MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
communicating your centrally neglecting case tell me about this have you talked to him have you discussed the claims he wants or rates what have you done in this case it would have taken much as all the court had to do and the court didn't do it  and possibly part of the problem here was it's not clear from the record whether the court even read douglas's motion alleging ineffective assistance the record doesn't clearly show that at one point during the proceeding that day the court told find a new judge to conduct the inquiry at the hearing before douglas went pro se the judge told douglas well you burn through three attorneys it doesn't sound like much but one of these three attorneys i give you a lot more time at the end of the sentencing hearing the judge told douglas i with what you went wrong with me if i thought i could give you fifty years in prison james backtracked from that almost immediately i think the court will probably recognize that it was inappropriate saying you're not communicating you basically need like he's like tell me what you've done or at least and you met with him and he talked about these claims at the very and or when they are here already so are we saying that when the clerk does this in a typical case that this would not be the type this would be a considered and ordered by whoever was trying to get this money from the assistance of counsel first off the defend it was asking to proceed pro se yet again in this case this was his third turning in a blank time of his case and honestly his appointed counsel and the private attorney that he hired so because he feels better equipped to do that as he stated in his written motion and before the court he wanted to proceed pro se he didn't want n defendant's argument about his distaste for his attorney is really deep seated and his mistrust of both private attorneys and public defenders  motion previous mishandling of my case have left me on trust each words attorneys and public defenders i'm uncomfortable with the reputation of tom she's the attorney and he's filing the motion again there's a difference of opinion between tom s r myself on how to proceed with the case i don't agree with tom sheets last allowance of the continuance and i would rather make my own decisions on such matters so this attorney was appointed to him in january of twenty thirteen a session not to say that he doesn't have the right to do that but that based on the defendant's written motion based on the argument that he came before the court or the questions of the trial judge asked him that was an adequate counsel goes away when he gets a new attorney so out this this defendant arguments were heard by the court proper inquiry was done and he received  the case and we find that if this case is remanded to the trial court the same judge will be a neutral trier of fact as he has in the past
is the power to act for the public good and that reserve power cannot be contracted away there are course exceptions but in looking and looking at the cases where the court in a position way or the other side no use at the time your contract in that you can change the contract at will what third party in that circumstance would not hesitate to enter into a prior contractual commitments stating that a promise in a contract actives one party the power to deny or change the fact of the promise is an absurdity and relying upon us trust company cited by the city here today the second decision was the air cal versus temperance just go to station where there was an express reservation of rights clause in a lease agreement similar to that provided here and the court rejected the ability of the city to argue and i want to object first of all procedurally to raising an argument at this stage of the proceedings not just because reading when scar's not to give anybody a tremendous headache in dealing with that splits station but because the a contract by the federal government was not barred that that the implication of the term directly into the contract was not her vented filing a mistake there already in that context and the court there said something i think is very not and the reason for that is that i believe there is enough and in this particular record i don't believe that that since argument in that respect hold water and the reason is that impairment is not  restrictive at remedy to attempt a repair of the streets and i think the answer to that is no because specific provisions already exist in the franchise which explicitly provide for a pair of the streets are actually baited by the gas company any mechanism by it's not a taking because it doesn't meet the test it doesn't deprive them of economic use we can say you can't you can't play pipes anymore the same we said there is a regulation which will cost you a little bit more than it used to cost you to l
immediately said that he could not have him because he had prosecuted him previously working that extended term that's what he calls them right
judicial review of a decision at the end nothing to do with the decision of the arbitrary or which was affirmed by the commission was a decision truck nobody else earl henderson truck and somehow premium transportation jumps into it for the commission and appeals in order
judicial commitments they have had the full benefit of your written briefs and arguments contained therein and they will have the full benefit of your oral arguments they are fully participating in men and members
the jury confirming some of those facts number one the plaintiff there drinking number two the crowd had been drinking number three the crowd was growing ever growing at the moment in addition to the people who were coming from one end of the festival to the other end of turn you had the emptying of the st peter's club immediately in the city this created an unrefuted crowd of about two hundred two hundred fifty people one forty eight or one seventy one that's where you find this testimony force that's going to tell me that you can put hands on i'm asking is there anything that was presented to the jury this way of doing it is the right way of doing it not  the process by which she was consuming was to go circulate and go back in the crowd it was necessary to have grabbed him even though he didn't know it it's been room taken down
ten thousand dollars last week and they walk into a local i r s office and tell everybody there they can go and file a tax return of mit's the ten thousand dollars intentionally based on the notion that well i told the i process during which he then yes request an accommodation of not being required to work a mandatory overtime at times when like when he was in a series of twelve hour shifts and in fact that should overtime on occasion particularly when he had already been working multiple scholarships with chronic and i'm sorry i seriously i said that he could have down this job certified that he had been a stable nuclear security officer for many years year after year and that is in the record so i respectfully disagree that those conditions that the symptoms with which he suffered since two thousand  but how about his his his boss social decided to shift it according to him they needed to know that he could not safe thing work over time after twelve hour shifts and yet he made sure they didn't know that he had another condition which were given credibility to them so therefore they couldn't remember signing him szish which by his own claims he shouldn't be working in a nuclear power plant
testifies that he didn't have a prior criminal history or alludes or suggests that he has never been convicted of a crime in the past in any circumstances unless he  regarding the first issue i'm clearly under the plain statutory language under this amendment specifically added that language including the minor or defendant if he or she testifies the legislature the jurors to be looking at the you kind of unusual procedure wasn't i have seen it done before i can't say i would just be speculating at this point i only times i've seen that but  conviction you know i i don't think so because the jury lasted only that conviction till it hit the jury was instructed they were to view the defendant system only in the same way as they did any other witness the purpose for which any the jury wasn't in any way confused perhaps by the difference between the words conviction all the other witnesses it was presented in the prior conviction this was adjudication maybe the difference in the work they wanted to see what that looks like an well there was no request made in that regard and i think when you look at this in light of the evidence it was introduced in light of the fact that it was just the fact of the education that this could not
she didn't and she couldn't do that she for those six years help herself up is the sole owner of the property are there other ways besides the that the property would be wrong to the trust if you look at air period three point four zero the trust itself it said it doesn't seem that the question is is he getting no case law on why it is that the two thousand and eleven trust was not funded when the case one mistaken says that you don't really need to fund the
business is
and yet the philosophy of the don't pay for work that was kind of screwed it up assuming that's true it seems from a fundamental fairness point of view that and the question in my mind is now we have to decide a legal issue here and so as you stray into the facts it leads me to believe that there are these factual arguments doritos are never going out there tonight i don't think that who can read basically says ok we've got a decent we've got a road block but my boy or found a detour around the house that reasonable notice to examine further
next case is childress versus wil  or voluntary participation or borel or purchasing ground drinks and these topics blur the distinction between actively causing another's and prosecution and merely providing social companionship case walking your friend and boring says that point two zero which was a multitude of in excess of the statutory limit for intoxication in the state of illinois under the jury instruction which showed which new site we could not have cost the intoxication george will it comes down then to whether there was some material or stage contribution to it and the jury certainly could have taken the intercessor point to substantially material contribution to intoxication and the point seems to be closing the barn door after the horse is out in the second is the fact that dark brown could not account for all the dreams that were to the issue of complicity in this case obviously we believe that there were sort of the problem or that case should go to the jury but probably back to site and judge moore was correct in doing that in this case also and on that consider ration of the entire trial and the trial for having been in unique position to make that determination is afforded great discretion those are the appellate court's words great discretion and we believe that judge schwarm made and that goes for why the jury instructions are so confusing and why when the jury instruction that was not explanatory wife who have the burden of proof is combined with this in jest and you can be just a little bit complicit it's confusing really does not convey that there was a responsibility by the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that brittany childress actively contributed to the
we need a permanent order for purposes of the facts in this particular case and be something that all the other issues are right for appeal we're going to take this issue of this temporary order up with review hearing in march of two thousand and thirteen we're in we're down to arguments like to take a look at things in that interim period and to get a report  which i think they said that thousands of friends they have marijuana plants on their clothing they have marijuana plants on their hands they are concert where marijuana could you know be available prior to the hearing but the petition my client place bullet proof time order and once in a permanent order she should stay back let the parents here and the child she was given two specific orders basically to back off and if you look at the  he's like you're just trying to medicate this shall be tested by medication is not the answer and yet if you look at the second kid only four which is what the judge said that she heavily reliant on the child now that i'm on the medicine i were that he was doing better than he attributed themselves to i don't i'm i'm feeling my medicine and all that is taking a back and i want to go back to mom i want to go back to where i can say i want to that that's not the case here and i think they there was a lot of innuendos a lot of allegations and yes some inappropriate things on the part of both of them but it doesn't rise to the level of the burn the same chain of circumstances
group perspective medical treatment related to left index finger is against the manifest weight of the evidence i have my client the sense that there is insufficient factual evidence in the record to support  fingers if you treat it was causally related to the work accident made twenty and then turns around and says he would need to reexamine the finger prior to determining what further alternatives were necessary and the commission decision to pay for the diagnostic right treatment and any further treatment that recommended by the darkroom right the issue here is specifically the diagnostic procedure that's been ordered by the commission oh my doing he did it he did not have any testimony regarding the current condition of the finger or whether that current condition was related to the work and the only opinion he's given in this case the fact yes i saw him three times no i haven't change resulting from the prior fracture back  we they didn't tell you how to fix your broken arm they didn't tell you you had this for a specific or whatever the treating physician recommends you're going to be responsible for it but that's going to go back before an arbitrary and you're going to have an opportunity to turn around and argue to the arbitrator they actually meant was unnecessary it wasn't related to the injury it was all that's causally connected to his we have the right to contest the reasonable
would also like to point out as a fifty three in the abstract that there is an eight or so years week and there bendix that there is a the actual complaint which is four and the act appendix there's no mention of any sort of warning the trial court that there have been not only the report let me go back to one other point here that within the we believe that we did not receive that on nor any other warning we have in spry back into the  or by any person of the bank that is we believe that that is adequate to raise a question of whether or not the that there can be a page scan of my brief that there is a duty to determine whether or not a genuine issue of material that if you will look at the appendix page thirty two and thirty three you will see dialogue between the myself as the trial attorney for m he was talking about and he also said that he he referred to the bennett subjective belief he was talking to me the question is whether or not that there is a question of thing and his conduct at page thirty two and thirty three of the appendix will bear that out then there is one other excerpt that i would point believe that on the basis of the fact that there was noncompliance with the statute as to be criminal code we also believe that that was is summary judgment thank you thank you force believes that the warning he received was improper of that he received some different warning misinterpreted is not relevant mr officer gaiters testimony that he gave the warning that was asked to be given is the significant factor in this case because it's the the liver but also is not even relevant very brief with the police officer indicated to the poor the statute by a affidavit that he was she which you have that in your decision consider that also the second thing here is that they're reading the depositions reading my my writings and taking a look at the file generally there is some leaning on a john mattingly who was a bank officer if you will look at her letter head in the exhibit that i pointed out earlier she was a bank officer and we're the record is totally devoid here of any deposition any affidavit by mrs mattingly whether or not this happened there for whatever reason they cannot get this and they're falling back on their of their drying with the police officer they're trying with the the attorney for the bank the civil attorney for the bank into the ice extent to go read the letters letters which you have in the appendix they're falling back on those trying to say that there was something
the only other possibility was thursday june sixth the thursday before the lawyers fees but one you know few days after the fourth of july weekend i don't know we can get
brief it's not my strong suit but i'll try new york enough to cover just the main points and i mean many of the issues that i was going to cover already been addressed by mr riffel and subject question and i do think this is a relatively straightforward case i want to make it clear that we to reach the point of even meeting please so the arguments about unlicensed an unscrupulous the the the  reached the only proper conclusion that he couldn't this case and that was that when the challenges to an agreement as a whole and not specifically to an arbitration clause then it's  clear for decades and it's certainly clear now under buckeye check cashing the bets an issue for the arbitrator the case goes to the arbitrator parties can engage in all the same litigation that they would otherwise be able to do that this is a case where we don't care if the standalone arbitration agreement we agree with between two parties cover three pages cover eleven paragraphs that address terms for compensation scope of is that the choice of law provision mandates the displacement of federal laws those from the other lord krishna we disagree with the statement here that if you look good poor poor yellow in the other dustup it was clearly or arguing about federal or creation act we didn't get into an argument about the choice long provision secondarily though we argue good it doesn't control it doesn't display sterile arbitration act because of these with law was really construed to require that a challenge to an agreement as a whole be submitted to the court then there'd be a conflict the conflict between state law and federal law and in that case we argue made by the court instead of the arbitrator when there's conflict and under conflict federal laws prince charming that is the one way or the other the federal arbitration it doesn't apply our last argument which you don't have a visited it doesn't both near a choice of law involves an invented arbitration choice of law which we don't have an argument in or in our contract here but i can see the cases that i rely on are not going away  it goes to arbitration and then the subsume mirrors get the site however federal laws are still and at least until one recent decision illinois law has always held that if you've got an argument that an agreement in its entirety is voided because it was fraudulent lee induced or because it's illegal or because one of the parties is a minor if you have an argument that attacks the entire arena and then bosses and secures the brokerage house came in and said we had our perforated the subs claims because of this customer profile the customer profile was a standalone arbitration agreement and nelson versus roger lange it does involve a challenge to an agreement as a whole are raised as not so even a nasty they said you know we recognize that if there is an agreement if there is an attack and the agreement
part that's missing from that analysis is that even if it should matter that she was involved that many times we don't have a reliable estimate at least the court to make you either want us to move or what the the average amount of it's not the person attacking so yes he's not together it's a very different broader statute but even more compelling indicator is in section ninety two feet which is the intermediary exception
establish the big complied with the jurors forms there is nothing in th you know i can see how maybe you are feeling a little bit misled by the circumstances make a suggestion of it happens again there's a couple of applications ok you could ask for a stipulation since this issue will rows or a motion in this court to supplement the record when it comes in to
to a fact which may have prompted the jury to find guilty because he recognizes that his defense will leave him open to another charge that's a really good argument and i just don't know that the defendant is compelled to do anything and i'm wrestling with that my own mind i understand and appreciate your argument but what does that have to do is on the facts does it have to come forth a burden shifting it would be a lesser included but it would be you know you're mending we do for me but to make it more to make it justice broad but also more specific the same t recent past right up to including what we think the charges have you had that you're a defense attorney you ask your client that
vacated or not and the award is for zero dollars so why isn't that the amount that is in controversy what he did that or that may or may not be relevant on the federal question but in terms of the announcing controversy and now is euro because that's both of your both of your concepts depend on looking through the arbitration award to the underlying dispute right here first contest as we look the underlying dispute only look at it we see that it was much more than your second argument about federal question rejection depends on exactly the same thing doesn't you say look at the underlying disappear and you'll see it's a federal question in the underlying dispute there go there must be federal jurisdiction right but they both if one if one falls the other seems to fall doesn't not if you're not if we're not going to look through to the underlying dispute on diversity then how are we going to look through it on federal question jurors directions my question and so there should be judicial review what arbitrators do at some level there should be lots that doesn't tell me that we have federal jurisdiction there ought to be lots of things but states actually sometimes provide them supreme court and the arbitrator misapply it that is just didn't understand it right got it wrong misapplied it so my question to you is have you actually planted a viable claim for vacating the award based upon manifest disregard you honor i think so because look at it and hear the arbitrator eg knowledged toyota in disgusted four pages and came to a different view of it from yours but is that ignoring it or is it circuit's argument in argument that i find to be forceful on this is that even though we do not have jurisdiction because the underlying action arises under federal law still when the issue presented for us to decide is whether there has been a manifest disregard of federal law by the arbitrator that in itself raises a substantial federal question are they can only be answered by reference to federal law and because it requires hort a federal court disregarded the thumb his nose at it ignored it that focuses on the congress of the arbitrator doesn't require an inquiry as to whether or not the federal law was correctly decided i think on some level it certainly does vacated just as it is here the analysis of whether the was properly applied correctly or a correct doesn't get you under section sixteen it wrong but you know didn't really manifestly disregard the law says a federal judge i still have to of all this arbitration award part of the bargain of arbitration is that there are less procedural guidelines than might exist with a full court trial the supreme court has recognized that as the tradeoff for the efficiency of arbitration the standard is far more strict asked to win an arbitration will be vacated and it requires