MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
either i mean what we will put in our great interest but because it was like criminal and that it has grown up around criminal ramifications so it should be treated should be treated somewhat different than other things move so much faster and they have so many deadlines they just miss them a lot and that's all i can say i mean i guess i would like them to have the opportunity to have a hearing to address diligence but i think clearly i think the record of th supplemental argument but don't send it off to the bankers
of my mother never called me beautiful she said i'd like to start with the first constitutional violation and not the horror of this confrontation for us claim not adequate i mean there was plenty of reference to his being there i mean he testified being there and it is rather and that was raised and i mean the opportunity is we really there it's not the issue  that having feathers and admissions and change testimony provides different weight were different credibility that would be given to better testimony we've been statens testimony the trial judge had all of that in front of her wasn't believed but again if we're going to whether the testimony was credible was believed or not by the trial judge the trial judge had federer's additional repeat your material available at trial exactly and nobody ever said judge use you should allegations the trial counsel work ineffective for at trial some years later failing to bench trial as judge seems to reconsider her pretty troubling that there was a full and fair opportunity for cross examination and that's a different perhaps that would be a closer chase as in that the q one case but you don't have to be exactly the same you have to relate to the same operative said with their facts right sure but the same time as well and i think we're talking about two years later of trial versus at the of sufficient evidence in other words it seems that in writing not leaping in for review by those court the trial judges identifying as evidence that factors into what was sufficient to uphold the grit but the fact that the l it feeling to raise a clean that's the facts it ought and have asked for supplemental martina's counsel conflict counsel to be appointed for the purposes of that particular claim in this situation  taken of that that that might be appropriate but i don't think it constitutes extraordinary circumstances that prevent one from filing on time despite reasonable diligence and that's a standard as a supreme court represented defendants send in letters and petitions seeking to add claims that the council had refused to add and this is another situation but i want to mention because it's on remand from the score record we believe your honor is fair we believe your honor we're put aside any improper evidence what we know we have the option to go down the hall to judge him and to have to consider these issues this wasn't the only issue where sufficient evidence to support the verdict going up to the to the appellate court right why doesn't that would create sufficient concern or doubt about the basis for the verdict and whether it was limited to admissible evidence  to to know evidence information where documents which more withhold on the common wall or otherwise explain why he could not cross examine was the statten for that and i think that language is important as once again the
them no i'm just talking generally i mean should this court pursue that when the supreme court has decided five rule for example well in terms of there obviously was a transcription because we have a copy least a portion of it and the state's brief and your suggesting with the trial judge at the time of the second stage hearing said that there was a transcription of that previous motion for special assistance good percentage of those are based on that that's what you're
purchase from the original plaintiffs which was six flights corporation unrelated to the theme park six flags when the lease was the initially negotiated officer of the f s a but he was also a long time friend of the hones he had grown up in the same town he had had a romantic relationship earlier in his life with carolyn home he attended this viewing in the midst of the viewing your own home made the statement to him that it was going to be a difficult day the next day because under the terms of the lease they were supposed to surrender marlo's house to the dolphins if you haven't lived in it for some time it just sounded pretty how this was working the record at least about what you know the terms would have been a potential sale of the property as opposed to what actually in addition to the foreign service agency were all brought in by way of the third party complaint asserted by the doubt in their answer to the breach of contract claim and state court and that airplane is here before  know i must be candid on that however she at the time he made the statements miss rice questions and disputed based upon mr mr mcmurtry as affidavit that he also knew in addition to having his personal relationship with ms available that he was frequently called upon to answer questions whether you know within ordinary business hours in his office or outside of that context he started to finally have plantains me it's not even the place that bothers me it's sort of the there was some concern about whether there would be enough cash flow to actually pay back the loan if in fact loan proceeds rather than being used to them to make the farm a profitable enterprise  three in particular in the in the district court proceedings were memoranda of the deltas filed on that subject they also filed a statement of facts which is docket number one for an affidavit by denise doubt which is docket number who is being represented privately at that point submitted his own brief in support of the certification issue and in support of that brief he filed an affidavit by a gentleman named  five summary so the evidence is in the record it's not part of the appeal here today it's not relevant to that inquiry i would also like to point out that the government has made the argument that the hones were a credit personal visit to a family friend with his family in tow after business hours on a weekend to console a personal friend somehow within the scope of his duties and they try to do this by saying that the homes were a credit source and as i said they clearly work this was a landlord tenant relationship homes had no relationship whatsoever with zions bank or f s a there was absolutely no reason for m
it there at the time they testified yes thank you why should the judge be reading up with the testimony of the sick with the written word
between repaired it in the language in it and who then presented the who conducted the hearing who presented this closely curie respectfully i don't read presenting th merely in terms of the motion sometimes you see on motion to withdraw from you that they stand on the motion there is no for their argument so of the actual filing of the motion and that they looked at the allegation that the defendant might have the the basis in the record or and any extraneous information they drafted a motion to withdraw the plea that motion itself is presenting those claims to the court or a motion sometimes there  he actually motion that's drafted and here what you really have this kind of a team team mentality in this case there was i believe in representation b hear on behalf of the trend in whatever we do next that complement go to meeting indicates that it is a joint representation and i understand you just because you're exactly correct the public defender's office everyone record which implies that there was some remote discussion between both the attorney who drafted it and the attorney who present the motion the attorney who says no presented motion proceed in the motion because the attorney put on the first attorney in order to advocate for the claims to withdraw the plea and that would mean i saw a sure instance which were not available in her area or in great she or that the r as the attorney of new longer she's a witness in the case i think this kid's we're looking at whether in that there was strict compliance with the rules and terms and in this case there's no question that because i was signing as a deputy right that it's it's just all one big office sure i do see a distinction here where this was true actually with drew formally withdrew from representation became a right and that i would say that that is generally prohibited but it's not blatantly prohibited as there are certain instances in which that does happen albeit generally for the prosecution and not for the defense but really worth it's the people's position that we're focused on is that whether or not there was strict compliance with six zero four d in the record here indicates that there is no issue with the certificate and because there's no you know and i agreed with it because he spoke to the defendant and because he knew the record or because he spoke to this wall street assume that the second attorney would have represented the defendant without the first attorney talking and discussing and similarly in paragraph thirteen you know this
of who is being made to pave the charge and getting notice of that charge and that's not the diners through to deal with respect to their disagreement that a little bit because the person that were were trying to protect us the brits completely they're not get you all the way they are right as i read the statute what's relevant is whether the charge is being made to the person who has to pay it in a way that would mislead  the word patron is not going to get your realm the problem that we're pressing you on which is that you have an entity that's being billed they are being told there's a service charge there is another person who might be misled that would indicate that said that soul was informing the diner that there was a service charge the bill doesn't go to the diner the bill that unless the unless it is that your client provides a designation or written description of that house or administrative fee which informs the patron that the fee does not represent the tip assuming that the patron  diner is it any of these locations had been informed by said duck so that the service charge had been imposed on pretty client state street the cetera that would trigger the statu under the statute and be the administrative charge but the question is i thought earlier you seem to acknowledge that even the little the diner at state not being sure doesn't help me and one hundred percent with respect to what's your position with respect to that in terms of what they're making a representation about what the record shows that there were some dieters in these places who were told a charge ok it is also the case that the record shows that the bill containing that george did not go to those diners the question is is the tips ag triggered in a situation in which the bill goes to the but the person sending that bill also tells why a party that died or that there is a minister charged because one could imagine that would lead to confusion and trigger the very policy purposes behind th you the questions i've asked you could have coverage by putting affidavits and on these questions instead of answering me i believe the facts are  have one more have more question because you know make a diagnosis or why you survive summary judgment which is either good or bad but assuming it's good we then get back to the class that's right certification question could you given how you've now identified what the theory as to why there's your vacation the common question that you've identified is solely whether there was a company wide practice of doing this right and could you just explain to me the theory as to what the significance of whether it is a company wide practice is and why does any member of the class carol whether there is a company website is the idea that just proving that alone without any
so i would like to make one closing statement and then it is we need to remember what basis we come here under and that is a claim a rather unusual claim of ineffective assistance of frank right
please call  be a financial concern for someone who is about to construct a building that was not disclosed to my clients and that is something that he did prove that trial that the defendant had never taken those steps i think that bad assumption in order to for a
in regard to the original orders burke and i represent myself today just dawned on me given the accusations made by fellow counsel and i guess i might be under some sort of ahem obligation to report judge harrison because he's the one that signed your order off arising me to take that money to get the deposit with drawl also take contests and ask the opposing counsel to point and therefore the court was without jurisdiction to enter an ethical thing ironically i n i can confess because just judge chairs and my discuss this and around discuss it with me second appeal comes up and and we get the decision we got in the second appeal which was a split decision again i wish to attack the second appeal i would use the we take the first appeal which ruled brings the games case on the other issues i guess i need to address them but i don't want to take up too much of the forst time because i'm sure as
of an aha moment where you say ok this moment there is no doubt in anyone's mind that at least this amount of money should have been put on ballard e mail that most of the values are still inconclusive oh file a valuation worksheet the battery is negligible based on the results of surgery i mean i'm not finding that may is really helping you that much closer to that time
the question as to whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal and to there's an issue as to whether or not this is trick worked properly remanded this case to the puerto rico works on the basis of the worms selection clause i reason i would say doesn't have the importance if you think about it if there is one defendant and there's a form selection clause it's clear that it's appeal if you bring you a second defendant as you have here done to find it is not bound by the form against many different parties in the form selection clause in that case for fraud claims against a particular party and with the court case that is that the suit that was brought was broader than the form selection clause that there was no reason that the which is it is a different type of claim that the contract came to existence but should be regarded their claim is it never came into existence at all and that's a distinction that the courts would recognize and i think that's another reason why this  this case then doesn't follow the grounds for the entire action including both parties disappears action concerning the terms and conditions of this contract so it's not an action concerning the terms and conditions of contract the form selection cause has nothing to do with the case now explain to me help any aspect of ok so in fact they gave their consent what the court below is saying is that because of a contractual clause one of them lacked power to do that so
dismiss the damage thank you very much
thirteen because there are differences substantial differences in both of those plans under bankruptcy and as we have indicated in the chapter seven cases have schedules and you have to so i mean there was no harm to any creditor in this case so i just think that if he had disclosed that there is no way the creditors could have come in and made any adjustments or asked for any modification in the payments is that what you tell him why he wasn't getting any money this is a personal injury case of there is no money in the sea winston was successful in this case so what if anything could the creditors have done nothing if they had found a pattern nothing absolutely nothing they couldn't have done nothing in the bankruptcy court in chapter thirteen  receiving a judgment against the defendant so there is a benefit should follow will choose from but as you know he was instructed by his attorney in this case bankruptcy attorney that he didn't have to he was also instruct the u s bankruptcy trustee he did not have to disclose so we are in a situation here murky did not get a benefit whatsoever you just want to head and pay this chapter thirteen plan and then you continue to pay off plan so he had no mo inconsistency another one but is that message succeeded in asserting his first position or receive some benefit from what we talked about that he did not the party must have intended to try to fair to accept the truth of the facts alleging supported position there was no position ready for about twenty to twenty five months so clearly in there during the pendency of the bankruptcy before it was finally discharged rule would be the bankruptcy trustee position to but i've got time to reveal myself is a winner i'm going to put it in a safe somewhere and i'm going to anybody i got that winery took it i don't know the creditors no i don't want anybody to know and after my banker sees discharged while i pull my lottery ticket and i say vehicle accident so his filing in fairness for them to the plaintiff was to the bankruptcy court after the first injury he said i made my plans look my pain is lowered i'm not working but by omission he never any other questions is a windfall this case is going on i've been involved practice a long time usually over one million dollars in damages and fees this this decision in the dismissal of this case
both know because you've been here before or that we've read all the briefs were familiar with the records so if you would focus on the issues these microphones are not for amplification they're just for recording so if you keep your voice up so all our man was already set in stone serve their stated that they met a bed would become what's already set in stone at the age of sixteen on this extremely contrary to the essential teaching of knower on that children are today and if this matter but it's clear here is that a bad sentence of fifty five years is a life sentence that will result in him being released at the age of seventy six  with all due respect that's not really getting anyone but that's not getting him he's assuming he survives the sentence when he gets out but the serious left for him there's not going to most of the people that he knows and laws are going to be gone and he believed the visiting room was fog that's why he didn't confess again he said he knew the visiting room was being recorded and on cross examination the defense counsel cried out that there were cameras all over the place and that he didn't say that the defendant said to him and there isn't any his way or so there's no transcript of him saying listen bad i can't talk to you because this place is wired and there are cameras all over the place it's being recorded what my s said was he thought that the defendant wouldn't talk to him about the murder because there were cameras so when the defense attorney asked if there are cameras he was just confirming that my certain new mind soon knew that there were cameras he wasn't confirming that the defendant actually said he got a can't talk to about this because of the cameras then the state's attorney in the closing argument said the defendant knew it was being recorded the defendant knew it was being there were cameras there's nothing in the record she didn't use those words but she did give you the factors that have said it was set in stone she said so well it was a resident says she didn't discover it she didn't go through if i factors she didn't know that the defendant was seventeen  that's our position that this is not the appropriate case ok you're saying that there's overwhelming let's keep in mind that it's overwhelming circumstantial evidence according to the state but there is no direct evidence linking this man to  up someplace right well mr october was going up so they passed each other in a stairwell or something but the victim lived in the basement so the defendant was coming from the victim where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt like picking up and josephs walker's question about chaney a lot of errors one of the areas that we haven't touched by this lloyd's hearsay testimony that friends in the neighborhood told her that the defendant  uncle and the defense counsel i say understand it did not object to that which leads us to another problem but on top of that you've got now that you're hearing stuff that  was murdered his cousin was murdered when they you know a gun went off accidentally so maybe the friend decided mind to go to the police and turn and my best friend it was
all the different analyses and how to play with singers which is something really very very special and difficult sometimes because you have to get the tunes of every singer to make a really f delacorte africana a very beautiful instrument from africa with that ambience of gold band which is a very important african artist is really very special for me
f he's been charged with beating control of vehicle before he was taken into custody car on the street he was outside in the front yard which we just don't know but the facts here are very only we to know we still have a trial or is it the police reports it's it's certainly contained within the standards that his misapprehension was justified at the hearing and he simply no reason to start his argument is that he didn't understand it and didn't know what was going on at the time  because he was so ill but when the record is reviewed in that matter there's nothing to suggest that he answers the judge's questions appropriately he answers in the correct manner he never asked the judge to repeat anything he never says he doesn't understand anything and the judge pacifically knowledge that he asked him a series of yes questions and he threw in a different question as was his practice specifically to make sure that he understood that he was that he was never given any medication that they believed that his problem was not so severe that it couldn't be controlled by his diet and so all the circumstances of his medical conditions that he had been dealing with i believe the p the judge he acknowledged remembering his attorney he knowledge remember in the state he said he understood the nature of the charges he understood the minimum and maximum penalties and before also with my friends are in place specifically for those reasons to make sure he understands what he's giving off and what the penalties are and he knowledge that all those things are on cross examination with respect to the comments that you made earlier that there was no testimony above his defense considering the motion to withdraw they were considering the defendant's mental and physical status at the time of the plea the defendant certainly as the just and just bit he believes it was a case of  deciding there aren't happy with what happens after that certainly in this case the defendant understood everything that was happening at the time of the plea the trial who was in a position to observe the defendant to observe his evidence that was would have been presented and offer proof was the same that was presented in the affidavit in other words i don't really care what the format was is it a different way then is the affidavit the only evidence of why the defendant has the opinion that he's not guilty of driving under the influence but i think that you can
my client satisfied his duty to explore whether malpractise was netted and whether the injury was wrongfully caused by talking to his attorney her head and reassure