MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on april twenty second the petitioner received a decision letter telling him he was going to be removed it was not going to be affected until the twenty fifth he went home that night got onto the m s p no problem with audience but the regulations do not permit that now they have an interim regulations that are probably very reasonable for a customer service point of view that if it's a few days pre mature will soon until it goes as opposed to what was at the twenty second or yeah the twenty second then you would agree that he had made his election that election was binding even if he came in on the twenty seventh and said oops no i want to go t lives this entire case turns on whether the twenty second notice of appeal has to be treated just as if it had been filed on the twenty sixth and if it is you proceeding but he had and i suppose continues to have potentially a claim before the m s p b could he go back to the in the speech be at this point and say i am now filing a motion to reopen my case because of the circumstances which included my leaving reasonably but incorrectly depending on how this case comes out reasonably but ultimately determined to be incorrectly that my withdraw all was not effective to grant me rights to go to the grievance proceeding and therefore i want to proceed as i initially did down the only channel i have left which is the m s p with that motion emotion that he could file with any prospect of  right but that can can't work against both of the roots and that says that once he elected the misspeak he had for every way if this right to proceed by the grievance and that's what the arbitrator help but you can't say that well he that somehow this is what would happen i mean shouldn't there be a clear statement that a filing early can become a timely filing and be that you have to make an election so that once you file your shit you have to stick with that if it's hasn't weighed in at this apprehension as to the effect of the early filing because there's no other way to explain his ultimate decision to withdraw the m s p be filing since if you are so when he choose chose to go the grievance rupie obviously had made a determination whether based on the union reps or miss misapprehension of its own he had made terminations that the whatever he did in the
dismissal without an evidentiary hearing of a petition for opposing vision relief but the procedural circumstances are unusual to the point where i believe i have to first address whether this court in fact can two thousand and seven and the most to reconsider was postmarked on september thirteenth of two thousand and seven which is this they pointed out that thirty one days rather than thirty days had a lapse and so the motion they argue was you know untimely therefore when the court finally ruled on the most reconsider several months later and then advised defend mr wells had placed his pleading in the prison mail in a timely fashion and therefore it had been timely far all this was this ruling was the result of the judge hearing testimony library on september twelfth was with in thirty days or so that was a proper mailing even though it wasn't actually put in the us mail until the next day and that's the way the prison mail system operates and the judge found that that was conclusive is clear it was virtually impossible for him that's mr wills to get a notary on that document he used the form that was provided to have been had what would call an affirmation or an affidavit affirmation which is what the prison was providing prisoners in this situation which they believed was in compliance with whatever filing rules they were in the evidence as to here including the fact that i think that there's a there's a serious question of the due process right that is in court if there is a rule a prisoner have to follow to get his pleading in the corps with the prison would not allow him to follow that r was a direct question to be the c e o of a paralegal about that time period and the question was so he would not have been invited in notary at this time and the response was that two thousand and four which would have made it a trial or was it down there with you in march of two thousand and five which would have made it on time now it was never even filed i don't know if that's the one you're speaking of or not here the thing is with respect to because there's there is proof here that it was time manual and the fact that it had a postmark of september thirteenth proved that it had been put in the prison mail at least the day before  there's an officer with him and he says officer troy are to speak to the prison mail system the judges response to that was to say i'm not taking evidence today and so there was no testimony of the matters that would be resolved by a hearing where the the p ninety six form would be would be compared to the intimate trust farms maintained by the institution the numbers match they would show that that document that said this is my post condition of addition i want posted to mail it that that's what on in my brief but i believe that their focus in that case is whether or not the issue was default because as it as i understand it in that case the trial judge did tell the
in her letter to him now when he pled guilty to the first degree murder of his firm or sixteen month old child regarding a per se conflict of interest the threshold inquiries of whether counsel represented or represents a party of conflicting interests of those of their a tie to a person or entity either kills his client warrior only previous commitments which would benefit from an unfavorable verdict for the defendant defended his not argued or shown that mr harper ahead of time to any interest that would benefit from unfair from favorable verdict in this case the spice court also stated that a person the conflict would insist the defense counsel had a prior work contemporary nice association with either the alleging kercher was ineffective and that she horseman pleading guilty in a motion to withdraw her purse stated that she considered defend his allegations to be false and quote that to continue her representation of defend represent the coin in a rule six point two c discusses republicans in the context of a lawyer trying to withdraw from representation in the first place before they're even appointed but we sh against defendant was overwhelming defendant confessed to bending the sixteen month old victim backward to her to pop he told police that he broker and there was no one else that could have committed this crime at the eviden he repeatedly inconsistently alleged throughout her had been ineffective in course in pleading guilty therefore post conviction counsel and not have provided a reasonable systems are not arguing at the evidentiary hearing an issue defendant did not position or has in this case to present argument on an issue that was not even raised in the decision our supreme court in greer stated that fulfillment of rule six fifty one c obligations to make amends to the petition does not require please post you consider the strickland factors they can be applied to an unreasonable systems claim also but the standard of belief is a little lower for a reasonable sissons than it would be for ineffective assistance it's i suppose you could do any kind of thing there or you could take the average the life expectancy tables which were not discussed in this case anywhere and i suppose you could use life expectancy tables do you come up with an average
blends with other reeds you have to refer back to the predecessor provisions of the orders to determine what those of the greedy it's are in those other ingredients clearly within the well which i don't think he would agree because he would say yes he does now that his is a blend in the first sentence as the scope of these orders includes all grades and regulations of citric acid in their own blood it forms well see that would be if we didn't have that second clause that would be a proper outcome but it's the second cause you we've heard the government symbol that includes certain crofts of unnecessary implication it also excludes
then the additional felony charges were filed after he had requested his right to a jury trial and the court in that case in dealing with the fact o char so what is god contention all along is that in this case defendant had to come up with factual allegations that for he did the prosecution and frankly the timeline doesn't show anything with respect to either own it simply shows what was happening what was going on and when this charge is final the finding of the filing of the charges in this case the to allow the scholar in this case was wrong the state in order to contest that finding good contest that the probably of doing it is exactly what has happened here the trial judge in the dismissing the case and we now what that is saying to me is or what the trial judge may very well the same because the ruling that i have that i quoted in my reply group indicates that he's reviewed the timeline he's reviewed the information fast so there's no automatic white any kind of discovery of this which is the reason why defense counsel to begin with filed a motion for discovery with the trial judge in the first instance requesting additional discovery above and beyond what is  erstand procedure they mean we can love from the back looking bad but procedurally this is that's all we can do everything right but this is the thing about it any time you raise a selective or vindictive  we've decided now was the issue and the other issue that i want to talk about in this case is even then the court the issue before the court was our request for discover court did and what we claimed on our cross appeal is that it erred in going a step too far in saying i'm going to deny me the opportunity to it was always our position regardless of whether what his ruling was on the discovery issue to then at a subsequent hearing attempt to resign and meet the threshold that we would have needed to me to stand  we never presented evidence but the case was in at this stage for us to present evidence are we were trying to gather evidence on the discovery issue if the judge grants knife the discovery we still had it showed up had an opportunity to present evidence even if even if the motion had been a deny we still should of had the right to come sinhalese similar is situated people who had done the same thing and not been charged had not been charged then i think that you would rarely does that happen rarely does that happen we think that we also it was on a horse given the stipulation that it applied here that shawn said don that by and under the circumstances we think that this is absolutely appropriate for the court and should have granted  they wanted to discover the information that they needed in order to be able to articulate or lend of progress in that prosecution and he says well but even if we could allege that you still want to have a hearing on wait a minute you on and to give discovery on all kinds of facts potentially totally unrelated to this charge for i think that under the circumstances of this case and by the i mean here i think it's clear that they're pleading in no way shape or form here
underlying concern that they didn't express crash now why even thank you very much right now the honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock
housekeeping you're our cheryl as a very unsophisticated woman her life revolved around her home her child and she depended upon her husband roger to take care of business your brief indicates that seven days before the trial roger produced one monthly combined account statement three thirty one eleven that's correct does that have to do and it did then her name appear on distributions and there's a big difference between those two i received distributions and did this from a company that pays me but i don't need the determination he had an interest in the company but not controlling interest in the company
were a defendant didn't show up at trial that doesn't prevent me from putting on my case and my case in this case could be proven by our  in a summary judgment motion the only requirement for me as a plaintiff if the fund is for summary judgment is to produce evidence that raises the question of fact i don't have to  room motion for summary judgment the purpose of the core or one purpose of the court is simply to determine does a question of fact exist with the question of fact to question of fa that you're still not going to have to come to present and no evidence to get past the summary judge well good night oh yes right i understand what you're saying and i think you're correct that t reconsideration requested certain things they asked for a complete transcript of a deposition which they can go to parts of they asked for from rooms in which they were given i think they also asked for the employers report opposition was provided in connection with the motion reconsider so this is all the judge can hear over these three pages and all that is contained in these three pages is the even if you do consider the picked the garage the position  he could be refuted by by the daughter and son in law of the sea they were at the house all the time there and that's in the same condition known as  taken a month later that's not what it looked like at the time moment but the samon daughter could say the same thing they could say this in other words they
mr murphy of pennsylvania  gordon gordon
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa
license as you know but he didn't for a period of time so that was criminal activity during that period of time that's like saying a peep desist marijuana two weeks ago and they find something in your blood you can't be charged with because it's long it's two weeks ago transfer their guns during that time period so it's not that immediately there is some type of misdemeanor to be for we did not like this period and additionally  the issue is moot because of say the public interest to the make of her again we have the right to invoke that doctrine don't think where am i wrong about our power here you have the right to determine whether exemption exists that's ok so i have a question about this because it's something i think this is an interesting case quite frankly but the dui statutes when you're caught with a breathalyzer that exceeds the allowable when they suspend your license after a period of time but during that period of time you're given the opportunity to have a hearing right here we have a constitutional right that's being revoked without any sort of hearing even though we're giving hearing to people who are arrested and i'm trying to reconcile in my own min he's saying if you give me an opportunity to be heard before you automatically suspend my rights then due process is a tangent but he still has an opportunity there points out that he times out automatically with a thirty day period to respond if he files a lawsuit prohibiting the state from  no one even needs to answer them until thirty days after their served which could and an additional time period so he has seems like no remedy under the four id for visions about the federal statute that says you title to narratives that he cites as proof eighteen u s c nine twenty one three and a thirty two what about that how do you square that with what's happening here  the federal statute talks about situations that trigger federal gun limitations or restrictions and we're talking about a situation now that involves what state  exceptional circumstances presented here the cases where are we capable of repetition going to be reviewed section has actually been applied tend to involve  order to videotape their investigations and child whose faces well that's what he said us investigate child abuse cases so there is a reasonable expectation that the issue might occur they don't think we can really say that there's a reasonable expectation that they would be subject to protective order in the future so that exception is is not a good man as well  of facts outside the record of what supposedly happened to underlie perceived spot in ma he's also suggested that to get the license back and to file an appeal with the department and the procedure would take forty five day person who's got border protection against him is so that they can't use the gun the person who's trying to be protected presumably the rationale put up the supreme court is also
point struction that the district court and the palmer has to be exclusively composed of these two asses and that a repeating alcohol molecule wouldn't count that seems to be away from my understanding the chemistry here to distinguish rich but it is not a way to distinguish products because if i understand correctly and not the polymer itself doesn't have an alcohol molecules part of the polymer tacked on to the pot i'm i'm mistaken about that  signals we've talked about there is also an amount of lactic acid have to be fifty to one hundred percent that claim does not sa reliability of the active american version first of all that's not relevant because it's a question about description and anticipation and that as the description is that the work they did not challenging the able and that's what they would need to do if they such and such an asset in the art means such and such i looked through the records of my clerk looked through them i don't find that testimony what i find in his testimony about what one is i would expect to fly which this language and i don't see that you brought in any testimony from an expert same time how one would interpret this language it's very fuzzy you have people come in and say well i wouldn't expect to find this is part of the polymer that's not the what expert testimony did you have telling us and telling the judge what is the meaning of the specific language in the client what we use we use actual text in the technical dictionary find show me a technical dictionary where did they use this other key phrase that were that the district court included in the claim construction here and which is as i understand absolutely critical because it allows you to say that the alcohol molecule in something that's different because it produces your function it is a great idea after smoke that makes it that makes it different and the jury has given this instruction and the jury
investigation i can't speak for him what i what i am saying though and i'm brady's obviously is as you point out you know not in easy terms of me because you have to show prejudice and we don't know to some extent what's fact that there is nothing involved any type of investigation into it of evidence of it is just you know does or does not credible they're obviously had to do something the insurance companies the insurers somebody didn't investigation finding out the fa just before the verdict came back the jury sent out a question if we can agree on all charges and what happens the answer that was given was if you have a question pertaining to the law office put it in writing submitted we can go by that there jury instructions given to the jury in open court are we going to say oh those instructions weren't given because they're no longer you know i think you know they sent instructions ba lutie i think in response to some of your interest questions part of the problem is if you're looking at this in discovery it would be difficult to determine what should be turned over but i did check perhaps case on west side next it doesn't show any history other than the fed federal supplement kitties and so i don't again because i don't have pacer to go to know if there is continuing litigation at a witness list and you have a significant number of officers and detectives are going to get to the check just because they're likely the ones who are going to say something other than their response to a particular crime scene or i'm going to say  that circuit court judges should be in a position to be doing that they should be doing it based on brickworks from the specific requests from the defense i don't think that if anything in this case the the promise alleged and to the extent that they will be taking the position that it was reasonable for me tonight to ask for it there isn't any kids who are historically that is provided for it and so i don't know the council should be  relationship which shows if nothing else that he is really comfortable with deceit so in that living with a girlfriend and having a right yes record yes so you're exactly and so you getting on the young girl one young woman by the time the trial came because it was going for five years a young woman testified with fairly significant clarity and you hear of a defendant who's credibility opinion of the testimony presented by good will privately in in connection with the way this case was intended when she talks about the first incident he was touching over the clothes she was very again sexual assault litigation closely connected the acts if church separately and supported by the evidence can support you convictions and that's a question is whether the church separately says she actually ye the press and strong when he was questioned said that he's now teaching interrogation techniques and he's got a side job for example his side business is teaching interrogation techniques and
coming out as our mr ryan daniels told you if your opportunity as a citizen to come to these meetings as well as being extra credit just fine people we're just glad to have you here thanks again for the eyes gave me the wonderful honor of coming to talk about the how we see yes i can experience it how to create their own for their community so i went to california during the international association there was about three thousand people from all over the world at this meeting i had the opportunity to speak about how we c s i cannot experience and how they can do the same for their communities in creating that hands on experience so again i was very very proud to represent our way of the police department and as well we had a lot of firsts so i like to turn it over to jackie hop who she is a student second year student here at u h now in college in the administration of justice program these guys around the perimeter are all starting first here jackie is just finishing up their second year and she it is our first
president he passed away a number of years ago at the age of ninety seven but he was a big supporter of public safety and he came to myself and the chief result and too you know we recognize all the events over the two years but i know some places like cambridge where they have a big department they do it every year but we felt that we don't want to overdo it but we do recognize any situations that have
addressed the problem in the intersection between these two statues is there it's just simply a big about why you're supposed to be do you have first burglary while there was surveillance cameras that show that the defendant did suspicious he went me a couple circles around the store you furtive glances you went to that freezer and just you know without having any right this was a this is a preconceived plan where they've figured out from the beginning that this is the way he was going to do it already has if he and it's been in the brief if he hadn't been present for the first question so if the plan had just been for the complex to sentenced and most people would say there are just one birth going on because they have this plan to go ahead and steal stuff from this acts and that there is no real separate