax on purpose or for other reasons the status of the transfer was not intended to be a gift it is only in the situation where is the transfer or transmutation of the property this is the star of subsection b one relates to that specifically however that portion that i just read off is to
not produced like ok where is he and did you say you didn't know that i mean two different hearings for sat no defendant could show up because the sheriff let him but what was interesting to me is that he was released from a surgery just released he wasn't transferred back to illinois so it seems to me that missouri didn't think he was being held for recall off the top one where did that was well do you think it was let me make it easier do you think it was when he was arrested on the information i do you do agree why are we why are we counting the days after the initial of the information on august seventh why are we continuing to count days why isn't it the one hundred twenty days begins mr he's in missouri doing his own thing whether it's a charge or whatever probation violation that doesn't impact illinois you know so he could have come back til my ass he did he was released without any different states there's no agreement there are interstate in there remember that i'm aware of that says one state gets to trial the person before another state i mean very often a penalty is greater in another state say there was a robbery spree that would go from illinois to missouri to remember to tennessee for example illinois may transfer that defend some other state that they're going to bring the individual back i mean to me to answer this question is when you arrest someone harbors in your speed and you hire a statutory speedy trial stack you don't voluntarily give up
states to find work in north carolina she said she had no concern about being returned to honduras she said she would not be harmed there but this is not the point of the certainly there's evidence which not required here in pain i'd share a story off by saying i have serious doubts about this person's credibility based on a host of specifically identified in consistencies in every iteration of her story and then respondents testimony what could be clearer that the i j a disbelieves the respondents testimony we don't have too many asian any sort of metaphysical manipulation the record it's not that there is a reasonable possibility which of course is not the standard in front of the i j a it's a it's the gate checking to turn a nation as to whether war should be and whether this should be looked at further but if i could focus  it's provided to him at that time and would be i do is looking at it so i don't disagree bet he came with he took what she told him and said this is enough for it to move forward i don't disagree with that at all evidence presented to the board in motion to reopen what is it a little at the time of need immigration hearing none of it was unavailable to her brother specifically stated i decided not to come forward  opportunity to explain the corroborating evidence it's not recently available this is not an issue that was argued to them am i correct about th
never been in this situation before he'd never been in prison before not that testimony then given the state of the open door to ask him about the trends questioned by the same police officer some six months before level and very briefly education offer to be impeached crib ability as a prior conviction is no more a missile or they enter an adult conviction for the same offense which requires discretionary balancing of dealing with the problem for the juvenile delinquent thing a system which will protects the community and which will be imposed accountability for violations of the  legislature does hands the power it doesn't have the constitutional authority to a man in the future judicial decisions they cannot back a decision to change constitutional responsibility the courts responsibility is to define to determine what the legislature really did and whether it had the authority to do that
there's no guarantee he's going to get back to that amount of money that he was making at one point
standard of review for haiti is review of military claims by the district court in this case the district court now just straight in her record and recommendation a or the ass change in rider out to officer class and and to the members of her unit indicating to them that they should not be dissuaded from providing favorable testimony there is no evidence in the record stated that they that the military courts did not give full and fair consideration particular you want to use the chain of command the under the influence problem as an example now if we were to agree with you that the military  given full and fair consideration to the problems attendant to this undue influence does that mean then that we get to look at what the military trial court did to determine for ourselves whether it's say that the standard of review does not accord as much deference to the military courts with respect to questions of line applications of constitutional law there is a very high jump crimes to the military or to the military minute yes we will trial counsel two of how to counsel and with that i wasn't sure i followed my understanding of the argument in substantial part is that the trial counsel was ineffective and not evidence was overwhelming against the petitioner in this case for them are there is really no true conflict between the standard of review in lips and this court in how the way the military must always respect with discipline that might be found intolerable in civilian life but they are not left right according to the military member in fact the government a collateral view of a conviction would be introduced period with the finality of the state conviction interfering with a military conviction would were quite clear they knew that they had a three part test under gary and contrary to the defense counsel's argument very did lay out a three part inquiry right at the excellent job of trying to track down the physical evidence contacting all of the military starting but could not track down even one character witness there is not one piece of evidence that scientific testing was not an issue on appeal however granted it was imprudent should not have been done prior to finality in this case but we cannot go back and three and there are major problems with those findings including for example one of the reasons given by trial counsel for not presenting evidence that the crossbow is found near the home of your region over was because they said well our client you know owned a cr it was missing well the victim and your age are noble have full and free access to that home and there was evidence that was presented and in fact they were at the store the day of the murder buying a crossbow arrows and i thought that they thought the trial counsel's explanation was to take the third but no evidence no direct evidence was ever received as to what the murder weapon was at they were very reluctant to concede that a crossbow was the likely weapons themselves their client owned
so that number of complaints isn't that higher amount of time camp night in the other if it's negligent supervision right the you could probably do the same the same evidence on the on the claim right and it would be violated with born and not of the other the suggestion is that was presented to the jury further with respect to
should we charge them or their family for that honor you know i think if they have all the qualifications which seemed you know like a good basis of honoring someone i don't i don't have to be checked for accuracy or got so it's a process and there's about sixty caps so i think we're going to have to put a time because right now actually the mayor's i'm going to last well actually they're required right holding back and worry about a lower rate they're going to have a little heads up on somebody that's already been recertified in their charge of four dollars an hour and the other guy going to three fifty an hour maybe they may want to do that so i think we're going to have to put a date
hell what about the fact that they handle police have this agreement with regard housing authority to check on people who are on the progress is housing
first issue which is the exclusion of evidence in this matter maybe ninety four appellant escorted will actually helped his grandmother age ninety one file an application for four application the medical people who came in to testify either had no contact with the grandmother or didn't recall  in this process was not material in the sense that as he testified he thought he was for dissipating and simply getting her transferred her medical treatment from los angeles to san diego consistent statement that the actual statement was a very was that really wasn't a statement that a statement that was a statement about what the witness came to understand not anybody actually said to him right then i think in the proper palace well well he's talking to him as his partner i think the context was clearly i think it was made clear earlier when they have the argument over this and he says it's a prior consistent statement of my client to a jury hearing that that the prosecutor those are believes that it is relevant for the jury to know that the fence counsel he's on client is guilty based on the overwhelming evidence i cite a whole bunch of coupled with the other two statements that are red flags there for the the court having to do with telling the jury that you know fact counsel had first told one of the witnesses to lie is referring to mr abrams and that the only reason that evidence didn't come in to testify was because he wasn't going to perjure himself again all that is none of that is in evidence and nor would it be appropriate sidestep a misconduct by saying i know that they had this conversation but you can imagine that the reason that he didn't testify is that this conversation took place you can imagine what he's telling them to think outside of the evidence as to a conversation that is not in evidence what is the relevance of having an imaginary conversation about evidence didn't take place and it has to do with subornation of the te perjury that sounds like it's a fact substantial rights and goes to the fairness integrity in the process and the public record reputation of the courts finally the third prong of that is is in a related to because in a record i twelve was that he didn't have a control plan for the search of the motel room these thrust of the questions that the prosecutor was putting out the defendant in cross examination was trying to to  back to that one nine hundred ninety seven incident over objection repeated objection repeatedly sustained i think there were four objections sustained before they have the sidebar them counsel for the government says i need some direction  amount that was actually concealed and so even that doesn't really quite support you here because you're not looking you're not regarding as the proceeds to something he cannot with the money that he can  later that night a little interesting twist mean that you get to go see certain property as the government's as if it were the government's and i finally say as though that the rule and procedures the rule of law needs to come into effect here as to what the rule is it's going to be bringing about
gentleman from georgia thank mr chairman as because what happened yesterday number sixteen would be a duplicate of therefore i would ask unanimous consent that they vote on number sixteen price to twenty to be vacated is their objection to the request because none and i appreciate the gentleman initiating the begin with number fifteen am i correct a fourteen number fourteen the amendment offered by the gentleman annoying mr ruskin the court will call them all we will try to accommodate members they come let me say we want to have one two three amendments and then passage will move them quickly people can vote on passage and then  are there other members who were to be recorded no miss price miss price miss price votes yes mr castle to cast a vote yes mr king to king but yes mr royce mr royce votes no mr lucas mr paul
want to deal with we want to deal with each of them and and we just spent several minutes going around of what and if you just said in the st thing we didn't want we didn't respond we don't want to give a reason why we just did that ok but let's that your request for clarification you know i mean what do you mean if you look at the pretty clear what they were asking for so it's again if you want to keep requesting clarification that seems like it's a perfect way for bureaucrats in the government to keep dragging their feet you're already late and you know and i gotcha the language is pretty clear what the time is there why do you really need clarification well from a defense perspective  long time ago and i think that there's a pretty decent argument that the plain language of the statute doesn't really comport with a little faith so why should we adopt ogles face so to g you no government a longer time to drag their feet in plain language it seems like what congress was trying to do was say hey when you get they take them seriously get them done and that the t slow and if i look at parties and if i would say ok missed the st instead they didn't respond because they just didn't respond and then you're saying you're late because we're late and all of that and so it's great to say why don't the parties work together so that you don't bother all of us with your petty disagreements before you get to a federal court ok that makes sense but i find look at the language of the statute the statute seems to be wanting to hold the government to the fire it say that you have to put those time restraints constraints out there so where in the statute were you trying for the fact that they want to give the government more flexibility where or read that if you didn't see that and that likely that's something that could have been worked out with the agency in the administrative process it's not a jump the line go straight to court if you so used you would say that you was related to the timing of the request it did not reaffirm a commitment to not respond to the commercial it did not challenge the assessment of search fees it didn't cover any of the estimate that had been and submitted and there was a of records so that in that case that's within the even the response period although it should be noted that the agencies had already started crossing and working on that plane and ended up making a final production and even ninety three or four right you have all the rest of the four things that are before us yes your honor for you to prevail which one of those require us to  days over the agency didn't invoke the other ten days extra extension for exceptional services for that's why it ended up being late as compared to when and if i'm lying so the other two cases are just required you consider the prudential considerations of it in context and i would say the fact that the case showing how the agency was very it was a very short amount of time late five days they were working on the request
things that would be mitigated or at least more fully considered so that you could make that determination it's required as to whether or not life imprisonment should be  negatives could actually turn out to work in the families favor so that he would be considered as someone who have reaped rehabilitate potential and if you keep i mean you say well you didn't take advantage of opportunities you had waited you got this juvenile record well that's because you're impulsive you're not thinking like a thirty year old scientific fact tells us that there are developments that are still going to occur in the emerging adults brain in regard to behavior and what's appropriate what's know that's not what applies in this case but a defendant who's has a diagnosis of male retardation there have been times in the past that would be held against the defendant because it's you're not going to be able to learn here or your behavior is probably going to persist and there's been other times where that's been taken into account in terms of your mental capacity in his favor similarly here the record itself with the platter shows a series of factors that are arguably medical or mitigating not in terms of mitigating against the crime itself but references to psychiatric examinations references to being polls to references to not having any education and references to this bad environment those are exactly the same things that would be considered put they were considered in the back you of a time and a vacuum at a time when there was no recognition legally that young people are people in terms of behavior in terms of judgement in terms of impulsivity and i guess i don't understand why it's not retroactive is it is it not written radically because it's because it's just not or is it because procedurally in this case it doesn't have any retroactive the application because it was played appropriate for f adult i don't know if that's something that appears in the literature but someone close to that eighteen year old age who science would tell us is not acting
taken the pension plan or it he did not so instead what they put in was acquitted nation clause saying if there's any disagreement between the intent of this settlement agreement that your employee for all purposes including the benefit plans and the terms of the has to rely on outside legal interpretations of statute or contracts is that factual determinations or interpretation of the plan and where an initiative is thought to be a knowledgeable expert and to know more than everyone else when it comes to these legal issues with census there's no reason to defer to them if we're trying to figure out how a separate legal obligation should fit the data that's the expertise of the crew and then when was the entire process then all of them and then the second step to the
second case that is pending in the circuit court is that there is a dispute over all personal property within the church but in terms of addressing the merits of the case which seeks dissolution absolutely your opponent is relying on cases where europe has been determined that a court went too far let's say by picking which rabbi should run the congregation and your point is  saw property rights take of declarations from the court we asked for an order under the forcible entry became a wreck that would allow the plaintiff spec into their church we asked the court to adjudicate who could be directors or who should be directors and officers of the church so we always looked at that cases being a property rights and not a religion that case the religion certainly enters into it from day one when we found the action remained every plaintiff individually we also named every defendant individually findings and opinion added to it and the defendants sad ever seek to add additional members and their sad it just never happened snap in the record and i respectfully submit it's a it's a
they done the right thing back in two thousand and eight we would have worked this out either way in court if the judge had proper paper and so that didn't happen and what they did was they are laying and doing a delay and i was at a learning curve and by the way the judge was on a learning curve i was one of his  comments mr a one stretch appeal fails to present any arguable basis in law or in fact to overturn the jury's verdict in this case or to overturn the district court's rulings either with regard to the district court's decisions regarding the motion to dismiss or the motion for summary judgment mr alon steps appeal fails to present any evidentiary error or other type of error so efficient to interfere with the jury's verdict in any way and he fails to present any legal basis to revisit the district court's rulings dismissing of course of mr a one step claims under his rd amended complaint and granting some summary judgment as to the remainder of the claims and would that i would otherwise unless the court has questions rely on the submissions presented and i thank the court for its time i have no doubt that sullivan judge card questions amended complaint allege that certain unspecified defendants made misstatements regarding credit applications and also made hundreds if not thousands of telephone calls collection cause the district court dismissed those claims as