MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
three well and that's the will your honour's and i have heard about this morning and i and i'd like to know a few things about that will but for right to the trial court looked at the nine hundred eighty  three and consistent with its obligation under illinois law that moved to that will certainly within the four corners of the document because as we've all been seated there was no other evidence presented there was no other contract attached and not relevant what this court has to decide is read that document create or not create enjoy mutual wills a contractual nature that means there has to be a contract the parties agreed that the surviving spouse cannot prove the will and a later time your honor i believe it was your honor ask what the standard was and i would like to offer that the clear and convincing standard is that quantum of proof which means no reasonable doubt in the minds of the trial the fact under the truth of the issue and that comes from in ways we vs the state which is cited in  go out for chinese food and you could order a family dinner and you could order one from column name to come from column b and three from column c and you would call those pieces together and you would make your dinner round here what counsel is arguing and  no indication that it was not practicable because among other things the property was left to the surviving spouse for his or her sole and exclusive use and benefits that they ever think on it many of the cases the couples have pushed children from higher marriages and so when we drag them to a when they sat down and drafted their will and said listen ribbit we want to make sure each of our kids gets their share of the money shares the test interest could not have intended to really create a life state that's what happens in helms and that's what happened in in the later cases you don't have to back here to do all you don't have anything remotely like that here you have but you have can there be a contract not to him off and needs to be that contract concept we're not saying that again there has to be a contract separate out there but this document does not have contractual language it does
and you know and so your argument is because she complied once the truck or should the found that she's not likely to comply with probation because she didn't know all the other times i mean are we really kind of making a distinction without  a minute she didn't comply going to the said i still find that she's not likely to comply with the terms of probation because of all these other times she did put her on that's exactly why we're asking for the case to one of the reasons we're asking the case to be remande ok and then the officer found the drugs i mean could the court consider the fact that she was involved in an accident and is possibly causing harm loaded gun in her purse when they condemn it and she was never charged with a loaded gun or anything for whatever reason you know could could the court at sentencing consider the fact that she had a loaded gun in close proximity to the drugs  felony probation due to the fact that she had completed task at this time that's in the record all we know is that she did complete treatment under the task the circumstances of the possession and the circumstances of the possession were she had the the drug in the context of the traffic accident and she was charged with driving under the question i mean can the court consider that as causing harm and contemplating possibly causing harm you know maybe perhaps she she was fiddling with her  can this if this court can find that it's not a use of discretion to do in this circumstance and considering the circumstance that  the the last thing that the defendant complains about is that the court did not specifically consider in mitigation that the defendant pled guilty to the underlying offense and the answer to that is the court is not  it but should in that it is an abuse of discretion to the court not to find it but on the other hand the court did consider the factors but found that they weren't present and that's a different thing
concrete supposed to moderate the quick gave you the order you think you're asking for tell me how your client would be in a different position tomorrow after that order issued and it is today well for one  those things were and how they endured you know you are the complaint how can you injury in fact aspect of it even if it's not move how is there an injury in fact if there's nothing in the complaint identifying how any of those past problem by saying that you were seeking to have named past actions invalidated a declared illegal and i could see how that might not be moot but how were you injured by any of the past actions you're video device and  that information was fully incorporated into prep this fiscal plan and budget that fiscal plan a budget has run their course that have been superseded by additional new fiscal plan a new budget that happened in june executive order itself which there's a movement argument because the executive order terminated then there's an argument about the actions taken during the period of time in which the executive order was in place which would seem to get mootness problem but runs into a standing problem the point of that is that vigorous ability point is that a moot point that a standing point is that there is no declaratory judgment the act doesn't allow such a generalized i just don't quite  this court can resolve it hasn't been presented with a vehicle to actually deal with the problem that the opponents are complaining of and so i think you have problems there on both levels your other no this the confused by your the way you're describing it aren't they seeking a declaratory judgment that actions taken during the time to executive order was in place are knowledge void question it may be just semantics but i guess it's just the residue of whatever's left of their claim given the fact you described about the financial statements having been issued and incorporation to the budget that would not seem to be terms which had been set before the litigation committees and this is a collateral consequences as the parents try to slip it into you because the collateral consequences doctrine is usually limited to criminal matters and well some circuits that extended it to civil matters the only dose where there's an ongoing stigma arising from a dispute that has concrete effects on the interparty for example is still in this declared mentally incompetent and loses his right to vote for it to sit on a jury what's going on so unless the court has any questions will rest on our papers for the remaining points let me just ask one question which is sort of in left field i think but would a beneficiary of the plan have or down and somebody gets the down while somebody else gets the op so it's you know it's not a concrete it's that scenario that i can give you but i'm just i'm just wondering if there is an uncertainty thank you that concludes the argument in this case attorney ramos an attorney sushant an attorney loni else an attorney rapoport you should disconnect from the hearing at this time
just made people clear out the last calculation that would sweep in everything correct except the district court was correct in rejecting that i'm not sure why the government should be able to now on appeal argue for a right he's got the nd degree murder standard he's got gross negligence but in between it seems to be new what the guidelines standard is and that there's no statement about measuring it against that standard you know i think the right here certainly does not track a guideline and may have been sloppy but i don't think that mace has determination based on sitting through the trial and hearing the evidence clear really erroneous that that the government did not use burden to prove mr chen an act with  section established with respect to the patients that there was not crossing the cause there was no evidence that any of these patients have a rider on these representations and that he was able to find that they met the definition of victims the entire did you raise to the district court the argument that you if he thought we did you have a chance to raise this argument if once you define it as two thousand and ten to two thousand and twelve everything then it was everything for that time gather that once you do that you have to take all of the consideration that there is still you will see segregated the actual bad drugs from the rest of the drugs that's why the sentencing calculus is are giving ross numbers to just terms which included losses attributable to things that they were selling that were not subject to the u s b standard and all because you were contending that they were on the hook for everything they sold and i don't understand what legal theory with a title do you to say that because the law is has to be able to criminal conduct and the only criminal conduct you point t are very powerful drugs that have to be manufactured and in accordance with very clear standards they have no ability to detect any sort of criminality in that process and that doesn't mean that every  can't be all sales because that would include things that have nothing to do with the criminal conduct like the motions if that argument was never made then i don't quite see why the government isn't in a position to now say well it was not what it should have been it should have drugs as being f d a approved which would not be a approved there's a specific comment and the last are the line that says if you represent something is being approved by a regulatory body and it isn't then you can say
you think his you think he would be subject to some sort of less confining placement then what the judge gave that's a possibility plan was based upon the facts are based upon the law that permits such a alternative place but it certainly doesn't seem to suggest that that the facts of this case would result in such  a less confining placement given the nature of this individual and i'm not talking about his convictions i'm talking about his unwillingness to undergo anything that he was obligated it's true in with regard to the end there were also statements regarding this individual that he acknowledged to himself post that there was there was the statement so under those facts even if the law is as you say that more thorough disposition hearing should have been held why do you think the outcome would have been any different just scored the central issue with regards to this position hearing refuse to participate in an interview as part of the about action which was right here so this is the case law say when people refuse to do those things that they're not entitled to and you have a case that would show then mean isn't the final determination whether this man would be a repeat offender the with regards to the this position here here he the inquiry is where the most appropriate place for treatment options the options would either be secure confinement or conditional release in the community here the third factor would be relevant because treatment is not it is a predi  likelihood of a good result for your client but but but you know when you're when you want to preclude that term expert from being use adjustment that but by pointing that out you're not suggesting that the judge should ignore the question and the judge certainly should have answered the question accurately so where where where witnesses or pinions however the work expert itself connotes a certain level norseman especially when it comes from the trial judge there is the risk that the sure it reaches an outcome regarding the information as to the respondents current situation his current mental status and provide information during protective factors risk level of treatment all these things that come out at trial and those are the stats records that were that was continued sexual offenses throat for twenty years even in an institution he is unable to control this appeal urges he has a mental disorder he needs treatment and he provided  absolutely no assurance that he would participate and treatment and so the court had enough information as to all three factors under section forty yards or so less as far as the questions we with regards to the whether there was a sufficient amount of evidence already in the record we carry actors but what can that be the spewed it is that there was no testimony regarding the factor regarding what treatment regime it's or avail there was no testimony here you're saying even from their side that's right you never got a chance to call into question what they were
to ten miles an hour a day and a point at which she saw the defendant's vehicle was about to hit her and what she did was instantaneous then then i think there's a question of did she have time in order to do anything to respond to seeing the lights seen seen seen the back up place if in fact she said she saw the back case but but the point that i'm trying to make on bad particular issue is there was no issue of consequence in this case that could be aided by the introduction of the photographs  witnesses in this in this case the plaintiff head to treaters who testified that the injuries that are suffering that were sustained in this case or that they were suffered by my client were enacted to the accident physician dr bennett testified that a person can play pain free golf even with a rotator cuff injury he also testified that continue to play god most likely was not going to further  completely absent of this whole and i think i think the real reason that golf was thrust into this case and was thrust into this case quite extensively through cross examination of the plaintiff instructed the jury to disregard that comment but i think the importance of mentioning there is that it reveals the purpose for all of this argument all this testimony regarding golf  four days six days whatever was that's not a significant amount of time and she did testify that she suffered pain in her shoulder and she did testify that she thought she was treated with with with gail her sitters some pain medication  for the jury's consideration but i don't think the argument ever was that the pain and suffering that she experienced was in power when she played golf i think all her testimony was that the pain and suffering had to do with a an instruction to the jury  plaintiff golf was the cause of the injuries and if it wasn't the act and it could be relatively relevant to whether or not morning ten thousand dollars was provided with a lot of evidence in this case that it should not have been provided with what should could have influenced his decision and it's awarded damages particularly in light of a case where it's looking evidence  substantiate the lack of the significance of her injury to be cured with an over the counter medication door to any army testimony or examination of a witness indicating that there's a causal relationship between the cough and the injuries and who said that there was there was the question that was asked
of a cohabitation claim in conjunction with maintenance or true in the nation of maintenance the major factor is combination of money that there is some the one used to a different kind of dating relationship but if it seems like things are very fluid in the in the path that somebody is dating or even in a committed dating photo think she had much of anything you know i think that is a better album that everything looks larger bigger happier better and facebook i mean that that's you know that sort of the crisis of the modern age is that everything
provided to him there is no evidence in this case whatsoever that dr besser has ever been to illinois that he has any financial interest in illinois or any other evidence that would tie him to the state of illinois other than without without exaggeration these two short to be clear the emails themselves were sent to a single individual they contain very matter of fact explanations and aspirations and are short in both substance and bereft of hyperbole insult or any kind of gossip as as  the defendants and hansen as well as the defendant in this case took no affirmative action to conduct any activities in illinois in hansen those were individuals who literally received a phone call from someone in illinois were asked questions about something that they may or may not have been involved in they denied any involvement and that was the extent of their contact to separate and distinct phone calls and hence the course also held that contrary to applebee's argument in this case that the last act out or meet namely that well i've suffered damages in illinois and therefore personal jurisdictions appropriate they also from that argument in this case the parallels we believe are almost could be any clear accuracy of certain information in discrete simple short conversations between only two individuals they didn't reach out and express their opinion they were asked about certain information and they responded neither saw their involvement in the communications and both were merely in that case contacted the plaintiff directly not in this case they had an interactive website where they sought this out sales from all they they actually put information out into the world that involved defendants who reached in an interim illinois and encouraged hundreds of individuals to boycott the plaintiff two he provided that person's address and they contacted the plaintiff directly there was a series of a actions that about certain allegations made against point if none of which were made by dr kessler he hasn't he didn't echo a single one of them he didn't call him any names or indeed he didn't actually defame him in any way again that's not analysis that's appropriate for today but embarrassed and difficulties this is much more generic almost observational language versus active language attempting to encourage a boycott encourage an individual to suffer economic consequences in illinois pieces that had anything to do with defamation whatsoever because there are there are no illinois cases there are no federal cases there are no pieces from across the country i've went where there are similar facts were individual who sent correspondence any in any respect similar to
the first case is people versus clifford roberts please call the case admittedly very brief yesterday his testimony that he didn't even recognize or notice the person selling crack cocaine until he was directed there by the person selling him heroin and this was also come at by the fact that he was inside trying to keep middle east looking at that so clearly they had a some question as liability at that age that absalom is made of both in court and through the photo spread advisory and which brings us to the second point which is the state's use of the i would agree that it would not make as much of a difference if the plate as the state specifically used to show the procedure and which the police used it's not a case where somebody challenges you suggest this that occasion and then said and then testified could be held against him i don't see it when i looked about the record i don't see that question asked of all but there was no indication for my review of the record that court did specifically talking about i told you that with the burden of proof that means the defendant doesn't have to testify on his own behalf yet use his right in this case as well as every criminal case it is their right to choose not a slightly different question and even the little more understand it is there anybody that has a problem with that being a fundamental principle of our criminal law system that the defendant does not have to testify nobody raised the other officers were able to locate the defendant and break and then there was a positive identification and clerk he had that kind of struck to view during the time of the crime witnesses identification is sufficient if there's if it's under circumstances circumstances just use me removing the positive identification and as i outlined through those facts th it was a very general form there was no reference to the defendant there was no reference to the charge crime it was simply the offer stating that he at that time viewed a lineup then that he did not have to pick anyone ou there is no way the best prejudicial there's nothing in that to the best or the positive identification of the offer made again it goes to procedure and because it wasn't prejudicial i'm to establish or trying to create is trying to create a situation where the jury is a formed up all of the principles there are no magic words that can be used in every case to do that that's also the jazz in this case if we look at
do you do you believe the law allows even though i made notes was not a war made craft and that order is long gone from a thirty days point of view the question i have for us do you believe that maintenance can still think that his financial disclosure adequately indicated the amount of retirement pay he would actually receive once the deductions were taken out under fourteen away i do  so is it your position that the court should have known that he was going to see through twenty two hundred dollars or do you think the court and thought he was going to receive thirty eight hundred dollars i think the thought that he was the girl knew that he was receiving the three thousand nine hundred sixty dollars i think were the four areas that they did not break down where the source of that three thousand one hundred  just responded that is the court thought he was going to receive the greater amount but in fact both federal law says he can't correct do you think that the court made a mistake when it warranted no maintenance referring to some information that was put into a motion to enforce crafts and in that mention is that the petitioner or the husband i guess  they took out an additional two thousand dollars as a deduction for the monetary benefits and petitioner has been receiving amount less than six hundred dollars from their way in this really is i mean is that true of all he's currently receiving i mean if he's getting a one hundred forty seven dollars now the quote was only told that he would rather quote was told he was going to get twenty two hundred ten dollars and forty seven seconds so i don't understand how your client can take the position trial the evidence was basically that he was receiving thirty nine dollars in military retirement and some additional monies and be a disability the  have been receiving has disability payments how could that happen under the statute that he would receive that amount and yet everything was being deducted at the time of the trial with t want to ask you a question before you start out now or just because that's kind of the way things go with me right now we were talking about finality of the property settlement and it seems that the core january twenty property distribution it was a property settlement it was not appealed in thirty days and yet there was an order entered in january on january twenty second twenty fifteen that amended the waived the right to raise the stoppel for example with regard to well they didn't raise this back in you know when they should have a