MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that fewer cases were on the docket said the actual numbers i don't recall they are cited they are cited in a proof of discussion of the congestion issue i believe there that has nothing to do necessarily with whether or not the judge can give you a trial da the fact remains that there is an illinois supreme court rule that if plaintiff wanted to take her deposition she's a nonparty correct she said i'm sorry so we're with your deposition after being taken on why she consented to another county but she says she's a nonparty who answer my question what she said on friday who's employed by the defendant so i think that puts you in a slightly different position this far as a occurrence witness but what you is are you going to add that the care given in carbondale was accurate or will there be a fight between the parties a can't there's not the the the the case on the issue of causation depends on medical records incorporeal impinge on the doctor's testament kind of what they saw what they did what they found and concentrated were to delay the case and they've been very successful and i don't understand i don't know if i take that position in the state is now is opposed to a year from now with the county where the case has been you would have no
compared to the weekly wage for the week she actually work yes i you know coming up with his weekly figure on dividing one by thirty seven the other one by thirty two i don't know  compensation for the ration reducibility subject limitation of about equal to sixty six to two thirds percent of the difference between the average amount which you would have been able to earn in the full performance the earns twenty thousand dollars i think he's lost fifty thousand that's the difference he's lost fifty thousand dollars so thirty seven or the upper bracket and then take the lower bracket is thirty two divided by thirty two and subtract the difference between the two you have to order paid out for fifty two weeks so it's a one thousand dollars a week and she's now earning thirty two thousand dollars divided by thirty two dollars week well let's make it what she has taught that's all she's capable of doing i mean i think you said the evidence was such there is you know ok and and so did they agree with that ok so now we're into what
myriad of microphone or graphs that were presented at the hearing they looked at a question piece about it as any test piece of evidence under the higher magnification so the higher again a relatively simple illustration if you take the magazine in which you can insert a cartridge depending on the mounting pressure you put in if i were to put it in it might be  i went back and conducted eight additional task fires and i cycled the bullet through two bowls through without firing out on both my test fires and those type of bullets i did find the feds could have requested leave to examine those thing never did the defense and we say it behooved that to include at least one higher magnification picture so let's get it eighty four hundred at the hearing after the third people's expert sad that the bullets as opposed to the shell casings were inconclusive  now two thousand and twelve i believe two thousand and thirteen that he reviewed it and said it looks different and when asked to explain why it could be the case he said the same reason why you sometimes see markings bullets have been handled multiple times multiple tasks there was at point in time the record establishes that the evidence was sent back from the defense experts and it was not sealed properly there was no specific testimony as to what that man's we don't know if they were sealed together could have bumped into each other we don't know if they will run out but that was his actual nation was between so trial afterwords and dispatch in addition to people's concern is that when we're talking about a matter of identification a the individual characteristics as the people who argue it is you know should only be related to fire form but regardless there is no dispute that the defense expert sa match to the exclusion of all of firearms and that other testimony is that the opinion of an expert witness which is based on his training his observations his examination of evidence gets twenty years old would you agree with me that there is a much greater certainty magnification was in a thirty minute occasion why don't they take a single picture of a fire for mark from a test to a question and the reason is we believe that it would show birth perhaps most importantly under the prevailing stamper if you find a class characteristics which everyone there's no steer and if you find similar individual characteristics you could find inconclusive why characteristics that are the same individual characteristics that are similar can only lead to any conclusive if th relevance then there is no newly discovered evidence why because there is no picture that compares the question to the test fires this is not a single yes certainly and although those were not necessarily again bad penny testified on her additional those were not con
specifically states to be precise it states that and this is key as far as the language in the stipulation affidavit as to what its effect means it's pacifically states that most important of all is if there was a separation period in excess of six months at the time they signed it that would mean that the husband was twenty five days off in his statement that it wasn't august first it was a bit early as july sixth because that would be exactly six months prior to the time he signed on january seventh and the wife would have been they got back together within a month and she didn't within a month after the drug when the solution was signed they'd continue sharing all their stuff they never buy into the bank accounts they never she never they never took any it's not just some academic exercise the whole purpose of this is to make sure to protect against the possibility that the parties might reconcile during the six month period of separation that's the whole point and lo and behold what happens with the mom the very next month because they had to live in his husband and wife up until the judgment just recently signed and then shortly after get back together and still do the same thing they were doing before the judge and secondly intentions don't have any effect with respect to subject matters  separation what the police attorneys no state has been doing so all those things is what the court would have to not believe even though all those things are contrary to what the general language that period is short three days or eight or seven days or whatever i mean if you look at the petition for dissolution of marriage which was filed by by the way that wa should be barred from up setting aside this judgment months it's said the parties will have been separated next preceding the entry of the judgement will never that may be that's what the language isn't in the in the stipulation and with respect to that it doesn't necessarily commit
as those instructions were given by the court but that was a key aspect of the case that if she was not tonight meaningful his nation and the benefit of the education he could not recover and those were not those are not object so we we know we have a regulation i'll be passed by d o j but one that informs the definition of reasonable modification why then would there be any time and would help this little girl to sleep in her office on the floor and stay there and watch it but she put pads down shoots not only she was just found laying in the hallway sleep nor was there any prove a trial your honor that she was sixty five days because one of the items that it need needed to find and i mean at that point there is error if you're trying to argue as i understand it that error was her answer my question put it another way is how do we know it was harmless correct and so that's why we keep coming back to the instruction on doing this it would seem that would be in the wheel house of what this case is all about and
petitioner should not be believed this argument occurs in virtually every page a response brief including the argument and the supposedly factual summary but there are ten such tapes on the insert there are three such shapes on fact and on the job injury because of the spirit as with the previous work compensation claim is observation of other employees under his direction had filed work a compensation claim and that those individuals were not accident he was doing in that he was a supervisor and therein lies the problem is it true that the hypothetical that was given to the fact that we have a claim and assume that he had been working for years two decades of this love thing and specific date which we couldn't figure out what it was he was listing of how the costs and so there is absolutely no connection between the actual causation opinion that was given by his expert to the way that the injury actually occurred what the hypothetical doesn't fit is thus it's clear but the doctor did offer an opinion but what was the opinion after the hypothetical i believe his phrase was certainly conceivable i think his exact words if the claimant were listening twenty five to thirty pounds routinely and over the course of years or decades this could have led to our need now he is he is certainly conceivable sufficient murder really possibility that is wrong which isn't it but beyond those issues your honor there's also the issue in this case as to notice the petitioner or the gatehouse media was never provided proper notice and this he was asked well sometimes you told your doctors it was work related sometimes you did yes and then on redirect comes back inside and says well you told your doctor sometimes and sometimes you don't correct that's
where the puzzling part of this case though is what document was turned on reached custer that whether or not and the fact is we simply do and he didn't write that that's right he testified that he did not prepared will and he had no knowledge of his seat and there's absolutely no evidence in the record that there were any other attorneys in the office back in but i don't believe she said she noticed the name off now the trial court knowledge that there was no clear evidence that yes it is but you know there was testimony during the hearing that he was a knowledgeable well read intelligent fellow and it seems unlikely that  f he had wanted to change his testimony why that he would just merely burn the whip i would think that he would prepare a new but he didn't do that strap these other things into saying that was evidence that it was that original and that was revoked mr custer burn something we don't know why it was  ok now with respect to this edition of inside sachar this morning and i listened to him set it seems to me we believe the court glossed over and we're not here to talk about what that will have been revoked didn't come to a conclusion no other person could come to based upon the evidence he answered it's obviously the testimony is complete room come back out with it on go and he told her it was as will the testimony in the transcript relates to her conversation with him where he said it was his will where it came from whether it's the same there's nothing about that will that explains how it got there and why it's where it is today but it's clearly the west co own personal opinion is maybe one of the brothers had all i could you know to texas to say this was a death bed revelation by the widow that you know god came  and again we're trying to determine whether the trial court acted not arbitrarily was this decision consistent with this was a reasonable decision could could have been farming or the rural areas but i bet that if we got a group of twenty wires in a room and they'd practice more than two or three five years they would tell stories about so your client got mad at the warrior and went to somebody else and say i want you to grafton oh yeah well no because i'm not even going to talk about that one i made with charlie because he didn't you know you build me in wherever he is and there are multiple will mr mrs kidwell but as the office still open yes  destroyed but again in this record there is no evidence of either one of those situations being present but there's no evidence response there was an exclusion session of his
only enough left to determine that it was no exit no is what happened to the man whose body was found in a nearby street he had been stabbed four times i think connected him with the fire a pedestrian told the police he thought he'd seen the man running desperately as though for his life he couldn't be sure the fire swept the building so fear to stay in the confusion that followed so many people were running he wouldn't of noticed the man a tall if it hadn't been for one thing he was running away from the fire the case was turned over to inspect illustrated scotland yard and from that point it was to involve sherlock holmes and myself in one of the most frightening situations of our that that's right so holmes i'd like to speak to you i believe you would expect in me i won't waste your time on my mr holmes i'm only here because i know you're well acquainted with inspect illustrated scotland yard that's true isn't it yes i know him as well as i know my own brother charming fellow illustrate intelligent  and unless the crown is willing to pay fifty thousand pounds into a foreign bank which i should designate those fires will go on occurring no one's going to stop me i don't think that holmes you have the reputation for being a clever man i'll contact you again tomorrow not here of course a message will it you know where to join me and when you c don't try and follow me i'm a very good shot and just to show you that i'm very serious going to another fire this evening at six a beautiful  he was shot and killed the killer got away and the man died without speaking on the right track but where this track would lead we had no idea time seemed to fly as the six o'clock deadline approached we could only hope to conclude our experiment in time and then hope that it would lead us to that one point in london where death lay resting in a case inspecting the strayed that is and had placed the entire resources of scotland yard on this one assignment the city was divided into a little time and i may be able to think of a few more places give me a little time i wish i could i'd like your attention please i would speculate straight from scaf and god first of all i'd like to know of all them in detail to work present up i'm afraid i have to watch over remain an additional h well i'm going to wait around here anymore if you have something to say i suggest you say not have nothing to fight no good day nothing to worry about have you but i got to worry about i don't know can't you think of something thank god  when you thought we're going to have to have time to stop it
dammit i'd hope the discrepancy wouldn't be noticed and if it hadn't been for the coincidence of the weathervane i should never have bothered to look at them is hopelessly what do you propose to what do you mean if you kill him i don't know that sounds strange doesn't  opened carefully delicately require and i tried to rest enjoy their physically but he broke loose from me he ran to the gate and open it and then and then professor and then he
agree that your client has to show that the trial was done outside the one hundred and twenty days the trial period it if his right to speedy trial had been preserved for trial or your honor her to get people together and you get your witnesses and you witnesses have been hearing much less time if feet are held to the fire so i'm just a little concerned about your argument that if you can show that th accept the principle terms of internally recognizing the validity of that principle and we have not agreed to follow by saying that he or she would follow that i understand the word about let's talk about the work properly the other case you just referenced was talking about a general sweeping statement about the law whereas the court we can look to will hardly be explaining how we're to interpret the decision
the treatment from his physician which he did very shortly thereafter him for the petition for duty disability pension and for various reasons there were  no support whatsoever in the course that's my money my main woman i mean the argument is even though there was no formal objection to these things on the record they weren't given to mr cr those attorneys in the sense they were there at the hearing but now the board is hearing it x party discussion or what have you with the attorneys for the village watching these videos in the absence of mr brown and his attorney and he never gets an opportunity to discuss them or you know talk about them or anything because he has no way to deal with the borders well he he ordinarily applies to statements however the hearsay rule has been applied to conduct as well the statements and conduct of a party opponent the guilt or the  difficulties are grows here after the terminations and that record i believe reflects also than some of the other incidents that the plaintiff experienced with regard to his  is that the village can write a letter saying based on what you're telling us it appears that you're unable to do the job if yours and you are on fit for duty as a police officer fitness for duty is very different from disability in this cor code when they apply for these entirely new claims and answer that question is not the motion two men came after he was terminated on august tenth two thousand and fourteen he was no longer police officer on  play that's the question and the answer that is you know it wasn't there it was not there oh i'm even if this test doesn't apply which i don't think that it does you still have to go into the oral academy factors  deal with these three other issues we're talking about three doctors for each of these conditions and we're talking about psychological testing we're talking about in excess of probably fifty thousand dollars in medical fees not to mention attorney's fees to go back and  of coming back to work or not capable of coming back to work that some of them with ready and willing to have him come back because the village of kill there is a police department of five or six patrol officers we need people or those positions decisions i will position to determine the validity and what's meant by these documentaries things as with mortgages and this word can look at those documents to make its own determination and i submit to you
company across the street from it and they were using the c in part of their process even if a certain point somebody started filling in the bio well who fifteen sixteen years underground stores and these are all sites that you can go to to find out if there is some kind of environmental issue involving property there or there's nothing that she could have discover in the public record because that was a stranger prove ultimately have a good faith basis for that which we are to act in accordance with and the discovery protections under article two still apply if we filed a complaint it doesn't automatically open the door the proceeding is not it was not an issue here but i am not familiar with that kind of proceeding but i see that that comes up a lot the government seizes assets in a civil forfeiture  i don't think we have a citizen supervision but it's only it's only the only government that can do this right correctly or not you simply don't like in your private party corrupt we are like any other private no they didn't seem to limit discovery in any way in this case they just raised a categorical bar to us ever proceeding on to the land we rule t fourteen get stability against access to real property when is the relevant to the subject matter of the litigation the it's the piece of evidence in this case is the property and our attorneys have cannot go expertise to guide our understanding of this marines brought up to what is alleged in the complaint is that remains became the owner of the property she has her own liability under the act and there was that one permit the landfill being operated only mechanism by which we are attempting to discover about the evidence and the illinois supreme court rules and that's the authority that we seek access to property and that that
finding that was not made the commission you can assume i suppose that the commission made a finding one way or another but as i've already said you can the easiest way to get there is to make the workers compensation commission tell you show their work that's the easiest way for you to get there you continually continue to do it if you decide to do it which is to
well i think that the point is reasonable doubt is always in play and whether i have it evidence is sufficient it is always in place but also the whole purpose behind weaver is to make sure that the trial court has a full flaps you need to consider these issues that i intend to do this because it's wrongfully applied the force is being wrongfully applied to me so therefore i am intentionally trying to repel that force isn't the right well yes in theory but i guess in reality  the restraints which is a page one intended in the transcript clearly that is evidence that the theory was not presented to the trial judge otherwise it is a golden opportunity for defense counsel to say you know oh is resisting medical treatment you know that's a justifiable reason and you were trying to bite off the restraints you know he didn't want to do with it trying now he has an opportunity for a motion to the charging instrument which he did in the beginning this closing argument and then other than that his argument was in fact that the defendant accidentally hit the  he was nuts trying to buy officer cleans here and your response to the security officer the defense is proposition that the security officer and then a little later on we had since in the judge says we can't let people who are highly intoxicated on house build until they find out how bad off they are if they aren't that then often they can release them i have to stand up to a little don't believe there's any evidence that he did what happened apparently if the doctor left he was a stranger for proximately in hour and a half at the end of which the nurse asked the security officers to go in the end it is just his position because his shoulder was i can't remember whether both arms were off or to the sides but they asked them to adjust the straps of the here that most of them on this theory of the case of refusing medical treatment is not what was presented in the trial court their defense counsel is arguing that he did it really that the officer danger of imminent at this point he's been struggling for like an hour and a half you know what he's trying to give him want to medical treatment at that point they're just restraining him until he can be sober enough to be safely officer who's trying to interview him apparently this is on quantitive so it's unclear from the record that you know when he was sober they wouldn't have called the police to come back and get him for charges again he was brought in because he had passed our prying into getting to the hospital and he apparently couldn't self by playing with the knife and they had to remove the knife from its pocket at the hospital so i think you know it's very