MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
we have we ever said that it was supreme whatever provided that sort of analysis as far as i have a much more to give me a trivial question but i don't quite understand why the district court after the shiny not connection size supplemental jurisdiction over the state they were specifically mentioned in the judgment so why do we believe they were dismissed because that's what the judgment said the hope is that there was a well that the clerk's office has a factual matter  not send them back to the state court correct  if it's not a question of abuse of discretion it's a question of ambiguity where the clerk treated that as a dismissal but the judge may not have intended that  so so you don't have any real problem with remain
million masterson traynor all these cases talk about the importance of due process and the liberty interest at stake mr waters interest could not be higher at this point and for the court not to figure out what was going on between him and
survey there are circumstances where a contractor has a valid legal right not to pay a general contractor perhaps they do not perform a car for fully their defense at sarah and that does not necessarily mean that the good morning you wouldn't mind standing out also with the dressing to restatement of the two sections and whether you believe your instructor for this court and how and whether they support your position thank you for the record your honor and more in parts representing the d i believe that both three statements support the position of my client i think i see the first restatement is kind of almost a negative statement about justin ritchie nearly states that you have to show something more than that the defendant does benefit but it doesn't really clarify what exactly they have to show some indefinite point in addition to there must be demonstrated on the third restating that section twenty five of the third restatement definitely goes more into detail and i think is correctly in line with our case  hard case as well as much of the case side that you're on his pension regarding other states and that all you here have to do is show that the defense is not subject to a forced exchange which i think in our case there's no question that they are and stuff so i'm going to of course exchange they really came out in the record on i think you did see in the record that sees about contracting in jail a construction share if they're both family businesses they have the same people involved as officers  this case you would be able to because we knew that jail a construction had now been paid this was now i don't think there's ever been any contention that there was a question as to whether they hadn't paid everyone knew they had know and i think that illinois to date has not and there's no actually signed traffic certainly but i do think illinois has adapted to three contests that we see repeated over and over again in many states in which you to do to and therefore you're trying but as i just it was a very broad construction of interest in richmond in my mind in swansea we had a situation where the homeowners directly contacted the sub contractors after the sub contractors completed their performance if you look over the course well time in that case if you look at the time the subcontractors performed their latest and delivery of materials on the day that the home owners took over the general contracting work so yes it is distinguishable on that basis but i think it i think it is informative that the court was in actually very concerned about the timeline as to when this contact occurred of course in our case we have testimony that you were contacted prior to many cases point to the fact that if the defendant knows that the plaintiff is looking to them for payment there is enough to render their retention of the benefit without payment on shots i mean i think in our case the day that
at times they were made in iraq to buy that gas in a hotel so there can be people who have temporary access to the contrary is not exclusive then with the exclusion doesn't apply n here we record on appeal this record on appeal says nothing with regard to the current status of the defense of the fact that the foundation of bet's of transpired in the case that sic are not in the record at all well carol sale did not
performances in the past and will in the future and i mean no harm what i'm going to say about him there today but in this particular case in his representation of time walkway he prepared for trial and when by limiting their scope he was convinced that what he could do was cross examine the alleged victim and ask if he would specifically determine and pinpoint a sexual misconduct toward her within that time frame in the state's attorneys right now in kentucky we might have said perplexed or surprised shocked anyway what one likes this very well he was surprised he indicated he was surprised and that is because here the issue is structured it changed the framework of the trial process it wasn't just here during the process and i said you to the macar things discussed in weird off the top they talked about the emotional nature of yours and how they'd be tend to be very sympathetic to rape victims that's the case in every case they talk about concern tom ollie had about the big wig correctly testified to it to that extent i used the word judge a low he basically had to get by it because other things were important but really when it comes down to it it's the test it's the t circumstances that he would have probably done it anyway and it was well i guess at this point though the trial judge determined from the evidence that he would have or that there was not a reasonable well there's no there's no claim in the post conviction petition and all about you know the defense trial strategy threatening flawed i mean given its part of the whole argument what i mean the focus here or it's the same thing because you know what you just said is that he's saying a judge would look would weigh the evidence differently and what he was told here is that you know they're going to produce the same evidence but a judge is better a even though there's a reasonable probability that he wouldn't for example the absence of physical evidence would be more compelling to a judge to a mom that wants to spend ones when you don't have d n a evidence on
court should have done so that remember the court stated that it did not believe that it had the discretion and that's that's the issue here this is not the right to an examination but the discretion to order an examination
time and so he as most of you know was an artist very quirky artist you can see things around here in the thing when you're looking at some of the stadiums you really gotta look manage by very hill over there is so filming her remarks in europe and the pictures largely because we'd like to be able to send a video of her while she was living in minnesota and was unable to be here so  it's not a speech it's informal and we're just going to talk back and forth i think the sister said a few stories to tell and any of you have stories to tell please jump in and join snow on the side of the room and i couldn't figure out what it was exactly i slowed down and looked and it was a person in a kind of unusual position going along the side of the world and i looked again and it was just a chef guess the big team others they go for such as the golden gopher only go for so many brother has a basketball area and he's got a big picture of the go for on the wall down there that my father had done for the kids  out to minnesota my daughter was very upset she was probably six or seven of the time my dad would say change and i think you did this for your kids to sit at this big pile of change one of the shelves you know was give it to their grandchildren so the other was very upset you know as the years it's right he did build it before he did but you could see he was you know how it's taking a look like that was the burlington free press you know that was taught in the old burlington free press and you know you take little bits and pieces of this but the good the most interesting part i found was on the back he would always each out the truth and he would write down all you know the events of history on the back of all of his wo i think there was like a moves or something  i can think of i remember it was you know you you talk about his love of the trees and everything he started taking on trees and every year he would cut precisely this log off out that fate and this you perfect yeah and they were all lined up and they were they fill the whole area on the porch and i used to love to watch as he when he used to pick on me since i love watching you move the lawn you go around
never be certain circumstances i think mr wayne mentioned where it would be reasonably necessary for the person to come out and say and stay there because it wouldn't end and so that would be the reasonably at the employees for use in a day care center so there is one charitable but they were i took it that they were reasonably necessary to the if i marry use  but it certainly shouldn't be reversed
clearly indicate that his concern of the judges concerned is that he didn't want to spend public funds hiring an attorney somebody who in his view had a perfectly good attorney so ultimately this case is about  i would disagree with counsel with regard to the characterization of the trial judge clearly concerned only of all public funds i don't think that there's any mention i've noticed i don't recall any mention all of the trial judge saying can discharge and hire a different counsel but often that when that happens the discharge and period there is into play occasioned is it unlikely that a delay would have been occasioned in this case based upon the other case and other factors can he pay for it isn't returned if if there's a problem in and later mr fulton even sense you know he's got a problem with my strategy and we can work together and they talk about being a magician in being an attorney it never seems to be much discussion about how can he afford another turn and that seems to be the problem here all just because you can afford an attorney to point a to point b doesn't mean to do it all the way to the end does it what they're asking for now that's what i'm saying they want more rights for someone who's indigent than someone who has money because we know their person who has money and can hire the council cannot automatically come in and say i want to just church because i'm  the key here is that the constitutional right is to representation now in insularity some part of the f b i is where you have someone who can afford representation we afford to give you indigent people i counseled by the counselor choice period because it will cost millions probably in a lot of cases and so what we do is we do the best we can and that is that we make the public defend challenges in effectiveness of privately retained counsel he must go on and hire another attorney yet that that's pretty specific language it doesn't say he can ask for a public defender and says you must go out and hire a higher
some barriers first of all notification a law that he would like to see a p r campaign to notify the public about this law which of course would be an excellent idea and especially for those like visitors the information right there's always going to be some people who don't know about it so it may have been a warning i think it's a good thing any other questions we exactly what i legislation to look like before we you know because they need to be able to read legislation prior to that public airing so we are prepared at that point to that point concertedly you know to work with the property owner to do that no there is no budget line to bring in the house the affirmative action mental position when you do something that we have talked about but really haven't gotten to that point get the other part of it is also that there is not ben  starting tomorrow afternoon remember sixteen and on a public hearing coincide with the city council meeting on
not his daughter to be in contact with the perpetrator who can he should he should not be removed from his child's life because over three other is able to fully investigate all things she said regarding the unsupervised visits that started recently riley's behavior has not been good after unsupervised visits with her father she  throwing water on her mother and has been disrespectful following visits with jo's then she goes on to say this i know her he that's being joe the father says things to her rightly because he's
i don't believe i have that i made but i also don't believe that they did a separate valuation i add my understanding is they did know you the whole building and then it was a matter of working down to what the restaurant sure w seventy percent which would be a share of the whole building within a solution of the part of the first floor of this not by the at the college to page or if he if we were to where the part of the college accepting my calculations in the twenty fifteen trial of the night point seventy percent which was after you limited our parents to the share that's truly attributable to the restaurant parties of course the performance under the lease we sought to introduce evidence of the way the original owner in the original property management company had calculated lease and judge we all and she's she says that he never said in writing that they owed anything so your position would be that they denied holding camp and taxes i think it would be a stretch for me to say that i would i thought it didn't hold any camera texas actually  was at some point in response they had said that there will be a refund of camera taxes that they were previously p with that piece that we believe was more beneficial than what the he said and then we went to our subtitle and asked for the say and ask for that to acknowledge the fourth amendment please which they refused to and  theirs had been filed before the december december final order the trial court expressly rule that it was not going to consider a fee petitions until after the case was concluded and the judge entered the incorrect that the court should have selected one of the other two rulings is our main argument that the police controls here the four corners at least controls at the forty nine point seven percent
that i don't believe the statute provides for notice of the situation and i know that mr eugene in the from reading the transcript mentioned the fact that in the pond interview situation people have three days notice sequence is out of work just did anybody ever it's all if you execute this you have a possibility of being relieved the record does not reflect when we finally got them you know they were held regardless of having executed that agreement just because you know we were in a fourth term motion like we were here and then justices based upon throughout why would you been able to get away if they want to come in a timely fashion we would have had definitely had a lot we would have had enough time to actually bring her back i think the reason why the state attorneys i don't know this for a fact my instincts tell me that i think the reason why the state's attorneys appeared in court on the eighteenth is that the fact that the county hasn't picked her up in a timely fashion which county kids getting her back i've gotten to the defense characterization that it did anything wrong in this case to the sequences disempower but if you were to remember steve and she would still remain refusing to sign a written agreement to appear she would still be covered have to be the only or the most important way is to be materially false charge but based on the additional information that i've received in the state's response i think it's clear that they have been numerous
the underlying principle in this case is one of fundamental fairness this case began ninety eight six when caroline campbell filed mission for eight he added retroactive child support from the date of filing her petition through july sixteenth nineteen ninety six in the amount of calculated through july sixth ninety six is important because that's when he turned out the rear each and did and from that point on paying the same amount they were ordered to pay this child's or that's correct that's exactly right and to me the reason that i think there may be a distinction in this case is because it if a person's been paying their child it kind of implies there have the ability to pay that amount they've been paying if they have the ability to pay that amount here the money was actually coming from social security disability the six hundred seventy nine dollars a month month and there's no income or just a small amount of disability and to me that can justify the difference in truth we'll say to my my response to that is that the this the social security disability payment is is covered under the federal law where up to fifty five percent  respondent so we believe you i believe that the record shows that he gets about fourteen hundred dollars a month after child support order for one child would see how many children are there one day and my my argument is that that he guests actually avoided particular statute what we're doing on this court is that yeah and it's it's in the record that the parties stipulate  bucks whatever was ok if he then just say i care i don't get that social security disability that i mean i can't be that much because my income doesn't allow me to pay that much and it's set
course question should we read to the district court for a resolution question given that district courts apparent reliance on the delaware
that the witnesses couldn't agree on their on their on their stories facts and it does make a difference because if there is there are so many consistency should begin to question case are very serious and the seriousness of the crime is considered the most important factor and that means there's no doubt life changed on the cimarron t v two thousand for the defendant had a choice that
angles and even think of blending some different arguments and you going a little fast let me ask you this you said you could find no case and elements i just maybe you addressed this in the course of your argument the williams workforce required using those tools and they observed that it his job duties were supervisory in nature and seemed to be very minimal as to the repetitive activity the commission he has to believe one contradicted so smart or can they say we don't believe well i'm actually one who seems to be a deal that shows him doing all sorts of stuff like gardening and other things they could turn around and
to reach an inference that is not supported by the evidence this is another case where we have two competing medical opinions and the commission chose to believe one doctor for another this is a case where you have no and i'll read it to you again i read it to you the first time noble contributing factor to our current physical complaints the omari findings appear consistent with normally to lead to changes reflecting structural very north within normal innocence suggesting clinically insufficient back she comes in and the doctor says you have a broken back and you have an impairment rating of ninety some percent of your vamp but all by the way it has nothing to do with your by two which is going to respond or central theme here is bin but she's clearly injured the medical reports shoulder she's injured so how do you respond to th injuries where they are suffering from those multiple injuries when she testified to that and is truthful and honest and said listen everything in her i was in a serious car accident my entire body was so were everything her but then after a couple of weeks that's when i began to be able to differentiate between my symptoms during this visit is also the first time she complains of parities this and this in her hands the commission is very clear if we go through complaints were documented in dr forces records but there is nothing inconsistent in the medical records with regards to the progression of her symptoms and the progression of her injuries over time and i believe that the commission decision the
allusion to the second issue i don't know that any noticeable satisfactory which is off the second issue which i respectfully disagree with now and that i never saw or the court found any kind of ambiguity in this case don't you have to find some ambiguity before you allow that the opening language notwithstanding anything else to the contrary doesn't refer to the other paragraphs used to it i'm saying is you have an amendment to this particular section which is on payment to say paragraphs one through twenty five but the amendment does applied to the entire section that you're referencing so you're referencing the extension paragraphs why is it that we can't read it that way and then there's some confusion or confusion back and forth about who said what is it your position that under the strict construction of the lease that that doesn't matter all that where did he get that from when the language of the lease did he find that this side providing it's exercise yes in the other least you have to exercise your options and then the paragraph that held out excuse me how to exercise that option and so that's why i was asking the question is a paragraph or and doesn't relate to any of the how to exercise it relates to the as you say it eliminates all these other option has no obligation with i mean there's no contractual relationship no ability to enforce why should they accept the letter from some third party touche to sh plaintiff that the thirty maybe thirty one correspondence was not sufficient notice under the lease if that's true that you were notified on june fourth there was still time to you the facts i mean as to the the what was said i mean were depositions i guess submitted into the record and everything like that you think that ok so it
i am not a coat and tie and suit person by preference but if i afterwards shirt and a tie for court and i want your shirt button and your tie all the way u
attorney must represent to the court in a filing has is based on a reasonable it for it and thus it does not appear that post tax investigation is material to the p r i inquiry and then on at the time perhaps that it was filed that it is not objectively basis basis your theory is that nonetheless the p r a i was violated that's right that's exactly right because your and i dress in there is nothing that's been established in this record that they might later determine that it was in fact that there was in fact probable cause in fact the once original infringement belo remains objective lee baseless and cannot be cured by a later high profile hypothetical construction or positive construction the facts in this case have never changed there was no probable cause at the time it was fi thirty forty two in the record and the judge said at page eight of the record way these fast weighed in favor of fighting that poster actually may feel shared a common interest in fact shareholder and a minority subsidiary can conspire with the parent but also mayfield as this document three forty two shows may feel invested in both post x and goldfish and post x and goldfish are competitors because before her before mr morgan had been appointed to the board of a post office he he did agree with mister thomas to file a patent case based upon achieved they filed a lawsuit without any prevailing investigation to stop seagal in the market they conspired to do that and then they post dated mr morgan back on to the post x board arguing that a board member and not ratified and illegal act and that conspiracy between a minority owner namely mayfield and post x to file sharing case without any effort whatsoever to establish that they did an adequate proof of investigation and i believe that the the opinions of this federal circuit in q four in june versus the united states and in view clear that  what about conspiracy as well as whether or not they have to be competitive where they can fire up one shareholder spears no conspiracy to perform a legal act exactly