MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
as i said my name is joshua bernstein and i will present the bit to address a couple of issues really quickly and answer any questions you may have on this and i think the threshold issue that needs to be addressed as at the state's argument we're got a star a decisis as we therefore we're really looking for here is a definitive ruling that analyzes the statute in light of the kennedy versus mendoza martinez analysis specifically with respect t register it's not that the registry itself that we're attacking that's neat at least that had been added to the registry the statue said had been enacted in amended their commitment to the registry itself so that's why we challenged the restriction on being in a park that's right to challenge the restriction on being in a school that's right you're challenging beat requirement that a party who has to register under story must renew his or her driver's license every fake kind of gets to this a t m the state's brief that this is some kind of hypothetical bundle of annoyances for my client his actions or that every person on the sex offender registry every child sex offender their actions are restricted they require my quiet take actions but he would not have the rice beat half to take if he hadn't been put on the sex offender registry with respect to combat versus you know direct consequences in the absence of r crossed my desk i would definitely make that argument and i'll tell you that if i think it's south in the briefs this is a comprehensive scheme here and i don't think that we should get the legislature passed on constitutionality merely because the sprinkle something in the motor vehicle code misspoke or something in the corrections code and then they put some things in this or in fact it isn't smith versus joe i believe but the united states to pay one hundred dollars for the privilege of having the government monitor him for the rest of his life and you will that this case was prime minister of europe realist who was convicted for having sex with his sixteen year old friend who  child at whose house relieved with her parents and for whose father he worked as i said attacking the validity of a sex offender registration course say there are people who should be monitor the question is does this statute satisfy to process satisfy proportionate penalties such a bat it can be employed as it is  fashion relief in the form of some sort of due process hearing it's not the one that's in section three dash five of the soil for juvenile offenders from quickly no reply brief we discussed this issue this constitutional the of of this statute can very easily be corrected by imposing a mechanism like that it doesn't have to beat you don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater there's a very easy solution and that's what we're asking you for for a ruling that this sort of statutory scheme that the statutes taken together violate the due process clause that united states in illinois constitutions and that there's a mechanism that you this is a restrictions obligations more restrictions and more obligations so respectfully and with respect to counsel and to the supreme court you can
clause which is close thirteen point three of the agreement between the parties states that this agreement shall be construed in accordance with the internal saw something also of the commonwealth of what is going to be and lawyers association rules but it does not state that it's going to follow the federal arbitration laws if i read that and i have to read the contract in in you know together each close together with the other one in the arbitrator in the arbitrator so ordered starting with the issue of the dollar which had been previously referred by the court in the first appeal in this case in which the cour central to the contract itself so in that respect what the court did was say well what you're saying is that you are that there was fraud or dawdle in the formation of a contract and that issue is an arbiter of polish so even though and it's not one instance that there is an air of low but there are many numerous instances for all of you award that each has an award which is inherently unfair if we go through the list of the that was pertinent to that and also the issue of no vacation on the puerto rico s because that was that
been expanded to include humanitarian concerns with regard to the alien the fact that it is now a two step process whereby you simply look at at the entry level of whether or not there is a qualifying relative and then you don't go any further with regard to that relationship you don't look to whether or not they have any connection to each other they could have been a strange for forty years but as long as they are the parents or the spouse of the child they mee stature as a parent or child relationship upon the death of that family member and i think that congress has supported that finding with regard in mind and i corrected with the attorney general the critical date in applying the waiver patient provision is the date of the immigration judge's decision and in this case and these cases rather did the aliens mothers had died the that the definitions here and i want to one being defines parent defines parents and the definition of parent refers back to the definition of child that i want to one view one and one i one sections and here the section at issue in this case one zero one v one and one and one b to the dash definition of trial they make no reference to that relationship surviving the zero one two and again that's consistent with the the longstanding purpose of this waiver to promote family unity and again for the families of these two individuals are in
present this morning you will be participating in deliberations and decision making at all of the cases that are before us this morning as some of you may know judge ban requirement and then he might need a different calculation that kind of seems to assume that if he didn't own the knowledge requirement he would have thought he had a shot at winning on that i don't think it is th awful but you don't need to know that the law characterizes those facts or some awful so he would have to have known that he was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year has  court action he's standing there and the judge says sure entering a plea are you aware that the potential penalty for this is twenty years yes indeed and you're pleading to destroy you where that's ten to twenty years yes how does he he wasn't aware that he was pleading guilty to an offense that was punishable by more than a year on two points the person that we don't have that record right now you know we know which required procedure in the court but i don't i don't think we have that on the record that we know to specify what it is the governor would have would say at the trial i think it's enough that this subjective knowledge element does the government to be put to its proof on that in a way that's much different than the were  hampshire in which someone was prosecuted for an offer that was not born a fetus no one is going to know that i don't think that we need to because i think that this is not a case about the plan of terms but rather simply prove that he was a felon would he have not gone forward with the timing normally in a play you know what you say is just right but normally everything would be in the record and it would go one way or the other here because he the issue has arisen post district court proceedings now what do you do what do you do about the new hampshire offer and what it does seem just reading the face of the statute the elements that it's not clear as to whether new hampshire briefing research and make offers of proof is something they are just good that it's not it's not part of the plane error standard and i don't think that supplementing the record is
does have to show something under subsection level for it that it's readily achievable or plausible facts what would you propose to be the standard for that i understand your initial position is now we don't have to do anything to demonstrate that the removal of the barrier is not readily achievable then the entity has other options why doesn't that lay that squarely at the feet of the entity to proof that up so we were talking about me or  limited seems to me that if a plaintiff comes forward in this and really has to prove based on the stats same statutory factors that the entity would be using look this is readily achievable in the core looks at that what is left question is why do this record mention is that significant does it have any relevance either as this case was tried or should it have any relevance or significance to this court as it
provided absolutely no reason why if there were additional facts maybe alleged in this post conviction petition or there were affidavits of cash or some study or something like that then maybe there would be an argument that you couldn't raise this under a both parties stated at the beginning of this plea here so it wasn't like the feeling was being blindsided by starr openly or he was on pins about whether you want to completely guilty clearly it was going to plead guilty and he knew he was going to get fifteen years this was not a is that he wanted to plead guilty and this is this argument is contradicted by the record which of course makes it frivolously having marriage especially when you consider getting the whole argument with defendant was a competent and did not understand the proceeding in court clearly the record
there is no other way to do and for parade the statute and i know that the statute basically says that they're supposed to be published for purposes of making sure their cases are similar th because it was a discussion as to whether the issue should even be raised before you because the only cases that i could find that were less were cases where the court either took a p p d award and turned it into a total consist in consistent well as was mentioned earlier i believe by mr hasluck there is not always a reason listed by the commission as to why portion that was given what i can say in this point was that i while there is the bit they
else so let me ask you a very pointed question just as far as i'm trying to make an argument or some evidence on the record to make a decision we're down to should this case be remanded because we don't know exactly what the commission thought
change of venue or dismissal for lack of venue in addition the point if this had surgery since the time of these motions and so i'm going to suggest the appropriate resolution for the snyder for reconsideration played at the fact i've only recently learned them i haven't had time to prepare a motion for a reason but i believe that would be the appropriate thing for me to do and i to the venue because if he can travel to tennessee although i don't know all the medical facts that seems like a very first that he could travel to wisconsin and i takes away a major arguments it may depend on that he largest cable to drive the truck and he was limited to the weight he could left and he was not allowed to do any carving it's not a fair summary of the evidence that was before the long enough to to be thriving once he was disabled i know he was earlier a truck driver but under is disability i thought he said he could no longer do that that's what he did not only couldn't drive a truck but he couldn't get in your so the just records for supplemental factual development relating to the ability of mr mostly the driver and his travels i think that
he left the room and we know what happened in order to reach the determination that factually the defendant in this case expected to get privacy from that
so the i had a conversation with with mr snyder men and i told him that i had recently you know substituted for the plaintiff and data we actually discussed the six to two report at that time the fact that ron had met yep and file i told the records rather review and anticipated that i would have the report shortly but that i might need additional time to get the report give the plaintiff an opportunity to mend if either the report comply with the deficiencies that were pointed out in certain circumstances making their circumstances
trial and that's the issue whether or not they should have been joined for trial and i did file a motion to consolidate the appeals for purposes of world argument because the record exhibits were only included in this case  which is exactly what happened in this case claimed that he didn't harm taurean in this way and he would only make them do military style disciplinary things when everything is the exit just doing pushups and running up and down the hill he completely denied ever using these children so it became
well i think the most to answer that question most directly is the fact that there were no signs that prohibited parking there certainly the village has owned the property for some period of time if they didn't want people to park there they could very easily have just put of signs about the duration of time that they've owned this lot that they knew that this was going on and i think that they're now in action at some point has to trigger that they intended this to happen they knew that it was happening and they chose not to do anything about it  if those things often are sufficient to rise to the level of intended then tell me what what what what the city would have done differently or could have done differently so the disparity would be only permitted use now in ten to permit parking but not intending harkins to be there right your question i believe they could have somehow denied the access off of washington street to describe a lot they could have put out they could have wrote it off they could have  taken the barrier that we've spoken of and put that on the outside so the people could not gain access to it they could somehow limited the access to our automobiles to the slack if they intended for people not to good morning hours my name is erica ball tonight i represent downers grove in this case i think the panel has concisely nearer the issue as to whether or not mr doria was an intended user for that narrow gravel strip and my answer would still be no respectfully i think the britain case by the second district speech that issue directly is was the colonial case in britain that was a case where a twelve year old was motorbiking over public property when it was known by the police officers who never issued tickets that young males were motorbiking over this property it was known that the village adult large piles of dirt on this property that the village was aware that motorbiking was going out and that nothing affirmed of it was done by the so you can see the struck contrast between these two pieces of property in addition to the physical indicators or lack there of our apartment issue you have a direct testimonial evidence of both richard evil and during farrah who speak directly to the issue of the lack of intent by downers grove to use this property as a public parking lot and the testimony was clear that had they ever intended this power to be used as a parking lot it would have been upgraded to asphalt and they would have been striped they would have been meters or they would have been used as a public parking lot were to require prohibitory signs on on every piece of property that customarily was used for something other than the than the intended use it would be a huge financial drain i mean it's about east i think it would require villages macho on the side of a public school athletic field to watch games on and i think that child can really have damaging effects both to diligence and the resources and to what could happen our community if we allow cars to park where they thought it
one possible concern about the word is it him cry is that the speech that's being made by the representative is the speech of the person who is representing is that the idea i think yes a  our understanding is that bats consistent with how the main statute has always been interpreted as well as other states of the very similar stephen exclusive representation and the federal system through the national hear the group purpose of appointing the bugging you unlike in your hypothetical is one that the supreme court has specifically sanctioned as lawful the concept of collective bargaining in the labor
the second and third arguments necessarily include harmless error codes so i'd like to start with the issue number two and then we would touch on the reasonable doubt factors in discussing a harmless error aspect i'm happy to entertain questions on any of old girl itself we don't insult somebody like that and there is a very good and or any kind of guy watch what you say he was acting as the disciplinary in the household and she was really taken off she was possibly undergoing some in between her age of six and twelve and thirteen now from new zealand there is a difference and that multiple basically versions that were given which version they want to believe but that also goes to argument to yes it is the jury's job to determine which version they're going to believe but if they had the information about her end to this and i do my i do admit that this record perhaps is not the best record for that issue on it was an issue it could still work raising but it may perhaps do better for something in a collateral challenge response to this is this argument the police contacts that i had all karim prior to you both her house and the defendant being definitively say there's nothing in your record that the defendant question what these particulars were about these police contacts so i'm really working say that this was proper evidence for there is to shoes discipline for other things that would still give rise to a possible bias very possibly i would take issue with the characterization that he was a disciplinary in the household my recollection is he didn't live with  some mention of police context i she had prior to her outcry i don't recall there being any police contacts who are aware of her outcry i think it was only after the outcry after the investigation began so i don't know that that was factually correct and the other part was that mr jacobs said that the defendant did not live with i g at the time it's not really clear whether he lived with her at that time just prior to the outcry there
her that he's going to do something to her testifies against him he's not telling her he's going to take his from her he testifies against him he says get me and jack you know we didn't work this out i didn't do it on purpose she was frightened she wasn't humiliated she was a furious because she kept accepting the call for she didn't have to if she didn't turn the whole thing into the sheriff and safe bothering me he's told me he's go i would just first like to know although i won't go into it in detail but you've gotten the motion that defense counsel purse raises is logical inconsistency argument and emotion that the people receive at one p is very simple the sole question on review is whether there was a vision of the law defining depending guilty of harassment of a witness beyond a reasonable doubt and the answer is equally a simple yes there was overwhelming evidence the defendant is guilty of harassment ever witnessed having the requisite intent he communicates with the witness and such a manner as to produce mental anguish for emotional distress inferred from the surrounding circumstances mental anguish and emotional distress are to have their ordinary and expansive meaning which is a highly complex emotional reaction such as anguish grief fright and call or he begged her to turn around in her room to tack this into stable itself and which field illinois to which she replied well jason how me getting you are trouble again going to fix your problem your problem you don't love me enough to put me through this abuse and while he didn't promise not to use her anymore the purpose of this call was not as a defendant claims to start his jury presumed to have understood and followed the instructions and did indeed find them guilty of a graph and a witness at the jury found it that evidence was insufficient they would have a others it simply doesn't follow that because the jury convicted him on some others that the state evidence is is weak and that's because the context and the tone of the calls were not identical no reasonable jury would have found the elements of the crime proven we after this or from the judgment all they talk about her driving off texas in it worse is that all these telling her that he's found it expensive places litchfield that she can stack if she doesn't have to go because money knew how to find the phone calls she did she knew how to work to share is making a phone call she didn't she gave money continuing full it simply doesn't follow that she suffered the kind of  l trauma that the supreme court says this law requires this doesn't meet the standard that would disrupt the law requires for that reason we argue that
i don't believe we do thank you he starts walking toward still cutting his apartment door saying i'm going to get that white man it wasn't right or something to that effect i ask you to draw your recollection of what he said but it was something new it grew worse doing the prosecutor did attribute to the defendant this statement i'm going to get that bite but heat and meat oh i said or something like that he says something to that the prosecutor was expressing an opinion on the matter not relating to the evidence so that is exactly what's happening in johnson which is the illinois supreme court case and we've got a prosecutor who is saying the space turning and closing argument as an actual battle isn't that a substantial qualitative difference well the supreme court describe s the evidence in johnson as expressing an opinion on the matter not relating to the evidence and that's exactly what happened here is that no i mean  of the entire record in this case in any case this is not a racially motivated statement is simply a mis recollection i don't think we have any further quest
comments they cited in the statement of fact that the because if it wasn't mentioned during oral arguments by the state that goes to whether the defendant was prejudiced if the jury was confused by the instruction but if it wasn't mentioned in closing argument
all in the proceedings of the parties described as a stipulated bench trial mr martin was found guilty four counts of child pornography and sentenced to a total of twenty six years imprisonment on appeal before this court he may just one issue he he  to be the heir and i i do understand sir john about what he was doing he he was country what everybody call a stipulated bench trial but what he was in fact doing was pleading guilty so he was waving his right to persist not guilty because his intent was to persist and naturally he was never told that he has this right when in fact he's actually pleading guilty if this is your honest question and yesterday in the make a decision at that point he knows he's probably going to be found guilty but he still wants to preserve this pretrial motion here that never happened he had that he was never able to be preserve their pretrial conviction here question is whether the record affirmatively shows substantial compliance with that very requirement and to show substantial compliance with the question of whether the record shows that he understood