MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
only an attorney to represent him at his trial of limited means and educational on trial for murder his own son it's good to find them and he's come since before jury selection just to clarify the procedural the fault issues that we haven't really discussed today because i didn't want to be on of those completely the issue of whether the trial court should have granted a substitution of counsel either early on or after the  affidavit and by the contemporaneous record which discusses the trial course having direct conversations with jail staff about making sure you get those tapes to the accused to make sure he has if they don't like this walkman with a court that of confidence i agree he's confident there was a discussion and he elected to continue with mr grimaces counsel the next series of things that happened what were the events where it was nearly the conclusion of the state's case were down to two once lost the right to be present can of course be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts now what about that problem in this case it did give great and conscious thought to those options not just once but in a couple different occasions where just pendent would have mr brown come back to the court and say my client would like to come back but by the either contrary to or on and reasonable application of the fairly broad grant of authority throughout the united states supreme court had granted trial courts in an effort to ensure the trials would be completed without case you have the defense case commenting and there's two alibi witnesses called there's a t v technician who confirms the date of a particular program you have to in most of the co defendants alibis but really it's entirely as found by the post conviction in court he never told anybody he was not having access to those tapes that was rejection credibility ground but long story made sure of the trial court was in and very very difficult position
my name is john  it just doesn't make sense were doing motions filed looting your clients asked the court to consider the matter you know by your joint motions your client agreed that the court had the powers to enter the county and the a power want this case voluntarily dismissed as a justice or treat noted this case is fifteen years old i have not seen a case that has this much convoluted fact the fact that it's fifteen township this frome tens of purposes now they don't want to assume any more township bros so they're not really pursuing this and it is the county who is technically the plaintiff in the gallons and we all decide that we do not want to participate in this now part of the usual being is that for some reason in the owing were the county greed that if the gallons didn't build the subdivision pursuant to a seventy two dollars plat the county would would start doing it one argument they make is that the channel four of the court with this modified class from two thousand and seventeen is a take thank you fourteen and there was no complaint invitation on file after that day the county has the discretion of whether to prosecute this after it changed its mind there's a different state's attorney and at this point they c
maintaining one universal wasn't sufficiently in control of the contracting decisions of those parties that would make contracts with your clients company away i'm not interested in whether the district was dead wrong about that i'm interested in whether you responded to that argument in your brief because the right brief says straight out doesn't address the argument and i'm telling you that when i read your brief on first pass i didn't see you addressing that argument so could you just say hello we're here to brief you to address the argument because universals relationship to the contract between the car owners and your company you're in this is that they have to go to universal and that's where the condition because you're just arguing that there was a condition precedent and i think you're saying that's half of the legal argument but the full glory with me going to suppress under section one thousand when there has to be liability for x x x but you don't say those other sentences and i he just looked at the district court's opinion he's go one two three four and a half pages on something called scope of coverage of section one hundred one in which he cites who would want to get service are best auto wouldn't get compensated from universal if they got the repair done by stop so he says his brief every time he's making a point about how given the fact that universal wasn't going to pay for the insured to get it done at best auto natural is universal was actually interfering with the ability of that contract to get made so he hasn't weighed it he just she was she was
why would it be unexpected when he had other so there was no liberty instruction on that one either now i agree
folks let's see another insurance coverage case my gosh yes i guess it is i wonder if the attorneys for the parties would step up and briefly identify yourself for the record so we know who you coverage is broader for other insureds than it is for the village of waukegan not of the coverage allowed to be assured they don't if they don't have to accept this requirement of notice then they're getting coverage fairly clear it's fairly clear that the reason that civil rights is mentioned specifically as another bank there are probably two very obvious reasons for it one the in sure it is a public agency ok with enormous exposure to civil rights ok and two everybody in the insurance industry is aware of the fact that it always involves or sometimes it bogs the shifting which lifts the liability of the sure way out because they're not only looking family just they're looking at attorneys so that's why it's there it would seem to me and that would be out of this to anybody who sat insurance situation and a situation where you have a large corporation or miss out whose employees or public officials aren't sure it's under a policy but notice obligation for that policy all of the name company an american national specifically demanded an insurance certificate and that's the best example is why not only based on the facts here these individuals haven't suffered any integrity as a trigger of a notice requirement or whether it is absolutely sure into the later requirements which seem to be more generic that simply where there are two provisions one specific as to hit the rub you know in fact you know i forget the name of it off hampshire but it's with my case with a long explanation of the requirements of notice in the event of a well there's a test for two different reasons and one hand if you're measuring if you're talking about the reasonable ness of their delay under the northbrook line of cases that clearly they have to look at what the folks knew one but if you're doing it with nationals in this kind of policy presumably it could be something else but i was hoping i get some help to make that distinction on their ordinary contract but and again i think and guardian of these notices issues presumably because they know what they're doing so this is not a issue it's contribution to the mix that you're going to analyze because the lesson is to the extent that the time lag increases so the greater the i'm glad the less we focus on french
the th that didn't really address the number on planes coming in there and how they are the same size as previously allowed or helicopters coming in and the manager of the
him they go to the bay money and they find an arrest defendant defendant has davis debit card on him that backpack is in close proximity in some position they get a search warrant they find all of somebody to support his version of the story which isn't even clear because we don't know if it's a public game or a dice game he's not clear what his version of story sure and that's the
a question for you think that i'm even if we were to dispy current jackson and look at the factors that you said we should look at in determining whether or not standing is appropriate if you know satisfy the criteria that the statute was in active for the benefit of the inmates does that mean that you lose even if we don't apply  this report well put the question becomes was the statute designed to protect the inmates was it designed for the park yes and puts your basis for that it was designed to protect the citizens of the state taxpayers from having a commissary in place that didn't charge sufficient prices to even cover of the cost  on it for them that was sufficient it was not the remedy is like it is political not legal stuff that we are american and that  seeking to limit the amount of over charges that the prison could operate at its commissary this court how that prisoners did not have a constitutional right to have a promissary item sold to them at a particular price and edition the such as adequate shelter food sanitation medical care safety the opportunity to exercise religious freedom and the right of access to the courts commissaries are not on this list the purpose of commissary section just as harris as you pointed out the sabbat it befits taxpayers to ensure that the cost of commissary prices are covered and also to provide for department personnel in particular it's to it helps guide prison officials and how to operate their commissaries what to do with the increased costs of state employees and what to do to provide utility use to the commissary and the added costs because a commissary is not exactly like a department of corrections the third district agreed with this court's holding in jackson that inmates had no right to commissary adams at a particular price and that they lacked standing to bring a lawsuit under the unified code of corrections the unified co over rule jackson in terms of the product pam's argument there are any sort of contrary arguments here the state has always said that there is no right to have commissary adams at a particular price and not the overall statute itself is to benefit department of corrections that's that hasn't made any sort of contrary arguments to the extent that jackson would be over who was the appropriate
for an evidentiary hearing at which point the district court can decide which steps to take of course and all of this points towards our primary contention which is that the  to go on a fishing expedition and asking tourists to explain not answers or their failure to find every questionnaire materially change and the length of the idea process they could a minute wait a minute family have any connection to drugs so even if she answered to everything on that basis that in and of itself would simply have met with all of those questions were not equal to that juror so the only thing that we're left donna has a duty to investigate and between the difficulty and president of questioning a juror and a defendant's criminal conviction there is no contest as to study also points out the thank you thank you
gentleman from the press ready ok good all right welcome to the september tenth two thousand and twelve special public hearing regarding the draft proposed zoning regulations we are going subsequent meeting or in me that's correct if the select board decides that they would like to move forward with the regulations as they are now you would vote to approve those and move those to the november sixth election and then fall in this meeting we have to be here only after another meeting to decide whether or not those might be voted on by australian but if that vote is affirmative it will be by australian ballot if it's there would have to be by special session on november sixth ok ok good one we can jump right in then to the overview proposed changes in these would be the changes that were passed by amendments to be decided by the voters on november sixth two thousand and twelve the question before the voters will be shall the voters approve the richmond virginia subdivision regulations as amended and accepted by the richmond second right why don't we open the motion up for public discussion just to do this correctly any questions or comments from the public on the on the motion ye september tenth that's tonight two thousand and twelve public airing and further movies never should be decided by the voters on november sixth two thousand and twelve the question before the voters will be shelter voters approved richmond zoning  so shall the voters decide the richmond zoning and subdivision regulations by australian ballot at the november sixth two thousand and twelve election in order to discuss this i need to have it moved to the floor and anybody willing to do that so would deserve a second seconded ok so the the article in front of a sh voters decide the richmond zoning and subdivision regulations bias trillian ballot at the november sixth two thousand and twelve election is there any discussion ok not seen any are you ready for the question the question is shall holders decide the richmond zoning and subdivision regular actions by australian ballot at the november sixth two thousand and twelve election
right actually your honor  that's been three o eight four point five little in a little city then it goes down in the same session and states that then after the second why he didn't go to the third level and i would suggest to you that it doesn't matter under this of this process which he clearly knew about he needed to go one step further and he failed system can provide measures other than what he requested for instance if he requested only money turner still wants to encourage him to go forward because the administrators system may be able to give him relief which would satisfy him   there are several district court cases that have looked at this they've had various rationales for why relief even if it's not totally insufficient to  stop i mean i can't the system itself says that it's resolved you can stop the question is how do we know when it's resolved well realistically i think part of it is we have to look realistically at the system i mean once we're stuck with the supreme court decisions and you have to exhaust the process wouldn't it be better just to say to them look no matter what go through all three steps it's a fairly short process and then come to court and don't get involved in all these procedural things we're going to try to say well you're getting part of the relief and therefore you don't have to get through step three and then have some of them stop short thinking they've got part of the relief now you're caught it seems to me that there through the principal of this popular something or other you might say well he was reasonably led to believe by the prison that this prisoner process was not available and booth talks about available process and he was at we turn our system requires that extraordinary extension or that or that the logic of it is necessarily incompetent as all of the partial grants those are all monetary relief cases also that's why they're there in court but they look back and said if you were granted the medical relief that you saw he didn't have to go forward in the administration system even though they could have given him gold stars or whatever besides the monetary relief that that was taught in those cases do with regard to his complaints about the way he was treated by the staff there's nothing else they can do it seems that what he was  notified by the investigative services unit only as a conclusion of the investigation so they're doing that what else are they going to do well i would say that the investigation that that which is an internal affairs will not involve the president they will not be on the record so they're getting part of what bill porter investiture they are getting the chance themselves to look into the matter and see if there's anything to enter develop the record in a timely matter so that they're not surprised years later that in fact the terrorist raising concerns about policies or procedures that that further interviews may be required if they involve poli
them from the state to protect collateral that is correct and having some difficulty quite understanding what the collateral things here and in some of the briefings is maybe assumed thinks that necessary operating expenses come out first two opposite observations two of these issues arise for you briefed below because we ask we meet the essence of our argument is that the essential concluded that under three of five and three of six he couldn't strangers have been turned around but it's not the commonwealth is taking dividends as a practical matter after the hurricanes just the opposite because needed more money but that's not in th and and how that would be balanced because it has and we just don't see it in the opinion that the fault lies with the movement because they have the obligation to identify it roll i on the facts and terms of your question your question about i'm talking out of three or five no it seems like she thinks that if if she touches any of the revenue in stand without this board's consent and her hands are tied she can issue an order that   subject to the commonwealth rate setting boards authority in terms of need to raise rates what is the authority for the proposition that the commonwealth courts superintending that receiver is in fact subject  goes seventy or eighty pages it is based on the romans testimony it's not easy to put together a right order you don't have a receiver come in and write a one page order that says everybody pays more in rates it doesn't work that way can't work that
carriers like to be recognized
cash which is worth as much as the pension in work i mean essentially it's an under two hundred thousand dollars but he said but basically it's a contract it's this contract that revlon gave my husband er and the statute of limitations will start to run when there is enough information available to the pension to assure that he knows or recently said no the miscalculation that's the standard that controls this case and that the the allegations of the boy to support specifically and your honor if we take a look at the complaint there are multiple allegations to show that miss most is knew or should have known from documents that she always had in her possession five six and seven and the complaint miss moses alleges the disability pension received is for sixty per month the vested pension elected is for sixteen hundred a month i ask rob want to recalculate the money i received as  elections along with her husband and she's saying the disability pension at four sixty a month was to bridge the gaps of each sixty putting aside the merits or not of of that particular allegation that's what she's alleging in her complain and so she's saying i knew from the start that i was supposed to get increased pension at each sixty five and then i discovered the documents that were in my apartment when i began to prepare for my will
sat in custody for about here until january th when the state while the motion to appoint a expert to evaluate him for fitness as they had a bona fide doubt as to is fitness the court ultimately deny the state's motion between mr reeves leaves kinds of frustration and at least that he had not directly asked to represent himself until it's addressed this july th hearing and even at this hearing he starts off on saying i want to represent myself but i want my defense counsel's to be appointed standby counsel for two reasons one to help me with things i don't understand and secondly for her to question me when i testify and i'm happy because he thought it would be a weird procedure for him to counsel the counsel that's representing him for eighteen months so the most personal contact with him by her hearing or phone the issue is that she's not able to personally observed him is his the the state knew that she would not she was not going to be there that there is some some facts on the record that some people may have known she's going to be at this conference for this was clear he was ready to go to trial he was prepared for a trial and in fact the motion to continue actually went through they have a hearing and the differences as we argue that people's rushing to get you should be denied and it was not a motion to continue there and ultimately he's allowed to represent him solve and i think if his counsel was president not only can she ascertain whether or not he's fit to stand trial one of the things there's a competency to represent yourself you can be fit to stand trial but not competent to represent yourself and one of the things that he was denied in this really was the naivety by his counsel the president was his constantly able to determine his competency to go represent himself but there is something new that's going from here i need to sit down improbability and discuss with him whether or not your stance of these new charges mean whether or not that's still his desire to represent himself because  in these days i think in the way back so he really anything because there was no written motion from state to continue but i think for sure as soon as the course started to engage in something beyond that motion to continue or ha he's here that is that everything that happens after a certain point is rain or something becomes a critical thing because i can think of situations where just a motion to counsel i think and i understand that the court your concerns just as you go kind of going into what is critical not critical but here i don't think there should be an argument that this was a critical